The Myth of Meritocracy

And Why Positive Action Is Necessary

Meritocracy is often heralded as the gold standard of fairness in the workplace.

A system where individuals advance purely based on talent, hard work, and achievement.

Meritocracy is an appealing concept that promises an egalitarian environment in which everyone has an equal shot at success. However, workplace dynamics are far more complex. In practice, meritocracy can be an illusion that perpetuates systemic inequalities, overlooks hidden biases, and reinforces existing power structures. From discretionary bonuses, to demotions from restructures, to individuals being suggested for succession even though most know how incapable and incompetent they are as leaders in their current roles.

Individual and collective voices have pushed it quite squarely as a counterweight to the voices looking for equality in the workplace. Many individuals who have ascended to their spaces have done so through preferential treatment and proximity. The so-called self-made who would have themselves benefited from the likes of legacy access to money, universities or people of power. See the attached picture for Exhibit A.

Within this context, positive action emerges as a necessary corrective measure to level the playing field and create genuinely inclusive professional environments.

The fundamental flaw of meritocracy lies in its assumption that all individuals begin their professional journeys from the same starting line. In theory, meritocracy rewards individuals based on their abilities and contributions, but it fails to account for social, economic, and structural barriers that disproportionately affect marginalised groups. Factors such as socio-economic background, access to education, systemic discrimination, and unconscious bias all play a significant role in shaping career opportunities.

Daniel Markovits, in his book The Meritocracy Trap, argues that modern meritocratic systems, rather than levelling the playing field, actually entrench inequality by creating a self-perpetuating elite. The privileged not only benefit from their initial advantages but also shape the very definition of merit to suit their interests. This leads to a cycle in which wealth and success become concentrated among a select few, contradicting the very principles of fairness that meritocracy claims to uphold.

One of the greatest ironies of meritocracy is that it often benefits those who are already privileged while disadvantaging those who need a fairer system the most. When organisations claim to operate as meritocracies, they inadvertently obscure the advantages that some individuals enjoy due to inherited privilege. For instance, individuals from affluent backgrounds typically have access to better education, mentorship opportunities, and professional networks, resources that can significantly boost their career prospects.

As parents who chose to send our offspring to private schools because, hey, the game is the game, it was done with that backdrop in mind. The old school tie continues to serve a purpose whether we like it or not.

For those of us who have been exploring this fallacy of meritocracy at work for a while, there is more than enough material and publications to challenge this idea.

For example, in The Tyranny of Merit, Michael Sandel critiques the belief that success is purely the result of individual effort. He argues that this perspective disregards the role of luck, inherited advantage, and systemic barriers. Sandel points out that when people at the top believe they have earned their place solely through merit, it fosters a sense of entitlement and dismisses the struggles of those who face systemic obstacles. We see this time and time again, and of course the usual rollouts of the outliers that are used as examples of how this works.

Michael Young, the sociologist who originally coined the term ‘meritocracy’ in The Rise of the Meritocracy, ironically intended it as a warning rather than an endorsement. His satirical work envisioned a dystopian society in which an elite class, justified by their supposed merit, ruled over a disenfranchised underclass, ultimately leading to resentment and instability. His critique remains relevant today, as unchecked meritocratic ideals can contribute to social divisions rather than fairness. Something we see all too often.

Allow me to make the case for Positive Action

Given the flaws inherent in the idea of pure meritocracy, positive action serves as a crucial mechanism for fostering the shortcomings of this fallacy. Positive action (not to be confused with positive discrimination) refers to measures taken to support underrepresented groups in employment, education, and professional development. Unlike quotas, which mandate a fixed number of positions for specific groups, positive action focuses on creating fairer opportunities without compromising on competence or performance.

In their book Engines of Privilege: Britain’s Private School Problem, Francis Green and David Kynaston illustrate how private education perpetuates inequality, providing an advantage to those who can afford it. They argue that the myth of meritocracy ignores how wealth and access to elite education create artificial advantages, making it harder for those from less privileged backgrounds to compete on equal footing. Even if some of us can afford it at great cost, positive action helps address such disparities by ensuring that talent is not overlooked simply because of structural barriers.

Chris Hayes, in Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy, explores the way meritocratic institutions, once established, become exclusionary rather than inclusive. He points out that those who rise through such systems often close the door behind them, making it harder for others to follow. This underscores the necessity of proactive policies that ensure meritocracy does not simply become another form of entrenched privilege.

Recent offline conversations at roundtables with some senior leaders at popular brands demonstrated how, behind the scenes, a lot of recruitment for talent in the UK dismisses those who have not attended Russell Group universities and conversely top grammar or private schools. This has become increasingly pertinent now that organisations are beginning to roll back any sense of tackling underrepresented talent or programmes that helped to address this, namely through diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

This is not helped by those who only see approaches like positive action as woke or whatever the pejorative nom de jour is. Preferring to subscribe to some superficial evolutionary process that merit is all it takes while sitting comfortably in homogenous echo chambers that supposedly reflect this meritocracy. For those of us who know the game, who have gone to the Friday night drinks, the golf days, the invite only roundtables, the breakfast meetings, we know how this system works. This is why it is laughable to laud meritocracy as some flawless alternative to actually doing the hard work of positive action. And actually having leaders in place in organisations who represent the customer base and stakeholders they serve.

For workplaces to truly embrace positive action, they must move beyond the simplistic notion of meritocracy and acknowledge the systemic barriers that shape career trajectories. Success should not be measured solely by individual achievement but also by an organisation’s commitment to fostering an inclusive and supportive environment. This is brave leadership.

This shift in workplace culture does require heavy lifting. The kind of lifting that values diverse experiences, challenges biases, explores the full realm of strategic thinking, inclusive decision making and contextual action taking. One that actively creates pathways for those who have been historically excluded and actually aligns to the values and principles so many organisations pretend that they uphold.

Positive action is not about undermining merit but about redefining it in a way that recognises the different challenges individuals face and ensures that talent is genuinely given the chance to thrive.

We must acknowledge that the idea of meritocracy in the workplace is a seductive myth that ignores the real barriers faced by many individuals, be it class, income or a host of other experiences that shape the modern workforce. While it is important to recognise hard work and talent, these qualities alone cannot guarantee success in an uneven playing field. Positive action is a necessary and justified response to systemic inequities, helping to create fairer workplaces that reflect the diversity of society. By acknowledging and addressing these inequalities, organisations can move towards a future where organisations can be truly efficient, antifragile, productive and profitable, and where merit is truly rewarded not just for the privileged few, but for all.