Stop Clinging to the Myth of Meritocracy in DEI Conversations

It's way past time.

Meritocracy often feels like an untouchable ideal - the belief that hard work and talent alone determine success. It’s an appealing concept, especially in conversations around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). This narrative ignores the ingrained systemic barriers that shape opportunities long before effort enters the equation. From education access to workplace biases, the playing field has never been level. Pete Hegseth’s stance on DEI in the military is just one of many examples of how clinging to this myth can stall meaningful progress. DEI doesn’t disrupt fairness, but reveals how fairness has been selectively defined all along. It’s time to rethink what fairness really looks like.

Understanding Meritocracy and Its Role in DEI

Meritocracy is a concept that many of us buy into without question, and it’s at the heart of job promotions, performance evaluations, and even education systems. The belief that hard work and talent will get you ahead seems fair, doesn’t it? But when you dig deeper, especially in the context of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), it becomes clear that meritocracy is not always the neutral, fair system it claims to be. Let's take a closer look at its origins, its practical shortcomings, and the power dynamics it perpetuates.

Meritocracy is the idea that individuals are rewarded and advance based solely on their abilities and achievements. The term itself was initially a pejorative popularized by sociologist Michael Young in his satirical 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. However, the seeds of meritocratic thinking go back much further than that, as Confucius hinted at an ideal society where leaders would be chosen based on skill and virtue.

The Definition and Origins of Meritocracy

Fast forward to modern times, and meritocracy has become a guiding principle in Western societies, especially in systems like education and professional fields. The allure is in its promise of equal opportunity: Anyone, regardless of their background, can "make it" if they try hard enough. For example, institutions often point to standardized testing, performance evaluations, or résumé reviews as objective tools to uphold fairness. But does the system really function as intended?

Where Meritocracy Fails in Practice

In theory, meritocracy sounds like the perfect way to ensure fairness. In practice, it often reinforces existing inequities. Merit has never been truly objective or free from bias.

For starters, structural inequities skew the so-called "level playing field" long before anyone gets a chance to showcase their efforts. Think about how socioeconomic status affects access to quality education. A student from a wealthy neighborhood likely has access to highly-funded schools, private tutoring, and extracurriculars that dot their college résumés. Meanwhile, someone from an underserved community may face obstacles ranging from overcrowded classrooms to food insecurity.

Then there’s the issue of unconscious bias. Hiring managers might think they're giving everyone a fair shot but unconsciously gravitate toward candidates with similar backgrounds, interests, or even accents. These biases often favor individuals from already-privileged groups, leaving marginalized individuals to work twice as hard for the same recognition.

Meritocratic systems also assume that everyone starts from the same baseline, ignoring historic and systemic discrimination. DEI initiatives are meant to address these disparities, but meritocracy can sometimes be used as a counterargument to their necessity. Claims like "We’re hiring the best person for the job" often dismiss the fact that opportunities vary wildly depending on race, gender, disability, and more. Transitioning from individual practices to broader dynamics, we begin to see how meritocracy upholds systems of power.

Meritocracy and Power Structures

This brings us to a fundamental contradiction: Meritocracy, as it is often practiced, doesn't disrupt power structures, but instead, sustains them. The system tends to favor those who already hold societal privilege, cloaking inequality under the guise of "fairness."

Consider this: If educational systems, corporate hiring processes, or even political frameworks are built to advantage certain groups, then who determines what constitutes "merit"? More often than not, the answer circles back to the already privileged, who have the resources to set the rules.

At a corporate level, this can show up as legacy admissions in colleges, preferential hiring through unadvertised networks, or performance evaluation criteria that disproportionately reward aggressive, alpha-like behavior often associated with certain demographics. In essence, meritocracy can act as a safety net for privilege, and ensures the gate stays locked unless you have the key.

Pete Hegseth's Actions: A Case Study in Misguided Meritocracy

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's policies and recent controversies serve as a striking example of how the ideal of meritocracy can be wielded as a tool to undermine diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. His actions illustrate the dangers of prioritizing a skewed version of fairness over true equity, raising important questions about who "merit" really serves and at whose expense.

Signal Chat Controversy and Its Implications

The Signal chat controversy surrounding Hegseth has sparked concerns about transparency and leadership. These chats, reported by The Atlantic, raised questions about decision-making among a small circle of military figures. The existence of this private group has prompted scrutiny over how decisions are made and whether similar conduct would be accepted from lower-level personnel.

So what does this have to do with DEI? The controversy highlights how exclusion can become routine at the highest levels, to the detriment of leadership. When a small group of people makes decisions in private, without broader input or transparency, it reflects a deeper problem seen in many organizations, where diverse perspectives are sidelined and power remains concentrated. Building an inclusive culture means actively widening the circle of influence, ensuring that decision-making includes voices beyond the usual gatekeepers, and often provides greater checks and balances.

Cancelling DEI Under the Guise of 'Meritocracy'

Hegseth's policies on DEI are another example of how meritocracy can be used to dismantle inclusivity. He directed efforts to strip the Pentagon of programs observing Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Black History Month, and LGBTQ+ Pride. Such moves were justified as a realignment toward "mission focus" and "merit-based recognition." However, removing these observances sent a clear message: equity and representation are expendable when they challenge traditional power hierarchies.

Hegseth's policies on DEI are another example of how meritocracy can be used to dismantle inclusivity. Following President Trump's executive order, and after Trump blamed DEI for for a tragic airplane collision, Hegseth directed efforts to strip the Pentagon of programs observing Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Black History Month, and LGBTQ+ Pride. These changes were framed as a return to 'mission focus' and 'merit-based recognition,' but the signal they sent was clear: equity and visibility for marginalized groups were not priorities, in fact, they were "madness", "radical and wasteful ".

Alongside these changes, Hegseth also dismissed several high-ranking officials, including top military lawyers like the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. These firings followed disagreements over legal interpretations related to military conduct, but they also coincided with the removal of leaders who had supported or overseen DEI programs. The leadership shake-up reinforced a message that dissenting views and equity-focused leadership were unwelcome.

Removing both observances and personnel created an environment where DEI work was systematically undermined. Rather than fostering a culture of accountability and inclusion, these decisions consolidated power and narrowed the range of perspectives guiding military operations.

Under Hegseth’s direction, leaders who supported DEI initiatives were also ousted, further emphasizing that the administration’s policies aren’t about celebrating individual merit but about keeping systemic inequities intact. DEI initiatives don’t exist to hand out participation trophies. They serve to counteract the inequities that prevent marginalized individuals from being seen, heard, and valued in spaces historically dominated by homogeneity.

By targeting these programs, Hegseth framed the removal of DEI as "cleaning up" inefficiencies, a narrative that perpetuates the false notion that DEI measures are distractions rather than necessities.

Who Does Merit Serve?

At the heart of Pete Hegseth's rhetoric lies a question worth unpacking: Who decides what merit is, and who benefits from its enforcement? In his actions, Hegseth has positioned himself as a gatekeeper of opportunity, choosing to favor systems that uphold existing power structures rather than challenging them. Systemic biases related to race, gender, socioeconomic status don’t disappear under meritocracy; they simply get rebranded.

When you think about it, the very notion of merit has always favored those with pre-existing advantages. Hegseth’s leadership appears to mirror this concept. For individuals from marginalized communities, the so-called level playing field of meritocracy is littered with barriers disguised as objective criteria. His rhetoric claiming to reward "the best people" often discounts the unequal access to opportunity that exists in the first place.

In the broader conversation about DEI, it’s imperative to scrutinize praise for meritocracy. Who sets the bar? Whose talents and contributions are recognized, and whose are ignored? If the determinant of merit lies in the hands of those who have always held power, then "meritocracy" becomes just another way to maintain exclusivity.

Hegseth’s example dismantles the illusion that meritocracy could ever be separated from bias. It shows how those in power can use this concept to consolidate privilege and suppress efforts aimed at creating systemic equity.

This isn’t just an issue of policy. It’s a broader cultural and systemic problem that needs addressing if we’re ever going to create a society where fairness reflects reality, not rhetoric.

The Meritocracy Myth Hinders True DEI

Meritocracy is often used as a crutch in workplace conversations about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). On the surface, it sounds fair: reward the most skilled and hardworking individuals. But this logic overshadows pressing inequities and can even exacerbate the barriers marginalized groups face. To evolve toward truly inclusive systems, it’s time to recognize how this myth hinders more than it helps.

Meritocracy as an Excuse to Avoid Equity

There’s a common refrain in conversations about equity: "Everyone should earn their spot." While this sounds impartial on the surface, it often becomes a thinly veiled excuse to dismiss structural inequities. Meritocracy assumes everyone has access to the same opportunities, ignoring how race, gender, and socioeconomic background influence education, networking, and even mentorship.

For instance, decision-makers in hiring or promotions might genuinely believe they are emphasizing qualifications. However, their evaluation processes are often steeped in unconscious biases, favoring candidates who mirror their own experiences. This approach perpetuates an unbalanced system where privilege replicates itself, and marginalized communities struggle to break through entrenched barriers.

Worse, meritocracy becomes a convenient narrative to push back against DEI efforts. Claims like "We’re not lowering the bar for diversity" or “We only want the best” imply that diverse candidates aren’t equally qualified - an assumption that sustains the status quo.

The Emotional Toll on Marginalized Groups

For many from marginalized backgrounds, the ideal of meritocracy feels like a cruel promise. They’re told they can succeed through hard work, only to face barriers others don’t. This contradiction creates an emotional toll that can impact physical well-being and lead to resentment.

Research shows the "merit gap" disproportionately harms marginalized groups, who must work harder to gain the same recognition as their privileged peers. Take women in male-dominated industries, for example, studies highlight how they’re often held to higher performance standards, making it harder to prove their worth.

When organizations claim to be meritocratic but fail to acknowledge biases, they look egotistical and incompetent while they erronously project the message, “You didn’t make it because you’re not good enough.” For individuals who already feel underrepresented, our current iteration of meritocracy also reinforces their exclusion.

Building Inclusive Systems Beyond Meritocracy

So, how do you move beyond the myth of meritocracy? It starts with recognizing that fairness doesn’t equate to treating everyone the same, it’s about giving everyone what they need to succeed. That means building systems designed to account for inequity, not overlook it.

Here are some concrete strategies to challenge meritocratic thinking:

• Reevaluate “Merit”: Who defines it? Whether it’s job roles or educational benchmarks, consider whether your criteria reflect true talent or simply advantage those with privileged backgrounds.

• Invest in Accessibility: From paid internships to equitable learning opportunities, close gaps in access, ensuring all candidates can compete fairly.

• Embed Bias Training: Standardize manager training to mitigate unconscious bias during recruitment, promotions, and evaluations. This doesn’t just level the playing field—it transforms how you value contributions across the board.

• Measure Outcomes: Success metrics shouldn’t stop at headcounts. Evaluate equity over time, looking at who gets promoted, who stays, and who thrives.

  
  

Organizations committed to creating true equity don’t rely on surface-level fixes. They ask hard questions about what fairness means and whether their systems genuinely support DEI goals.

By dismantling the illusion of meritocracy, you pave the way for systems that value people’s realities.

Meritocracy, as it’s often understood, sells an incomplete story that overlooks systemic barriers and inequities that shape access to opportunity. Clinging to this outdated narrative in DEI conversations ignores the realities of marginalized communities and actively hinders progress toward a fair workplace. By redefining what merit means and addressing disparities head-on, you can help create truly equitable systems that value all contributions.

The path forward honors hard work and talent but balances effort with access. Ask yourself, who gets to define “deserving,” and are those definitions truly unbiased? It’s time to let go of the myth and embrace practices that elevate inclusivity. Fostering equity doesn’t disadvantage anyone. It opens the door for everyone to thrive.

How is merit defined in your organization - and who does that definition serve?

Watson Nelson Consulting helps organizations untangle the myths, center equity, and build systems that work. Want to talk about how this shows up in your workplace? Book a call to start the conversation. Learn more at watsonnelson.com