2
Menu
Home
My Library
My Account
Pocketmags Plus+
Title A-Z
Category A-Z
Best Selling Magazines
Latest Offers
Gift Vouchers
Activate a Subscription
Blog
Help & Support
GB
0
Basket
My Account
My Library
Login
Plus+
BEST SELLERS
OFFERS
Hobbies & Craft
Aviation & Transport
Leisure
General Interest
Sport
SITE SETTINGS
GBP - £
USD - $
AUD - $
CAD - $
EUR - €
EUR - €
EUR - €
EUR - €
EUR - €
EUR - €
EUR - €
LIGHT MODE
DARK MODE
All Categories
Art & Photography
Art
Design
Architecture
Photography
Aviation & Transport
Motorbikes
Aviation
Automotive
Rail
Family & Home
Kids
Parenting
Animals & Pets
Food
DIY
Landscaping & Gardening
Property
Interior Design & Home
Food and Drink
Cooking & Baking
Drink
Vegetarian & Vegan
Gluten Free & Special Diets
General Interest
History & Fact
Astronomy
Education & Literary
Spiritual & Religion
Trade & Professional
National & Regional
Books
News & Current Affairs
Health & Fitness
Medical
Running
Women's Health
Men's Health
Slimming
Spirituality & Wellbeing
Hobbies & Craft
Collecting
Radio Control Modelling
Scale & Millitary Modelling
Sewing & Knitting
Woodworking
Arts & Crafts
Leisure Interest
Travel
Boating & Yachting
Poker & Gambling
Caravan & Motorhome
Camping & Outdoor
TV & Film
Tattoo
Horse Riding & Equestrian
Wildlife
Men's Interest
Lifestyle
Gay
TV & Film
Men's Fitness
Motorbikes
Automotive
Football
Fishing & Angling
Gaming
Gadgets
Newspapers
All
Music
Classical
Heavy Metal
Other
Rock
Pop
Practical & Playing
Hi-Fi
Sport
Football
Cycling
Rugby
Cricket & Golf
Football Programmes
Fishing & Angling
Shooting & Archery
Boxing & Martial Arts
Horse Riding & Equestrian
Other
Watersports & Board
Athletics & Running
Motorsport
Ski & Winter Sports
Outdoor & Adventure
Tech & Gaming
Apple
Gaming
Internet
Gadgets
PC
Mobile
Trade & Professional
Money & Investment
Building & Architecture
Military & Defense
Education
Media
Retail News
Farming & Agriculture
Catering
Business
Transport
Politics
Travel
Women's Interest
Hair
Celebrity
Weddings & Brides
Fashion & Lifestyle
Healthy Food & Slimming
Fitness
SITE SETTINGS
GBP - £
USD - $
AUD - $
CAD - $
EUR - €
EUR - €
EUR - €
EUR - €
EUR - €
EUR - €
EUR - €
LIGHT MODE
DARK MODE
Digital Subscriptions
>  
Blog
>
MERITOCRACY: From Myth to Reality
You are currently viewing the United Kingdom version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Home
My Library
My Account
Pocketmags Plus+
Title A-Z
Category A-Z
Best Selling Magazines
Latest Offers
Gift Vouchers
Activate a Subscription
Blog
Help & Support
Gift Cards
£5
£10
£25
£50
View All
Read on any device
Safe & Secure Ordering
< 
Back to Blogs
MERITOCRACY: From Myth to Reality
Posted 25 July 2015   | 2089 views
Our frames of reference and procedures contain implicit biases that devalue women’s contributions and reinforce the privileges of dominant groups. Here’s what to do about it.
LAST YEAR’S UPROAR over Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s statement that women shouldn’t ask for raises, but instead, “trust in karma” for their rewards, has highlighted a tension that exists in corporate and investment communities: we believe that we operate in a meritocracy, but the evidence increasingly suggests that we do not. Instead, our systems for evaluating people and investments are skewed in unintended ways by biases that work against women and minorities.
For example, female-led startups find it harder to obtain funding than those led by men; women are often not hired or promoted at the rate of men; and the 2009 passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in the U.S. is only necessary because — even in the 21st century — women are not paid equally for the same work.
I became interested in the question of meritocracy because of my own research over the past three years, examining the emergence of a new field at the nexus of gender and investing. The leaders of this movement are working to understand how women-led ventures can get equal access to capital and how capital allocation can encourage more equal outcomes for women in organizations.
An idea that has come up over and over in the course of my research is that the collective belief in meritocracy is part of the problem. Sharon Vosmek, CEO of Astia — a non-profit organization focused on helping women participate fully in high-tech entrepreneurship — reflected this idea in a presentation at Stanford last year, describing the high-tech world as, “so captured by the myth of meritocracy… that it has really held back dialogue” on gender. The bottom line: the belief that we operate in a meritocracy takes us off the hook from examining the potential for bias in our evaluations of women-led businesses and women leaders.
Some Evidence on Bias
The biases that devalue women are not normally intended at all. Indeed, many of the skewed outcomes for women are produced through supposedly neutral or objective processes. The problem is, the way we see the world is shaped by our frames of reference, and, as Stanford Sociologist Cecilia Ridgeway has pointed out, gender is a primary frame that shapes how we value peoples’ contributions, without us even knowing it. That is why such stereotypes are called implicit biases.
Let’s start by thinking about how people are recruited, promoted and rewarded in organizations. In their studies of recruiting processes, Psychologist Rhea Steinpreis and colleagues found that when evaluating identical applications, both men and women prefer to hire a candidate named Brian over one named Karen by a ratio of two to one. These same results have been found for names that are seen as more African American or Hispanic, and for resumes that signal homosexual orientation relative to those that do not, as Rotman Professor of Strategic Management Andr?s Tilcsik and others have shown. [Editor’s Note: read our interview with Andr?s on page 108 of this issue.]
Furthermore, even when the underlying quality of candidates is the same, applications vary. Studies of recommendation letters by anthropologists Frances Trix and Carolyn Psenka show that those written on behalf of female candidates are shorter, more likely to focus on personal characteristics, less likely to emphasize specific accomplishments, and more likely to subtly raise doubts (e.g., “It’s amazing how much work she is able to accomplish, given her family obligations!”) In this case, an equally qualified female candidate might actually appear to be less qualified because her recommendation letter is weaker. Either way, the results are the same: the man is hired more frequently than the woman.
Once on the job, the evidence suggests that there are differences in promotions and salary, as well. One of the essential underpinnings of the class action lawsuit against Walmart is the difference in salaries that
The Paradox of Meritocracy
Could it be that the very idea of a meritocratic culture exacerbates unequal outcomes? A series of experiments by Emilio Castilla and Stephen Benard found that organizational contexts that promote meritocracy are most likely to produce non-meritocratic outcomes — such as when men receive higher bonuses than equally-performing women. This occurs, they argue, because the idea of meritocracy gives evaluators ‘moral credentials’ that convince them that they are unbiased, precluding them from being on the lookout for bias. Thus, the paradox of meritocracy is that a belief in it can lead to even more inequality, rather than less.
As one Silicon Valley participant in my research said, “Those who are the biggest offenders of what a meritocracy should be are those who are screaming the loudest that there is a meritocracy.” Echoing this, another of my interviewees said about the VC world, “Meritocracies are noble and worthy goals, but they’re absolute myths. The only thing that meritocracy serves in Silicon Valley is as great validation if you’ve made it; it justifies your success. You are just that much smarter than everyone else.”
If we succeed, we like to believe that it is due to our own merits and, thus, it is in our interest to believe that the system that enabled us to succeed is meritocratic. Indeed, as Jacki Zehner, a former senior executive at Goldman Sachs, reported about its internal research on diversity, “The feeling that the firm was a meritocracy was much more likely to be held by those in the majority [white, male, heterosexual] group. Non-majority members were more likely to say that there were ‘hidden rules’ for success, and that it was harder to get the right opportunities.”
Rutger’s Professor Nancy DiTomaso’s rich exploration of race and privilege in the U.S. could be extended to offer some insight about these gender dynamics. According to DiTomaso, “Racial inequality is most often assumed to be the result of racism or discrimination, and providing equal opportunity within a context of individual effort and achievement has been offered as the primary solution.”
According to this logic, meritocracy should ‘fix’ problems of racism, because most people are consciously committed to colour- or gender-blindness and to equal opportunity. But this very framing of the issue, she argues, “contributes to the inability of most whites to see the nature of their own participation in the creation and reproduction of racial inequality. Whites assume that other people are racists, but not them. They assume that equal opportunity embodies fairness, but they live lives of advantage— of unequal opportunity.” Thus, she concludes, we can have racial inequality in our society without racism per se.
Though the forces at work in sexism and racism are not the same, one could extend DiTomaso’s argument to suggest that explicit sexism need not be present to explain unequal outcomes. Instead, we only need to understand how dominant groups attempt to reinforce privilege — by promoting myths of meritocracy based on equal opportunity. If we lay the blame on overt ‘racists’ or ‘sexists’, we divert attention from understanding the implicit biases built into our own frames of reference and in decision-making procedures that lead dominant groups to reinforce their privilege.
Why Progress Is So Difficult
Given that gender is a primary frame that instantly (and subconsciously) shapes our interactions with others, one solution to gender bias is to take gender out of the equation. When some symphony orchestras switched to auditioning candidates behind a screen — so that judges could hear the musician playing but not see any physical characteristics — the percentage of new female hires increased by between 25 and 46 per cent.
This approach may be difficult to replicate in business, where decisions depend on interac
Towards a True Meritocracy
Despite the challenges described herein, there is plenty we can do to get closer to a true meritocracy. Based on my research to date, following are eight suggestions.
1. WHERE POSSIBLE, REMOVE GENDER-IDENTIFYING DATA. As indicated, it is impossible to avoid direct interaction when making hiring or venture-investment decisions. However, in the initial screening to create ‘short lists’, it may be possible to remove names and other gender-identifying information when evaluating candidates.
2. INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION (I.E. GPA OR FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS) WHEREVER POSSIBLE. When there is ambiguity with respect to credentials, members of the dominant group will benefit. Studies have shown that if grade point averages are added to otherwise identical resumes, the bias in selecting the male candidate is diminished.
3. REQUIRE ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION ON SHORT LISTS. Be proactive in soliciting diverse applicants — for jobs, business plan competitions, pitch nights, etc. When the National Football League put its ‘Rooney Rule’ in place in 2002 (penalizing teams for not interviewing minority candidates), it increased the number of African American coaches from six to 22 per cent in just four years. Note that teams were not required to hire minorities — just to consider them, and this was enough to improve outcomes. Embracing this principle might mean actively inviting or seeking out candidates, because evidence suggests that women do not even apply for certain opportunities due to their anticipation of bias.
4. TRAIN ANYONE IN AN EVALUATIVE POSITION TO UNDERSTAND IMPLICIT BIAS. If men and women alike accept that we are implicitly biased, we can do more to reflect on how that might be shaping our decisions. For example, if someone says that a particular female job candidate ‘has sharp elbows’, we can call that out as gendered and adjust our conclusions; or if someone says that the female CEO of a new venture ‘doesn’t have leadership qualities,’ we should think again.
5. ADJUST FOR BIAS IN RECOMMENDATIONS AND ELSEWHERE. To compensate for implicit bias elsewhere in the system, Good Capital — an investor in social entrepreneurs — gives female- led startups extra points in the evaluation process. In their view, this simply gets these ventures back onto a level playing field. Venture capitalists might do well to follow suit.
6. EXAMINE SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES FOR UNINTENDED BIAS. Even workplace systems that appear to be gender neutral—such as a strict seniority promotion criterion—can reinforce the status quo of male privilege. Similarly, employee referrals are one of the most effective ways to recruit, because the candidates have already been screened for appropriateness by a trusted employee. However, the risk is that a company will continue to hire more people just like its existing employee base, rather than promoting diversity.
7. CREATE MORE TRANSPARENCY AND MONITORING. The good news is, when criteria are clear and evaluation processes systematic, bias can be reduced. Such approaches limit the discretion of decision makers to choose based on personal beliefs or preferences, which can decrease inequality. Of course, such transparency can be a tough pill to swallow: in an effort to make progress on gender equality, Google recently released data revealing just how far it has to go. While this brought the company lots of negative press, at the same time, it puts greater pressure on them to make progress.
8. HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR RESULTS. Evidence suggests that training and awareness are not enough to make change. Inequality only declines when these programs are accompanied by incentive systems that demand accountability. As the Google example shows, transparency and accountability are tightly linked.
The bottom line is that gender is a highly salient primary frame, and each of
Most read articles this month
Inside Crochet Magazine & Janie Crow CAL (Crochet Along) Series
Inside Crochet Magazine has partnered with the wonderful Jane Crowfoot on a number of occasions in recent years, bringing her inspirational work to thousands of readers. Jane, also known as Janie Crow, is one of the UK’s most loved crochet and knitting designers and is renowned for her amazing use of colour.
More...
Doctor Who: The Complete History
“Whole worlds pivot on acts of imagination.” If you are a hardened Whovian - you probably recognise that quote.
More...
Basket -
0 items
Your basket is currently empty.
Continue Shopping
Basket Total:
£
0.00
 Earning
0
Loyalty Points
Each Point is worth 1 penny or unit of currency and can be redeemed against future purchases here at Pocketmags.com
Got a discount code? Add it in the next step.
Checkout Securely
Continue Shopping
Or, read for just
99p
with
You can enjoy:
The issue in your basket
Instant access to 600+ titles
Thousands of back issues
30 days for just 99p
TRY PLUS+ FOR 99p
30 days access, then just £9.99 / month. Cancel anytime. New subscribers only.
Learn more
Chat
X
Pocketmags Support
Contact Us
Use the form below, and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
Send a copy of chat messages
Send Message
Message Sent
Many thanks for your enquiry.
One of our support staff will get back to you soon.
Start New Chat
Close Chat
Error In sending Email
We could not send your ticket at this time, please try again later
Start New Chat
Close Chat