Clear-headed debunkings of "meritocracy"
June 2, 2020 6:28 AM Subscribe
I'm looking for clear, well-sourced and well-argued articles that push back on the idea that "meritocracy" is possible in a society where some people experience significantly more structural disadvantage compared to others.
The context is that I work for a company still run by its founder, a rich white man who has been consistently resistant to any active diversity work as long as I've worked there. He's repeatedly stated that he wants the company to be a "meritocracy" where we pick the best person for the job, regardless of who they are or any categories they might be a member of. He seems to regard this as a positive thing, and appears to have no concept of the fact that our society is structured in ways that make it disproportionately difficult for members of some groups to succeed compared to others.
I increasingly believe that this position is tacit white supremacy, and the fact that it's effectively company policy makes me profoundly uncomfortably. Numerous people (myself included) have tried to do grassroots diversity effort and we have all burnt out without fail, but I feel like I would be letting my values and my fellow employees who also care about this stuff down if I didn't at least try one more time.
He's the kind of person who considers themselves logical and scientific, and has a PhD in science. However, I've also seen him become emotional & defensive in discussions around diversity, and I suspect there's an emotional component to it that he's unwilling to examine (and no one's going to force him to because he's a rich, successful white guy). His wife and children are POC and yet he still doesn't seem to get it. If possible, I'd like resources on this topic that are structure in a way that someone who perceives themselves as scientific/logical can relate to that are also effective in tearing down the idea that "meritocracy" is possible in an unequal society.
In terms of what I'm trying to achieve here, I'm not hopeful that this will effect policy change (and I've learnt my lesson about working for founder-owners and the unhelpfully disproportionate ways in which people in that role can wield their influence), but I feel like I would be doing myself and my colleagues a disservice if I didn't at least try to find some resources that might plant seeds of change in his mind, or that I can use to try to win over other senior influencers within the company.
The context is that I work for a company still run by its founder, a rich white man who has been consistently resistant to any active diversity work as long as I've worked there. He's repeatedly stated that he wants the company to be a "meritocracy" where we pick the best person for the job, regardless of who they are or any categories they might be a member of. He seems to regard this as a positive thing, and appears to have no concept of the fact that our society is structured in ways that make it disproportionately difficult for members of some groups to succeed compared to others.
I increasingly believe that this position is tacit white supremacy, and the fact that it's effectively company policy makes me profoundly uncomfortably. Numerous people (myself included) have tried to do grassroots diversity effort and we have all burnt out without fail, but I feel like I would be letting my values and my fellow employees who also care about this stuff down if I didn't at least try one more time.
He's the kind of person who considers themselves logical and scientific, and has a PhD in science. However, I've also seen him become emotional & defensive in discussions around diversity, and I suspect there's an emotional component to it that he's unwilling to examine (and no one's going to force him to because he's a rich, successful white guy). His wife and children are POC and yet he still doesn't seem to get it. If possible, I'd like resources on this topic that are structure in a way that someone who perceives themselves as scientific/logical can relate to that are also effective in tearing down the idea that "meritocracy" is possible in an unequal society.
In terms of what I'm trying to achieve here, I'm not hopeful that this will effect policy change (and I've learnt my lesson about working for founder-owners and the unhelpfully disproportionate ways in which people in that role can wield their influence), but I feel like I would be doing myself and my colleagues a disservice if I didn't at least try to find some resources that might plant seeds of change in his mind, or that I can use to try to win over other senior influencers within the company.
I've had some success with distributing articles about unconscious bias to similar people in my workplace. The relationship to the concept of meritocracy is perhaps obvious, but in case not, the point is that people's merit is judged by other human beings, and we are incapable of being objective in evaluating merit because of our unconscious bias. I've found that the quantitative scientific nature of some of these articles works well for people who pride themselves on being rational, and the fact that studies show that even members of marginalised groups themselves share these unconscious biases means the rich cis white guys don't feel picked on so much.
Obviously unconscious bias is only the tip of the iceberg, but it can be a place to start with these conversations, and if you can get them accepting that, you can move onto "Why 'We just want to be a meritocracy is problematic' 201" as a next step.
posted by lollusc at 6:51 AM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Obviously unconscious bias is only the tip of the iceberg, but it can be a place to start with these conversations, and if you can get them accepting that, you can move onto "Why 'We just want to be a meritocracy is problematic' 201" as a next step.
posted by lollusc at 6:51 AM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
With respect, I would suggest that you step away from trying to change your boss's mind, stop trying to figure out his psychological makeup, stop tracking his emotional state, stop analyzing his personality.
It's great that you see an issue in the way your company is run. Glad you're aware that there's a problem with the ethos of pure meritocracy. Even better, you have already tried and failed to effect policy changes, and you recognize that you don't have the power to do so if the founder is not on board. This is all good.
From here, you need to clarify your goals. Do you want to make sure your company hires more diversely? If so, focus your efforts on that. Refer women and minority candidates to HR when they are hiring. Amplify the voices of women and minorities who are in your meetings. Praise the work of women and minority co-workers in your company to their bosses. Bring in female and minority experts when you invite speakers. Don't SAY you're doing it, don't try to go all "Hint, hint, see what I'm doing here? See what a valuable voice I have helped you hear? You need to be more like this instead of your silly meritocracy!" Just... do the thing.
If your efforts to create a diverse workplace through these means meet with active pushback, you want to consider finding a different place to work which aligns with your values more. If your efforts are met with indifference, then I would urge you to consider that a win. Your goal, if you recall, was to recommend diverse candidates and amplify minority employees' achievements. NOT to change anyone's mind. They may remain indifferent, but your efforts have succeeded as long as you have brought more recognition and more diverse hires.
What you're doing right now is well meant and understandable, but ultimately it is both unproductive and inappropriate. You sound kind of "enmeshed" with this founder, you're hyperfocusing on his personality and his thoughts and trying to crack the puzzle of this dude. Becoming so emotionally invested in trying to prove one person wrong or trying to change one person's mind - that's not healthy. Let people be who they are. Work towards your goals through channels where your efforts have the greatest power.
posted by MiraK at 6:55 AM on June 2, 2020 [19 favorites]
It's great that you see an issue in the way your company is run. Glad you're aware that there's a problem with the ethos of pure meritocracy. Even better, you have already tried and failed to effect policy changes, and you recognize that you don't have the power to do so if the founder is not on board. This is all good.
From here, you need to clarify your goals. Do you want to make sure your company hires more diversely? If so, focus your efforts on that. Refer women and minority candidates to HR when they are hiring. Amplify the voices of women and minorities who are in your meetings. Praise the work of women and minority co-workers in your company to their bosses. Bring in female and minority experts when you invite speakers. Don't SAY you're doing it, don't try to go all "Hint, hint, see what I'm doing here? See what a valuable voice I have helped you hear? You need to be more like this instead of your silly meritocracy!" Just... do the thing.
If your efforts to create a diverse workplace through these means meet with active pushback, you want to consider finding a different place to work which aligns with your values more. If your efforts are met with indifference, then I would urge you to consider that a win. Your goal, if you recall, was to recommend diverse candidates and amplify minority employees' achievements. NOT to change anyone's mind. They may remain indifferent, but your efforts have succeeded as long as you have brought more recognition and more diverse hires.
What you're doing right now is well meant and understandable, but ultimately it is both unproductive and inappropriate. You sound kind of "enmeshed" with this founder, you're hyperfocusing on his personality and his thoughts and trying to crack the puzzle of this dude. Becoming so emotionally invested in trying to prove one person wrong or trying to change one person's mind - that's not healthy. Let people be who they are. Work towards your goals through channels where your efforts have the greatest power.
posted by MiraK at 6:55 AM on June 2, 2020 [19 favorites]
American Meritocracy is a Myth
The Myth of Meritocracy
Meritocracy is the classic American foundation myth
The Myth of Meritocracy
The False Promise of Meritocracy
America needs to reinvent meritocracy
posted by mareli at 6:56 AM on June 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
The Myth of Meritocracy
Meritocracy is the classic American foundation myth
The Myth of Meritocracy
The False Promise of Meritocracy
America needs to reinvent meritocracy
posted by mareli at 6:56 AM on June 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Others provided great links. Having been in a similar situation as you, I will add some suggestions:
- Remember that science & logic often aren't enough to overcome bias. Remember phrenology? It was a whole branch of pseudoscience that used skull shapes to justify racism. There were papers, exhibitions, and "scientists" of the time giving talks about it. Instead of being convinced by science to give up racism, the racists invented new "science".
- You said "His wife and children are POC and yet he still doesn't seem to get it." Is his wife an advocate for racial equality? Has she insisted on an equal partnership in their marriage, and does she challenge him on his white privilege? Or are his wife and children acting in subservient roles to him, where his career is treated as more important than hers, and he gets to have a bigger say in decision-making? If it's the latter, then that would cement his underlying racial bias further, rather than dispelling it.
- He talks about wanting meritocracy and picking the best person for the job. Does he follow through by ensuring that he never just hires a white-male buddy for a role, but instead will publicly post the job description and interview a wide spectrum of candidates? When one of the white-male executives isn't performing, is the founder quick to address the underperformance and terminate that executive? Does he make sure that there's never any nepotism at the company (e.g. hiring friends or relatives), because that would be counter to meritocracy? A leader who genuinely wants the best person for the job will cast a wide net for applicants, avoid nepotism, and rapidly fire underperforming executives. Does he do all of that?
posted by cheesecake at 7:29 AM on June 2, 2020
- Remember that science & logic often aren't enough to overcome bias. Remember phrenology? It was a whole branch of pseudoscience that used skull shapes to justify racism. There were papers, exhibitions, and "scientists" of the time giving talks about it. Instead of being convinced by science to give up racism, the racists invented new "science".
- You said "His wife and children are POC and yet he still doesn't seem to get it." Is his wife an advocate for racial equality? Has she insisted on an equal partnership in their marriage, and does she challenge him on his white privilege? Or are his wife and children acting in subservient roles to him, where his career is treated as more important than hers, and he gets to have a bigger say in decision-making? If it's the latter, then that would cement his underlying racial bias further, rather than dispelling it.
- He talks about wanting meritocracy and picking the best person for the job. Does he follow through by ensuring that he never just hires a white-male buddy for a role, but instead will publicly post the job description and interview a wide spectrum of candidates? When one of the white-male executives isn't performing, is the founder quick to address the underperformance and terminate that executive? Does he make sure that there's never any nepotism at the company (e.g. hiring friends or relatives), because that would be counter to meritocracy? A leader who genuinely wants the best person for the job will cast a wide net for applicants, avoid nepotism, and rapidly fire underperforming executives. Does he do all of that?
posted by cheesecake at 7:29 AM on June 2, 2020
I meant to add: what's most likely to change his mind are when his own peers (CEOs, ideally other white-male CEOs) hold him accountable. If his board members give him flak, or he goes to a gathering of CEOs and they criticize his lack of diversity, that has the best hope of making him change.
Instead of twisting yourself in knots over the magic key to unlock his understanding, consider that your effort may be better spent on amplifying the general societal movement toward diversity. That takes years, but when the societal norm gradually shifts, and his peer CEOs give him pressure, that's when he'll change.
posted by cheesecake at 7:40 AM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Instead of twisting yourself in knots over the magic key to unlock his understanding, consider that your effort may be better spent on amplifying the general societal movement toward diversity. That takes years, but when the societal norm gradually shifts, and his peer CEOs give him pressure, that's when he'll change.
posted by cheesecake at 7:40 AM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sorry for coming back to this thread multiple times - but I need to ask:
Have you been telling your founder that you should practice some kind of affirmative action or have a quota system - hire folks who might be lesser qualified so that you have a diverse workplace? Even if that is not what you're saying, is that how your position is being perceived? If the answer is yes to either of these questions, WHOA, I can't imagine a more damaging way to advocate for diversity. Back right off. NOW.
When your founder says, "We need meritocracy around here!" the only response from you should be, "Yes! I totally agree! Let's make sure that our policies are perfectly meritocratic and non-discriminatory." Then offer concrete suggestions for improving hiring and promotion practices. For example,
Identify the actual discriminatory practices in your organization and offer concrete ways to fix them - in the name of meritocracy, because why tf not!
posted by MiraK at 8:13 AM on June 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
Have you been telling your founder that you should practice some kind of affirmative action or have a quota system - hire folks who might be lesser qualified so that you have a diverse workplace? Even if that is not what you're saying, is that how your position is being perceived? If the answer is yes to either of these questions, WHOA, I can't imagine a more damaging way to advocate for diversity. Back right off. NOW.
When your founder says, "We need meritocracy around here!" the only response from you should be, "Yes! I totally agree! Let's make sure that our policies are perfectly meritocratic and non-discriminatory." Then offer concrete suggestions for improving hiring and promotion practices. For example,
- suggest changes to the way you are wording your job ads to ensure you don't unconsciously use discriminatory language.
- Suggest implementing salary/compensation transparency across the company as a way to ensure perfect non-discriminatory meritocracy in the form of equal pay for equal work.
- Suggest ideas from any basic guide for implementing workplace diversity and pitch them all to your boss as "ensuring non-discriminatory meritocracy" in your company.
Identify the actual discriminatory practices in your organization and offer concrete ways to fix them - in the name of meritocracy, because why tf not!
posted by MiraK at 8:13 AM on June 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
This radiolab podcast opened my eyes to a culture I never knew existed and was a good example of how meritocracy breaks down. That helped isolate my own bias, but lies within academia which is relatable (and might help in your situation).
It very clearly illustrated that meritocracy is great, until you realize that it falls apart when one side has the ability to move the goalposts to advantage themselves, which is usually rooted in systemic privilege.
I know that this probably doesn't help you directly. But it's one or the things that opened my eyes and you never know what is going to 'hook' someone.
posted by kookywon at 9:53 AM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
It very clearly illustrated that meritocracy is great, until you realize that it falls apart when one side has the ability to move the goalposts to advantage themselves, which is usually rooted in systemic privilege.
I know that this probably doesn't help you directly. But it's one or the things that opened my eyes and you never know what is going to 'hook' someone.
posted by kookywon at 9:53 AM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mod note: One deleted. The OP is clear that they're looking for "looking for clear, well-sourced and well-argued articles", please stick to answering that question. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:16 AM on June 2, 2020
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:16 AM on June 2, 2020
I used to believe the US was a meritocracy, and a barrage of studies showing bias against black people changed my mind.
I don't have links handy but they were the ones with resumes identical except names, how teachers treat the exact same behavior differently and perceive ages differently, how whites read facial expressions and body language differently, etc.
Basically anything that showed that there was widespread anti-black bias even amongst people who didn't think they were racist and in organizations that were supposed to be explicitly anti-racist.
So, assuming that his mind works like mine, hitting him with a bunch of peer-reviewed social science on the issue would be a good approach.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:37 AM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
I don't have links handy but they were the ones with resumes identical except names, how teachers treat the exact same behavior differently and perceive ages differently, how whites read facial expressions and body language differently, etc.
Basically anything that showed that there was widespread anti-black bias even amongst people who didn't think they were racist and in organizations that were supposed to be explicitly anti-racist.
So, assuming that his mind works like mine, hitting him with a bunch of peer-reviewed social science on the issue would be a good approach.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:37 AM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
The man who coined the term "meritocracy", Michael Young, did not believe that meritocracy was a good thing. His book, The Rise of the Meritocracy, may be a little too subtle and metaphorical for your boss, but the thesis is that meritocracy is just as bad as any form of inequality.
It's a great book - I heartily recommend it to anyone interested in issues of social hierarchy and inequality. It's fiction, so obviously has no citations, but it's by someone who spent his life in research and policy about inequality (primarily class, given his British context. And yes, it's weird that he later accepted a life peerage - but it gave him free train travel and an allowance at a time when he had run out of money).
----------
But in terms of affecting your boss's attitude - you might be better off sharing with him the many, many articles that argue that diversity, in and of itself, seems to improve business outcomes. The fact that a candidate is adding a diverse perspective to your organization is one of their "merits".
If you are interested in looking more into the undermining of supposedly meritocratic systems, I have found Reeve's evidence and argument in The Dream Hoarders than Daniel Markovits' arguments (which I have also read). But I say "supposedly meritocratic" because I don't believe that anywhere has ever put in actual meritocracy (or could even agree on what they mean by "merit").
mareli's links above are great, too.
posted by jb at 1:58 PM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
It's a great book - I heartily recommend it to anyone interested in issues of social hierarchy and inequality. It's fiction, so obviously has no citations, but it's by someone who spent his life in research and policy about inequality (primarily class, given his British context. And yes, it's weird that he later accepted a life peerage - but it gave him free train travel and an allowance at a time when he had run out of money).
----------
But in terms of affecting your boss's attitude - you might be better off sharing with him the many, many articles that argue that diversity, in and of itself, seems to improve business outcomes. The fact that a candidate is adding a diverse perspective to your organization is one of their "merits".
If you are interested in looking more into the undermining of supposedly meritocratic systems, I have found Reeve's evidence and argument in The Dream Hoarders than Daniel Markovits' arguments (which I have also read). But I say "supposedly meritocratic" because I don't believe that anywhere has ever put in actual meritocracy (or could even agree on what they mean by "merit").
mareli's links above are great, too.
posted by jb at 1:58 PM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
This 2017 Wired article contains links to several studies showing gender bias in STEM and explanations for why male scientists devalue research that shows gender bias in the field. Looks like it's not a question of how best to communicate the problem or making sure to have enough evidence to present. (I'd like a study about male scientists reading that article and their response to it. Or maybe I wouldn't like it showing it's just meritocracy/misogyny/supremacy turtles all the way down.)
posted by meijusa at 3:14 PM on June 2, 2020
posted by meijusa at 3:14 PM on June 2, 2020
Thomas Frank tries to get middle class lefties to revaluate meritocracy. Arguing that our current definition of meritocracy is pretty absurdly narrow might appeal to your boss' sensibilities when spun as a kind of "think outside the square business hack" to your boss:
You go back and look at when government by expert has worked, because it has worked. It worked in the Roosevelt administration, very famously. They called it the Brains Trust. These guys were excellent.
...They were all highly educated, very intelligent people. They weren’t all from Harvard. Now Roosevelt himself went to Harvard and he had a number of advisers who did but his top advisers were drawn from all sorts of different places in American life. His attorney general, Robert Jackson, who he put on the Supreme Court—was a prosecutor at Nuremberg as a matter of fact—was a lawyer with no law degree. Harry Truman never went to college. Marriner Eccles ran the Federal Reserve—brilliant man, kind of a visionary; he was a small-town banker from Utah. Henry Wallace went to Iowa State, ran a magazine for farmers. Harry Hopkins, his right-hand man, was a social worker from Iowa. These were not the cream of the intellectual crop. Now he did have some Harvard- and Yale-certified brains but even these were guys who were sort of in protest. Galbraith: This is a man who spent his entire career at war with economic orthodoxy. I mean, I love that guy. You go right on down the list. Its amazing the people he chose. They weren’t all from this one part of American life.
posted by hotcoroner at 6:33 PM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
You go back and look at when government by expert has worked, because it has worked. It worked in the Roosevelt administration, very famously. They called it the Brains Trust. These guys were excellent.
...They were all highly educated, very intelligent people. They weren’t all from Harvard. Now Roosevelt himself went to Harvard and he had a number of advisers who did but his top advisers were drawn from all sorts of different places in American life. His attorney general, Robert Jackson, who he put on the Supreme Court—was a prosecutor at Nuremberg as a matter of fact—was a lawyer with no law degree. Harry Truman never went to college. Marriner Eccles ran the Federal Reserve—brilliant man, kind of a visionary; he was a small-town banker from Utah. Henry Wallace went to Iowa State, ran a magazine for farmers. Harry Hopkins, his right-hand man, was a social worker from Iowa. These were not the cream of the intellectual crop. Now he did have some Harvard- and Yale-certified brains but even these were guys who were sort of in protest. Galbraith: This is a man who spent his entire career at war with economic orthodoxy. I mean, I love that guy. You go right on down the list. Its amazing the people he chose. They weren’t all from this one part of American life.
posted by hotcoroner at 6:33 PM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
His wife and children are POC and yet he still doesn't seem to get it.
To be perfectly honest albeit controversial, which variety of POC they are probably matters a whole lot when it comes to his understanding of meritocracy. Being far more blunt here, if they're of East or South Asian descent* he might need to figure out how to unpack both the "model minority" myth as much as he does the myth of meritocracy. The Asian American* experience complicates some of the arguments around the intersection of diversity and meritocracy. I wish I had good, accessible sources to recommend, but unfortunately I don't at the moment.
*Or any other group that's commonly associated with the "model minority" stereotype
posted by blerghamot at 10:22 AM on June 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
To be perfectly honest albeit controversial, which variety of POC they are probably matters a whole lot when it comes to his understanding of meritocracy. Being far more blunt here, if they're of East or South Asian descent* he might need to figure out how to unpack both the "model minority" myth as much as he does the myth of meritocracy. The Asian American* experience complicates some of the arguments around the intersection of diversity and meritocracy. I wish I had good, accessible sources to recommend, but unfortunately I don't at the moment.
*Or any other group that's commonly associated with the "model minority" stereotype
posted by blerghamot at 10:22 AM on June 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older Selling jewelry near San Francisco during Covid? | Who's doing work right now to try to fix the... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Jeanne at 6:49 AM on June 2, 2020 [1 favorite]