Rethinking Meritocracy: A Path to Greater CALD Representation

Meritocracy, the belief that individuals should be rewarded and advance based on their abilities, skills, and efforts, is a deeply entrenched concept in Australian workplaces. In theory, it offers a fair and unbiased system where the best candidates—regardless of background—rise to the top. This idea has shaped recruitment, promotion, and leadership development practices across industries, with the assumption that merit alone dictates success.

While meritocracy is intended to ensure fairness, it often falls short in practice, particularly when it comes to diverse groups such as women, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) individuals, and LGBTIQ+ communities. The reasons for these shortcomings are rooted in both the structural inequalities that pervade Australian society and the implicit biases that influence organizational decision-making.

CALD individuals often encounter meritocratic evaluations that favor the dominant culture's norms and values. For example, communication styles or leadership traits valued in one culture may be overlooked or undervalued if they do not align with the majority’s expectations. This cultural bias can lead to the exclusion of talented CALD individuals from opportunities for advancement.

Many CALD candidates bring valuable international experience and qualifications that are either unrecognized or undervalued in Australia. The meritocratic system's focus on locally recognized credentials can unfairly disadvantage these individuals, leading to underemployment or stagnation in their careers.

Faults with Meritocracy

In a vibrant town, there was a garden known for its stunning array of flowers. Each year, the townspeople held a competition to choose the best flower, with the judges claiming they selected the winner purely on "merit."

Amara, a recent immigrant, entered her rare and exquisite flowers into the contest. She had cultivated them using methods from her homeland, where they were highly valued. However, the judges glanced at her flowers and moved on, unfamiliar with their beauty and significance.

The other contestants, who had grown up in the town, used well-known techniques passed down through generations. Their flowers matched the judges' expectations and cultural preferences, making it easy for them to win year after year.

Amara realized that the contest wasn’t just about the quality of the flowers; it was about fitting into the judges' understanding of what a "good" flower should be. Her different background and methods were undervalued, and the opportunity to showcase her talent was lost.

In that garden, as in many places, the idea of merit was shaped by familiarity and tradition, leaving little room for new and diverse perspectives to flourish.        

?

1. Embedded Bias in Selection Processes:

Systemic Barriers: The concept of merit assumes a level playing field, which often doesn't exist. CALD individuals may face biases in hiring and promotion practices, where unconscious bias can affect perceptions of what constitutes "merit."

Credential Recognition: Many CALD candidates may have qualifications or experiences from overseas that are undervalued or not recognized, leading to their exclusion from opportunities based on perceived "lack of merit."

Cultural Capital: The definition of merit is often shaped by dominant cultural norms, which can disadvantage those from different cultural backgrounds who may not align with these norms.

2. Lack of Equal Opportunity:

Historical Disadvantages: CALD communities may have experienced generational disadvantages, such as lower access to quality education and professional networks, which affect their ability to compete equally in a so-called meritocratic system.

Networking Bias: In many organizations, career advancement is not just about skill but also about who you know. CALD individuals often lack access to influential networks, further disadvantaging them in a merit-based system.

3. Homogeneity in Leadership:

Cultural Homogeneity: Meritocratic systems can perpetuate homogeneity by favoring those who fit the existing leadership mold, which is often shaped by the dominant culture. This can prevent diverse perspectives from entering leadership roles, thus perpetuating a cycle of exclusion.

4. Merit as a Subjective Measure:

Cultural Subjectivity: What is considered "merit" can be subjective and culturally biased. Qualities such as leadership style, communication skills, and even the interpretation of professional experience can vary greatly across cultures. These differences can lead to the exclusion of CALD individuals who may bring different, yet equally valuable, skills to the table.

What Should Be Done Instead

In a bustling city, a renowned hospital named CityCare faced challenges in creating a diverse and inclusive workforce. To address this, they implemented several key initiatives.

First, they introduced targeted recruitment and promotion programs. By setting quotas and affirmative action policies, they ensured that CALD (Culturally and Linguistically Diverse) individuals were fairly represented. They also revised job descriptions to be more inclusive, avoiding language that favored certain cultural norms.

Next, CityCare launched bias training and awareness programs. Unconscious bias training helped staff recognize and mitigate their biases, leading to fairer hiring and promotion decisions. Cultural competence training further encouraged valuing diverse ways of thinking and working.

The hospital also reviewed and revised their selection criteria. They broadened their definitions of merit to include diverse experiences and perspectives. Additionally, they implemented anonymous application processes to focus on candidates’ skills and qualifications rather than their cultural backgrounds.

Finally, CityCare provided robust support for CALD employees. They established mentorship programs to help these employees navigate the organization and build essential networks. Targeted career development opportunities were also offered to help CALD employees overcome barriers and advance within the hospital.

Through these efforts, CityCare created a more inclusive and equitable workplace, benefiting from the rich diversity of its staff.        

1. Implement Targeted Recruitment and Promotion Programs:

Quotas and Affirmative Action: Introducing quotas or affirmative action policies can help to ensure that CALD individuals are represented. These measures can correct systemic imbalances and give CALD candidates a fairer chance.

Inclusive Job Descriptions: Ensure job descriptions and selection criteria are inclusive and do not unintentionally favor certain cultural norms or experiences over others.

2. Bias Training and Awareness Programs:

Unconscious Bias Training: Training staff, particularly those involved in hiring and promotion, to recognize and mitigate unconscious biases is essential. This can help to ensure that decisions are based on a more holistic and fair assessment of merit.

Cultural Competence Training: This can help organizations to value diverse ways of thinking and working, and adjust their definitions of merit to be more inclusive.

3. Review and Revise Selection Criteria:

Broaden Definitions of Merit: Organizations should review their selection criteria to ensure they reflect a broad and inclusive understanding of merit, one that values diverse experiences and perspectives.

Anonymous Applications: Implementing anonymous application processes where possible can help to reduce bias by focusing on the skills and qualifications of candidates rather than their cultural background.

4. Support for CALD Employees:

Mentorship Programs: Pairing CALD employees with mentors can help them to navigate the organization and build the networks they need to succeed.

Career Development Support: Providing targeted career development opportunities for CALD employees can help them to overcome barriers and advance within the organization.

Challenges of Meritocracy in the Shadow of Institutional & Societal Privilege

At a not-for-profit organization dedicated to community support, leadership positions were awarded based on "merit." The board believed this would ensure fairness and recognize talent. However, most leadership roles were filled by volunteers from well-off backgrounds who had time, connections, and access to development opportunities that others did not. 

Maria, a dedicated volunteer from a CALD background, struggled to advance despite her hard work. She lacked the influential networks and resources that others benefited from. Her contributions were often overlooked because they didn't fit the traditional criteria of "merit."

Recognizing the issue, the organization’s management decided to reassess their approach. They introduced mentoring programs, pairing experienced leaders with underrepresented volunteers like Maria. They also broadened their definition of merit, valuing diverse experiences and cultural perspectives. Additionally, they implemented unconscious bias training to help the board recognize and address their own biases.

Over time, the organization’s leadership became more diverse, and the culture shifted to be more inclusive. The organization learned that true merit can't be measured without considering the structural inequalities that impact opportunity. By addressing these challenges, they created a more equitable environment where all volunteers had a fair chance to lead.        

?

1. Privilege and Structural Inequality:

Historical Privilege: In Australia, certain groups, particularly white Australians, have historically held more power and privilege. These advantages are often passed down through generations, leading to disparities in education, employment, and wealth.

Social Networks: Privileged groups often have access to better networks and resources, which can give them an unfair advantage in a meritocratic system. These networks can perpetuate the status quo by favoring those who are already privileged.

2. Resistance to Change:

Perceived Threats: Efforts to increase CALD representation can be seen as threatening to those who benefit from the current system. There can be resistance to policies like quotas or affirmative action, which are often viewed as undermining meritocracy.

Meritocracy as Ideology: Meritocracy is often upheld as a key value in societies like Australia, making it difficult to challenge. This belief in meritocracy can blind people to the structural inequalities that prevent true equality of opportunity.

While meritocracy remains a powerful and appealing ideal in Australia, it falls short when applied in environments that do not fully account for structural inequalities and implicit biases faced by CALD individuals. To truly create equitable workplaces, organizations must rethink and broaden their understanding of merit, ensuring that it includes diverse experiences, perspectives, and contributions from all groups.

This involves revising selection criteria, implementing supportive programs, and recognizing the broader context of privilege that shapes opportunities. Only by doing so can we move towards a more inclusive version of meritocracy that truly allows everyone to succeed based on their abilities and efforts.

#Diversity #Inclusion #Meritocracy #CALD #Equity #Leadership #WorkplaceCulture #Bias #InclusiveLeadership #DiversityInclusion #OrganizationalChange