The latest “new” term gaining traction in certain circles as a supposedly savvy replacement for DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) is MEI (short for merit, excellence and intelligence).
I’m sorry to disappoint the MEI crusaders who believe this is a groundbreaking concept. It’s not new. It’s simplydifferent words being applied to the old and failedconcept of “meritocracy”—a concept nearly 70 years old that resulted in extremely few women and people of color being hired into leadership roles. Until modern DEI research and concepts emerged in the 1980s and 90s, progress for women was painfully slow. For people of color (and especially women of color), it was even worse.
And we still have much further to go. For example, women are still perceived as having less leadership potential than their male colleagues—even when they are outperforming those same men on evaluations of current performance (Yale Insights). When the exact same resume is presented with a “white-sounding” name, companies are more than twice as likely to call the applicant for an interview than when the same resume is presented with a more traditionally non-white name (Harvard Business School). Just three years after graduation, 75% of men are paid more than their female classmates from the exact same programs at the exact same universities (Wall Street Journal). And two-thirds of the overall gender pay gap cannot be explained by factors such as work experience, sector, or type of job (Goldman Sachs).
MEI Doesn’t Work, and Here’s Why
Ironically, the most vocal champions of MEI tend to be the worst offenders when it comes to achieving diversity through what they claim to be the level playing field of meritocracy. Curiously, their approach to “hiring the best person for the job” almost always results in hiring a man and, generally, a white man. What are the odds of that in a true meritocracy? Are we to believe that women and people of color are simply not as competent, capable, driven, and effective? There is a wealth of research that indicates otherwise: Organizations with three or more women on their Boards enjoy a 10% increase in Return on Equity while companies with no female directors experience a 1% decline (Boston Consulting). Diverse teams have been shown to make better business decisions up to 87 percent of the time–and they do it twice as fast and with outcomes up to 60% better (Cloverpop). Companies with diverse management teams generate 45% of their total revenue from innovation compared to just 26% of revenue from those lacking diverse leadership (Boston Consulting). And those with culturally and ethnically diverse executive teams are 35% more likely to see above-average profits, while those with diverse Boards are 43% more likely to see above-average profits (McKinsey & Company).
Clearly, there is a flaw in the meritocracy model which has repeatedly failed to deliver the diversity that leads to business success. And here’s the flaw: We humans are wired to gravitate towards and show preference for those who are most like us; we just feel more comfortable and at ease with things that are familiar. Sociologists refer to it as Affinity Bias–the tendency to prefer those with similar characteristics, backgrounds, and experiences. Due to affinity bias, when we attempt to hire based on “merit, excellence, and intelligence” without simultaneously taking steps to mitigate our preference for the familiar, we can’t help but fail to objectively assess who has the most merit and is, therefore, the best person for the job. When we hear a hiring manager say, “This candidate is the best fit with our team,” it’s often code for “This candidate is the most similar to us and would, therefore, be easy and comfortable to work with.”
But that’s just it: comfort stifles success. Companies with diverse leadership teams have been repeatedly shown to be more innovative, efficient, and profitable–and that’s because it’s not always comfortable. Each member sees the world differently and brings different perspectives to business challenges. They rarely fall victim to groupthink, and they tend to challenge one another more often than not. And, in the end, they devise better solutions than more homogeneous teams would have done.
Modern DEI Works Because it Levels the Playing Field
Despite what the MEI flagbearers would have us believe, DEI has never been about giving unfair advantages to certain groups or handing out jobs to unqualified candidates. It’s always been about mitigating natural human biases and putting guardrails in place to facilitate objective sourcingandevaluation of candidates and employees. The evidence-based strategies for doing so include things like:
- Redacting names on resumes
- Taking the time to source and interview a diverse slate of candidates rather than defaulting to people already known to the hiring manager
- Requiring that every interview panel include women and people of color
- Asking a standardized battery of questions to every candidate
- Providing “just in time” reminders to hiring managers as they begin an interview or performance review process, reminding them about affinity bias, suggesting that they leverage the strategies listed above, etc.
- Investing in analytics and measurement tools to identify which departments or job bands have unexplainable disparities in terms of diversity, pay rates, promotions rates, etc.—and then taking action to re-train staff and correct the issues.
The list of strategies goes on. But, in short, DEI efforts are about levelling the playing field so that everyone has an equal opportunity to compete. When you do that, diversity almost always follows as a matter of course. Small changes often have a notable impact. For example, when companies commit to interviewing a diverse slate of candidates for every open leadership role—even if there are no hiring quotas—73% of those organizations add at least one woman to their executive teams. Another 27% reach full gender parity on their executive teams, the number of people of color in the C-Suite increases by 69% and the number on the Board increases by 78%—in the first 12-18 months alone.
And why is that? Because, quite simply, when the playing field is truly level, it’s anyone’s game.
Dina Schenk, President of Parity.Org.
The post <strong>MEH! on MEI</strong> appeared first on HR Daily Advisor.