The Trouble With “Merit”: Why It Isn’t as Objective as We Think

Merit is often treated as the gold standard of fairness in recruitment—a neutral, objective measure of who is “best” for a role. Many people trust their intuition about merit, believing they can “just tell” who is capable, who has potential, and who fits. But research across multiple organisational studies shows that merit is far more subjective and culturally constructed than we tend to acknowledge.

Merit is Shaped by Systemic Patterns, Not Separate from Them

Recruitment research consistently finds that people hire “from what they know”—seeking familiarity, similarity, and alignment with existing leadership norms (Piggott, 2022). This means characteristics perceived as “meritorious” often reflect the dominant group’s traits rather than neutral standards.

Broader labour‑force research shows that inequality is frequently reproduced not through overt discrimination but through advantage extended within in‑groups, experienced as “fairness” by those who benefit (Di Tomaso, 2015).

The Emotional Pull of Intuition—And Why It Misleads Us

Intuition feels intertwined with professional identity. Many cultures reinforce the idea that “good” leaders simply know talent when they see it, reflecting a belief in meritocracy as an unquestioned norm (Correll et al., 2020).

Yet intuitive assessments are shaped by unconscious associations about competence, leadership, and belonging. Even anonymised processes fail to remove bias because hiring managers use residual cues to infer identity (Foley & Williamson, 2018).

Why Equity Initiatives Trigger “Reverse Discrimination” Backlash

When organisations take deliberate steps to prioritise under‑represented candidates who already meet the required criteria, these efforts are often framed as violating merit. But research reveals several reasons for backlash:

1. Merit is assumed to be objective.

2. “Fit” is unconsciously equated with quality.

3. Systemic critique feels personal.

Why Equity Strategies Strengthen, Not Undermine, Merit

Bias embedded in recruitment systems cannot be corrected through intuition or awareness alone. Equity‑focused hiring practices recognise that “merit” itself has been shaped by culture and systemic inequality (Forscher et al., 2016).

Quick Facts

• Merit is subjective, not neutral.

• Bias influences recruitment even when intentions are fair.

• Bias in recruitment compounds systemic inequity.

• System redesign is more effective than individual training.

A Reflective Question

When reviewing candidates, who do you automatically assume to be a good person, a smart or competent person? Ask yourself ‘How do I know this?’,‘ What have I seen or heard that makes me assume this?’ Most importantly, notice if you are consistently assuming this about everyone.

References

Correll, S., Weisshaar, K., Wynn, A., & Wehner, J. (2020). Inside the Black Box of Organizational Life.

Di Tomaso, N. (2015). Racism and discrimination versus advantage and favoritism: Bias for versus bias against.

Foley, M., & Williamson, S. (2018). Does anonymising job applications reduce gender bias?

Forscher, P. et al. (2016). The individually targeted habit‑breaking intervention and group‑level change.

Piggott, L. (2022). “You only go from what you know”: gendered recruitment and selection.