Carolyn Geason-Beissel/MIT SMR | Getty Images
The idea of meritocracy is under attack: It has been called a “myth,” a “sham,” a “trap,” a “tyranny,” and an “alibi for plutocracy.” While meritocracy, as historically and currently practiced, is clearly in need of reform, it is hard to accept the notion that it is so flawed that it should be abandoned as an aspiration.
Done right, meritocracy puts the best and most deserving people into positions of power and influence; it can convey a sense of fairness and maybe even restore respect for authority. A critical element of reforming meritocracy is adopting and applying a robust and expansive definition of merit that goes beyond job capabilities and perceived effort to include character traits such as integrity, humility, selfless ambition, resilience, fundamental kindness, empathy, and respect for others.
How Assessing Merit Gets Messy
Making decisions about hiring or promotions purely based on merit is a challenge. Decision makers often lack sufficient awareness of their own biases to be able to disregard them when assessing the merits of others. Other factors not related to merit often creep into the decision-making process as well; for example, a hiring manager may feel social pressure to favor someone in their network or may succumb to credentialism in assessing talent.
It’s also not unusual for nominally meritocratic organizations to tolerate a double standard — that is, the use of a less-rigorous definition of merit when assessing a particular individual. Of course, this not only is anti-meritocratic but also reveals to those who are held to the higher standard that the game is rigged, and the prevalence of double standards may be responsible for the very cynicism now tarnishing the idea of meritocracy. That is why restoring meritocracy as a valid and useful approach to workforce decisions is contingent on having rigorous definitions of all of the criteria by which people will be evaluated — and then applying them systematically.
Why Character Matters
Demonstrated work behaviors and proven capabilities relevant to a position are key aspects of merit when considering a candidate for any position. But a focus on the character of individuals, especially candidates for positions of authority, should be given the highest priority. Leaders who lack a strong moral compass are more likely to cut corners during times of stress or crisis. They may abuse their power over subordinates, and they certainly will not be legitimate or effective advocates for a culture of integrity. They are less likely to win the trust that is important to succeeding as a leader. An organization led by individuals of questionable character will have a tainted reputation.
So how does an organization operationalize a merit-based system that emphasizes character? Leaders must start by precisely and unambiguously articulating how the organization defines character, ideally along the lines suggested above, and include it in a formal code of conduct. Regular employee training should communicate the character traits that are valued by the organization and set behavioral expectations that are well understood and accepted. Violations of codes of conduct should have consequences, and those reporting them should be protected from retaliation.
Leaders should remind colleagues that they will be assessed for how well they embody each of the elements of that definition. That said, exhortation is not enough.
If individuals in an organization are told that assessments of their character will be factors in promotion decisions, they must understand how they will be assessed, and employees must view those assessments as fair and relatively unbiased. While character is among the most subjective elements of merit, it can be fairly assessed if processes are transparent and biases are recognized and mitigated.
Some techniques typically used as part of the process of assessing character — such as conducting 360-degree evaluations and relying on leaders’ impressions of whether employees appropriately share credit — can be subject to bias or are not particularly rigorous. An alternative, research-based framework for evaluating the character of job candidates and employees has been set forth by Mary Crossan in an earlier MIT SMR article.
When considering individuals to be hired from the outside for positions of authority, having an independent professional (such as a psychologist) provide an assessment of character can be illuminating. That kind of evaluation can be particularly important if a candidate restricts reference checks out of a concern that contacting their employer could put their current position at risk. While hiring an investigator to do a background check might also be useful, be aware that the Fair Credit Reporting Act — which regulates employment background checks (and covers information related to character) — requires organizations to get advance, written authorization from a candidate before conducting such a check.
Avoiding the application of a double standard when assessing character (especially integrity and respect for others) can be a particular challenge when decisions are being made about promoting or retaining a “big producer” or even a close friend. Any decision maker who is being tempted to “look the other way” or downplay deficiencies in character should consider the sage advice of the Oracle of Omaha. When describing whom he wants to hire, Warren Buffett said, “We look for intelligence, we look for initiative or energy, and we look for integrity. And if they don’t have the latter, the first two will kill you, because if you’re going to get someone without integrity, you want them lazy and dumb.” An organization is put at risk if character is given insufficient consideration in placing or retaining individuals in positions of authority.
Doing meritocracy right requires reform. But implementing it will yield benefits — both for organizations and for society at large.