Meritocracy in Corporate America

There’s this generalized belief among the common folk that one of the many reasons why America is superior to other countries is because in this country an individual’s merit supersedes all other criteria when getting ahead. This is why there is so much disdain against socialism and public policies aimed at the common good. In this country, individualism is king and those who complain about others who have more than them are just sore losers who should just shut up and work harder. People who lose their jobs are slackers who did not work hard enough, and the homeless are “affectionately” dubbed as “hobos”.  

Despite being conventional wisdom, this is too simplistic a view to have enough credibility to be cogent.

Emilio J Castilla, professor of management at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, concurs. Dr. Castilla studies how meritocratic ideals and HR practices play out in corporate America. And what he has found is that the prevailing sentiment may be one thing, but reality is another. Even in companies committed to diversity and engaged in rewarding high-level performances equitably, what more often than not happens is that women, minorities, and those born in a foreign country must work harder in order to obtain higher performance scores and then receive similar salary increases as white American men. Dr. Castilla termed this counter intuitive result “the paradox of meritocracy.”

 

In simplistic terms, the paradox of meritocracy states that “I think, therefore it’s true.” Those who believe that they are fair (equitable/unbiased) don’t normally tend to monitor and scrutinize their own behavior, but the truth of the matter is that we all fall into the trap of stereotypes and preconceived notions when evaluating others. I consider myself to be a pretty open-minded, unbiased individual, yet I’m embarrassed to admit that I too occasionally assess others simply on the basis of their gender, age, or ethnicity. And this is wrong, and I’m not proud of it, but, unfortunately, it’s human nature. And this is Dr. Castilla’s point: meritocracy can (and often times does) exacerbate inequality. And this is why “reverse discrimination” is a fallacy. I could go on forever, but the bottom line is this: meritocracy is fertile ground for unleashing the ugliest (implicit) biases. The pursuit of meritocracy is not futile, but it should be accompanied by some sort of checks-and-balances, initiatives designed to recruit and develop under-represented groups. I’m talking, for instance, of quotas to help eliminate the gender gap. I wish it didn’t have to be this way, I wish people were rewarded solely on the basis of their own merits but, unfortunately, that is not always the case.

This is why Dr. Castilla’s thesis comes as no surprise to me. As someone who holds a M.S. in HR management and who is equally interested in the sociological aspects of work and employment, Dr. Castilla’s work has caught my attention. Unless you’re a public worker, there’s a lot of secrecy concerning wages. Unlike other countries, Americans don’t go around stating how much they make for a living; it’s nobody’s business, it’s rude to ask, and blabbering such information may be cause for dismissal. As a general rule, the only ones who know what people are paid are supervisors and those who work in payroll. It’s behind this veil of secrecy that so much injustice takes place. On the other hand, perhaps transparency (coupled with meritocracy and accountability) would help (if not completely eliminate, at least significantly reduce) so many of these implicit and explicit discriminatory practices.