“Meritocracy can create new ways of discrimination”

Management models based in meritocracy are the only way to fight still existing inequality in the market and to deal with challenges of talent attraction and retention in the context of fast technological evolution. But this is a system of “vices and virtues” since, at the same time it chases more fair recruitment systems and companies’ progression, it can also “create new ways of exclusion and discrimination” when implemented poorly. The warning is given by Emilio Castilla, professor at MIT Sloan School of Management, who Expresso interviewed at the Global Business School Network reunion, recently organized in Portugal, where he integrated a panel discussing the future of work.
Castilla, also Academic director of The Lisbon MBA in the US, explains that, in the past, “long term jobs with predictable progression plans and regular salary increase was the rule, even though salaries were defined, normally, by the worker’s seniority or granted to all workers in an even percentage.”
The traditional model “has been gradually replaced by rewarding systems based on merit and performance metrics”, says the investigator. And this is how it should be: “Companies should implement management models that give room for fair meritocracy, where professionals are hired and promoted according to what they do and not for their appearance or socioeconomic status.” This path is “more easy to announce than to implement.”
The meritocracy paradox
“Merit, excellence and performance recognition is an objective, reasonable and transparent way to differentiate talent, to define talented professionals, whose talent is independent of other characteristics, like gender, race, or socioeconomic status. The problem lies in implementation”, and the companies’ decision-makers. The fact is that “leaders who believe in following management meritocratic systems those who, normally, present more bias in their recruitment and progression processes.”
Emilio Castilla calls it the “meritocracy paradox,” and it’s one of the conclusions of an investigation that, during several years, guided Stephen Bernard, sociologist, and professor at the University of Indiana – where he was able to follow the evolution of more than nine thousand professionals in multinational companies.
Both investigators concluded that “when people think they are objective and free of prejudice, they don’t monitor neither scrutinize their own behavior. They assume all their analytical thinking and decisions are correct.” However, the investigation showed that, in these companies, all kind of stereotypes (age, race, gender, disability) are recurrently used as filters to evaluate professionals, or candidates, in a way that ends up favoring certain groups.
For example, men and Caucasian CVs tend to be evaluated in a more positive way than women’s and ethnical minorities. The MIT professor believes that prohibiting discrimination by law, in the way it’s been done, will not solve the problem. In his opinion, a meritocratic system that is effective will be certainly more “transparent” for leaders and professionals. “This is only achievable with the adoption of rigorous metrics, supported by reliable systems and people analytics goals [professional data analysis]”. In other words, with technology, with simple metrics of analytics and algorithms and other AI systems. This is where the meritocratic systems’ main force and main fragility exist simultaneously.
In order to be effective, “companies will need to filter the right data, excluding all non-meritocratic criteria.” The instructions given to the “machine” and the way the analysis will be conducted will need to be “free” of prejudice and decision-makers’ convictions. If this is not the case, by giving this power to technology “could create new ways of discrimination.” These risks are yet to be known but can have a great impact on job access and career progression.
Source: Expresso
You can read the full article here (content in PT)