Fakeocracy
Meritocracy is an approach by which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement. It is often used by organisations as a promise during hiring or development conversations.
Meritocracy is seen by employees as the panacea when it comes to their performance. ‘If I perform well and am a great human in the way that I go about my work’, the narrative goes, ‘I will be rewarded’. It is seen as fair and equitable and a rejection of the old-fashioned ‘it’s who you know’ approach.
How many times have you heard something similar?
If you keep this up, the sky’s the limit for you
You just need to keep going and the chances will come your way
With a bit of extra effort and focus, you’ll be next in line for a promotion and so on…
Theoretically, meritocracy should produce many tangible benefits:
Enhanced Productivity and Performance - where employees believe their contributions will be recognised and rewarded fairly, motivation and productivity increase
Talent Optimisation - An optimal allocation of people should enhance organisational performance, creativity and innovation
Reduced Turnover - Employees perceive advancement opportunities as fair and based on performance reducing costly turnover and knowledge loss
Attraction of High Performers - Merit-based advancement may attract people who seek jobs where their contributions will be recognised and rewarded.
Bridgewater Associates (Ray Dalio's hedge fund) is perhaps the most documented attempt at creating a meritocracy. Their system includes: radical transparency where all meetings are recorded; ‘Dot ratings’ where employees rate each other on performance; algorithmic decision-making to reduce bias; and open challenge of ideas regardless of hierarchy.
However, a report suggested this created a "cauldron of fear and intimidation" rather than true meritocracy. The same goes for Netflix’s Keeper Test as well as similar approaches at the likes of McKinsey and Google.
Research from the last 5 years into whether meritocracy is actually practiced is almost non-existent. There’s so little evidence, that it’s been labelled the ‘Meritocracy Paradox' by MIT. Or as I have labelled it ‘Fakeocracy’ i.e. fake meritocracy.
Studies continue to find that organisations claiming to operate meritocratically often exhibit greater bias. This indicates that the belief in meritocracy can actually worsen discrimination, as managers become less vigilant about bias when they believe their systems are already fair.
You can see it for yourself. Your organisation may talk about equity of opportunity, yet it’s the same people who get promoted. They may talk about greater gender representation, yet, it’s still 6 middle-aged men on the executive team and one female Head of People and Culture. They may talk about a commitment to flexible work, yet still require you to be in the office 9-5 Tuesday to Thursday.
There are other telltale signs that meritocracy is largely performative rather than genuine:
Inconsistent hiring criteria or shifting goalposts. When promotion requirements seem to shift depending on who's being evaluated, or when previously successful approaches suddenly don't count, it suggests the system serves other purposes. You'll notice different standards applied to different people for the same role
The ‘culture fit’ smokescreen. When organisations consistently hire and promote people who look, sound, and think remarkably similar whilst claiming merit-based decisions, ‘cultural fit’ has likely become code for homogeneity. True meritocracy would produce more diverse outcomes
Lack of transparency around decision-making. This is another giveaway. If promotion processes are opaque, feedback is vague (‘you need to be more assertive’ ‘you need to be more visible to the executive etc.’), or there's no clear path between performance and advancement, merit probably isn't the primary factor.
The persistence of mediocrity at management levels. This signals systemic issues within the culture. When incompetent leaders remain whilst talented individuals stagnate, networks, bias and politics clearly trump performance. You’ll often hear about this when high performers leave
Tokenism masquerading as fairness. This appears when organisations promote a few individuals from underrepresented groups to visible positions whilst the broader pattern remains unchanged. It creates the appearance of meritocracy without addressing underlying bias
Performance reviews that don't correlate with outcomes. This is often the most obvious one. When consistently high performers receive average ratings (‘I can only give so many people a 4 or a 5’) or when ratings seem predetermined regardless of actual contributions, the system isn't measuring merit, it’s performative
There’s no doubt that true meritocracy can create a huge amount of emotional capital with employees and as a result, value for an organisation. After all, if I work hard and I’m rewarded for it, not only will it be a great motivation for me to keep doing so, it’ll inspire others to do likewise.
However, it’s disingenuous for organisations to preach meritocracy and deliver fakeocracy instead. People aren’t stupid, they’ll see through the smokescreen soon enough and the organisational culture will eventually stagnate along with recruitment, reputation and results.
