The Problem with Meritocracy & DEI

A new DEI landscape

Shortly after the inauguration of President Trump he signed his executive order to terminate all federal Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the next 60 days. However, this pressure goes beyond federal agencies into the private sector, with the present US government suggesting that all DEI practices are “discriminatory” and “illegal”.

Some tech companies such as Google, Meta and Amazon have already been scaling back their commitment to DEI programmes over the past couple of years. This was in part driven by the US Supreme Court decision in 2023 which deemed affirmative action unlawful. The case related to universities who were considering race as a criteria when assessing applications, to increase the number of students from underrepresented groups. 

In the UK, positive discrimination which is the equivalent of affirmative action, has been illegal since the introduction of the Equality Act 2010. Positive action is lawful within the EU and the UK, which covers a voluntary approach which employers may take to reduce barriers for disadvantaged groups to ensure better equity rather than making decisions purely based on a protected characteristic such as ethnicity.

Whilst these tech companies are announcing that they will be stopping their DEI initiatives, they have stated that they are still committed to cultivating a diverse and inclusive work environment. In 2012, Google carried out a research project which sought to establish the defining characteristics of a high-performing team. The number one factor was psychological safety. Amy Edmondson, defines psychological safety as "the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes, and that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking". An inclusive environment is critical for psychological safety however, how this will be achieved without efforts towards DEI is unknown. It will be interesting to see the impact of organisational performance for those disbanding their DEI efforts compared to competitors such as Microsoft and Apple who are showing their continued commitment towards DEI initiatives.   

The impact of a meritocratic approach

President Trump has expressed that he not only wants DEI efforts eradicated but that he wants a meritocratic approach to replace them. Meritocracy is an ideology that has been in existence for some time; however it is often associated with the 1958 book by Michael Young who wrote about a dystopian society where the ability to succeed is based on an individual’s merit. The results are a society run by the elite where privilege is held by the few.

Whilst the idea of meritocracy itself sounds good; decisions being based on merit or an individual’s skills, capability and performance, the reality is quite different. It’s an idea which cannot exist in practice because not all people have equal access to resources and opportunities to succeed. Unfortunately, this inequality is often associated with people’s protected characteristics; such as gender, race, disability etc. It is the reason that DEI became popular as an effort to try and rebalance these inequalities rather than looking at merit alone so how are we back here...suggesting that meritocracy is the way forward when we know it’s an impossible reality? 

So, where did DEI go wrong?

Diversity, equity and inclusion is a complex problem to solve, something that was never going to be fixed overnight. Businesses treated it as a business problem, not a human problem. Efforts were focused on gathering data on the workforce, putting people through an unconscious bias training course and giving leadership KPI targets to hit. Was this ever likely to solve years of oppression for underrepresented groups? Clearly not.

By increasing the level of representation at work for less privileged groups, it might seem that things are improving based on statistics. But, improving your workforce’s diversity statistics does not mean that inclusion exists. Tracking DEI data when decision-making happens does not mean that bias is eradicated. Suggesting that hitting a percentage target for representation will solve unfairness, shows a lack of understanding in solving complex problems. 

Part of the issue lies in the binary approach we have taken to date. Companies ask candidates and employees to disclose their various protected characteristics across a wide variety of categories. They then compartmentalise each area and assess them in isolation of each other. Even the DEI initiatives are designed for specific groups; women, people of colour, LGBTQ+, disability etc. Whilst it may have been helpful initially to understand the unique experiences of each group; it’s inadequate when it comes to meaningful equitable change.

This approach led to a rise in assessing social mobility status; an individual’s socio-economic background particularly when they were growing up. It came to light in 2021 when the Education Committee produced a report called ‘The Forgotton’. It reported that “the proportion of White British pupils who were FSM-eligible starting higher education by the age of 19 in 2018/19 was 16%, the lowest of any ethnic group other than traveller of Irish heritage and Gypsy/Roma”. FSM stands for free school meal where a child may be eligible due to their parents being on a low income. It went on to say that phrases such as ‘White privilege’ can be divisive as it is not true for everyone who identifies as White.

History shows us that as our awareness develops, we seek to extend where and how we focus on discrimination and equality. In the UK, in the 70’s, we introduced protections based on gender or race. In the 90’s, we introduced legislation to protect people based on disability and a decade later, that was extended to religion or belief, sexual orientation and age. When the Equality Act was introduced in 2010, it incorporated all the previous legislation and added gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. Discrimination based on socio-economic background or social mobility status is still not covered by any UK legislation.

The focus of DEI should be about removing barriers to ensure access to resources and opportunities are equitable. To solve this complex societal problem, it requires a multi-stakeholder approach, not just an issue for businesses to solve. Whilst hard to do, it should refrain from being politicised as it can take us to extreme approaches that create divisions. It requires listening, understanding and patience. And lastly, it needs continual reflection ensuring all voices are heard. Intersectionality is critical; analysing the multitude of lived experiences that result in inequity based on how an individual identifies across a variety of categories. Whilst we have a number of acknowledged protected characteristics, there may be new ones that emerge as society increases its awareness. We need to be continually learning, contextualising information, improving how we design our efforts, and constantly rebalancing to optimise for fairness.