The Meritocracy Myth: Who Really Gets Ahead?

With Trump making a stand against EDI policies in the US, this has been a topic of conversation amongst leaders and HR professionals in the UK. 

At first, I wondered if it would have an impact on this side of the atlantic and it is now clear that it draws out the opposition very quickly.

As I’ve seen for many years, those affected are amongst the first to say that they want to be appointed on merit and who would disagree? The issue is that many don’t recognise how this has been happening for men forever.

Maybe this has changed today but only because the rise in commitment to EDI has ensured that systemic barriers are better understood and removed to level the playing field.

What is meritocracy?

Meritocracy is the idea that an individual’s success should be determined by talent and effort. Those from under-represented groups commonly say that they want to be recruited because they are the best at the job and of course, that should be the case.

However, that view fails to recognise that merit is subjective and can be clouded by economic advantage. If you are looking to recruit a junior accountant, for example, you might have a choice between someone who has demonstrated academic excellence but has had to work in non-related roles to support themselves and/or their family.

The other candidate may have average grades but was connected and wealthy enough to secure an unpaid internship overseas. Without awareness and policies, you are likely to find yourself appointing the candidate with the most relevant skills and experience but that is based on privilege, not merit.

It begs the question – what is merit? Who is deciding? And how can we prevent privilege from clouding to process?

The concept – meritocracy – was first introduced by Michael Young in the 1950’s and originally referred to ‘a critique of a system in which the elites define merit narrowly so as to protect their position at the top of society’. 

A 2021 survey revealed that in the UK, the perception is that hard work and ambition are the most important things for success but in reality, the evidence suggests that the link between merit and success is tenuous.

The research shows that society is far from being meritocratic. In fact, external factors influence individual success from before they are even born. The disadvantage starts early and continues into adulthood. 

How can we create a level playing field?

When I set out to diversify my team, I noticed we were hiring the “usual suspects.” We were offering good jobs in a diverse community, yet few local candidates applied. Why?

Through research and conversations, I realised the talent was there—people with the right skills simply weren’t seeing us as an option.

Here’s what changed:
✅ We reworked job descriptions—not just generic “commitment to EDI” statements, but specific language reflecting the communities we serve.
✅ We rethought merit. When faced with one candidate who had textbook knowledge but no application experience and another with deep lived experience—who was truly more qualified?

Final Thought

Merit isn’t as objective as we like to think. If we take it at face value, we risk reinforcing privilege. But by questioning how we define and measure it, we open doors to real talent.

How do you define merit? Have you seen privilege at play in recruitment or career progression? Let’s start a conversation – share your thoughts in the comments below.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay