DEI vs Merit-Based hiring – are they really at odds?

We all want the best person for the job. In recent years, a new acronym has emerged - MEI, which stands for Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence. Proponents of MEI argue that organizations should focus on hiring the best candidates based solely on their talent and qualifications, with a view that diversity will naturally happen as a by-product when decisions are based purely on merit. 

Some see Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) as a performative exercise, with tokenistic representation as an ‘overcorrection’ to historic underrepresentation. And understandably, no underrepresented person wants to feel like the ‘diversity hire’, advancing in their career purely because of their gender, skin color, or other characteristic. 

To summarize the perceived differences: 

• Merit-based:
  • Assumes we live in a meritocracy, where humans make objective, bias-free decisions; a society where people are able to progress or find success purely based on skills, ability and talent
  • Focuses on individual performance and achievements
  • Removes consideration of demographic factors
• DEI-based:
  • Strives to make workforces representative of the communities they operate in
  • Works to level the playing field, recognizing that systemic barriers might prevent equally qualified individuals from certain groups from reaching the same level of opportunity
  • May involve strategies like targeted outreach, bias or conscious inclusion training, and creating fair selection criteria to address historical inequalities

These diverging viewpoints are at the heart of the ongoing debate that pits DEI against MEI. But arguing that DEI and MEI are in opposition creates a false dichotomy; it isn't about choosing one over the other. It's about recognizing that diversity and merit are not mutually exclusive—they're mutually reinforcing.

For merit-based approaches to work, we need to live in a meritocracy. Unfortunately, without taking positive action to address systemic inequalities, we don’t.

White men hold more than 56% of Fortune 500 executive and board positions, while only eight Black CEOs lead Fortune 500 companies. Openly LGBTQ+ employees are also vastly underrepresented in the C-suite, and women (largely white) hold a mere 13.7% of CEO, CFO and COO roles in Fortune 500 and S&P 500 companies, continuing to face pay gaps. 

We cannot have a meritocracy without fair opportunity, or overlook that there are structural reasons some groups are more likely to outperform others. A meritocratic system reflects the status quo, and therefore, it can perpetuate existing inequalities by continuously favoring those who already have advantages. 

Diversity doesn’t simply happen; the goal of constructing a workforce based on merit requires a thoughtful approach to DEI. 

Casting a wide net for talent and making objective hiring decisions that do not disadvantage candidates based on identity is exactly what DEI work seeks to do. At its heart, it’s about fairness of opportunity. True meritocracy can only be achieved when we recognize and actively work to remove the barriers that have historically excluded talented individuals from certain backgrounds. 

Organizations that assume meritocracy is inherent and not something to be achieved actually run the risk of increased bias – where, for example, hiring managers do not feel they need to exert any significant effort to be fair and objective in their decision-making. 

The sticking point is perhaps the ‘equity’ part, which has been the subject of considerable debate and misunderstanding. Equity is about promoting fairness based on individual needs to level the playing field, recognizing that not everyone starts from the same place. 

For instance, workplace adjustments aren’t about giving disabled people an unfair advantage, but are about removing barriers that wouldn’t exist if environments, processes, and systems were designed inclusively in the first place. 

Consider:

• A screen reader isn’t a luxury for a blind employee; it’s essential for accessing information that others can see
• Flexible working hours aren’t a privilege for working parents who can’t afford childcare
• Not everyone has equal access to quality education, mentorship, or professional networks, which are often essential for developing skills and demonstrating merit

DEI is not about lowering standards, in fact it’s the opposite; research consistently shows a link between diverse workforces and business growth, resilience, and success. By fostering an environment where all employees have the opportunity to thrive and contribute, the best ideas can come to the forefront.  

The perceived differences between DEI and merit-based approaches likely stem from how these concepts are interpreted – and in the current climate, politicized and weaponized – rather than their original intent. 

Rather than tying ourselves up in knots over polarizing and divisive rhetoric, we should be focusing on what we all want: the opportunity to get a job for which we are qualified, and to progress in our careers based on good performance.