What is a meritocracy paradox?

meritocracy paradox (noun)

A situation in which organizational efforts to reward effort and ensure equal opportunity for all may, ironically, deepen inequities and unfairness.

Organizations tout meritocracy as a fair and efficient way to identify, advance, and reward talent. But their efforts to guarantee that everyone has an equal chance to compete and succeed are often held back by talent management systems that confer rewards based on individual performance evaluations.

In practice, such merit-based systems “may actually reinforce or create advantages for certain groups because of underlying biases and existing social barriers,” writes Emilio J. Castilla, professor at MIT Sloan and the author of “The Meritocracy Paradox: Where Talent Management Strategies Go Wrong and How to Fix Them.”

In one company field study, Castilla found that women, racially disadvantaged populations, and immigrants “earned a lower merit-based bonus than white men despite working in the same jobs and work units, having the same supervisors, holding the same human capital, and, notably, obtaining the same performance score.” Among the potential drivers of that inequity: unrecognized workplace biases, inconsistent definitions of merit, and a lack of vigilance among managers who believe their company is already meritocratic.

To address these hidden biases and inefficiencies, Castilla encourages organizations to embrace a data-driven approach to meritocracy. This entails: 

• Identifying, developing, and defining competency criteria
• Measuring individual attributes and employment outcomes over time
• Analyzing data collected on both outcomes and people-related processes
• Choosing an intervention and
• Monitoring the results regularly.

Why talent management strategies go wrong — and how to fix them