Meritocracy Only Works for Those Who Have Decoded What 'Merit' Is

Meritocracy, at face value, promises an ideal society where individuals succeed purely based on their skills, abilities, and efforts. It suggests a level playing field where success is determined by merit alone, independent of factors such as class, race, gender, or social background.

However, while this concept sounds equitable, its real-world application often reinforces the very inequalities it claims to overcome. The notion of "merit" is not as neutral or objective as it might seem, and often it benefits those who have already decoded what constitutes merit within their specific contexts. To unpack this further, it is essential to understand how privilege - enabled by characteristics like socio-economic background, education, gender, and institutional biases influence the understanding and achievement of merit.

The Origins of Meritocracy

The term "meritocracy" was coined in 1958 by British sociologist Michael Young in his satirical book The Rise of the Meritocracy. In the book, Young warned against the dangers of a system that rewards only merit, arguing that it would lead to a highly stratified society. Ironically, the concept was later embraced by politicians and policymakers as a solution to inequality, with merit becoming the supposed antidote to privilege.

In theory, meritocracy offers opportunities based solely on individual talent and effort. But in practice, the social conditions necessary for recognising and achieving merit are unequally distributed. The question then arises: Who decides what merit is, and who benefits from its criteria?

Decoding 'Merit': Who Gets to Define It?

Merit, in many contexts, is not an objective measure but a social construct defined by those in power. In elite institutions such as prestigious universities and top corporate firms, merit is often conflated with qualifications and experiences that are more accessible to those from affluent backgrounds.

For instance, according to a 2019 report by the Sutton Trust, just 7% of the UK population attends private schools, yet 39% of those in top jobs, such as senior judges and government officials, come from this small, elite group. This over-representation of the privately educated in high-ranking positions suggests that merit, as defined by these institutions, is linked to opportunities that are unevenly distributed from the start.

In the U.S., the 2019 college admissions scandal highlighted how wealthy parents paid large sums of money to secure spots for their children at prestigious universities, further eroding the notion that success is based on merit. While the scandal involved illegal activities, it illuminated a broader, more systemic issue: access to resources that enable the appearance of merit. Families with wealth can afford better schools, tutors, and extracurricular activities, all of which enhance the "merit" their children are perceived to have, giving them a distinct advantage over those without such resources.

The Role of Socio-Economic Background

Socio-economic background plays a significant role in one’s ability to understand and achieve merit. A 2018 study by the Social Mobility Commission in the UK found that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are significantly less likely to move into high-paying jobs compared to those from affluent families. The report revealed that only 34% of individuals from working-class backgrounds attained professional occupations, compared to 60% of their middle-class peers.

This disparity is not due to a lack of talent or effort but a lack of access to the networks, mentorship, and opportunities that help individuals succeed. In a meritocratic system, where success is based on individual merit, those without these advantages find it harder to break into industries that reward particular credentials and experiences. As a result, meritocracy often perpetuates social immobility rather than alleviating it.

Education: The Great (Unequal) Equaliser

Education is often touted as the great equaliser in a meritocratic society, offering individuals from all backgrounds the chance to improve their circumstances through learning and hard work. However, access to quality education remains deeply unequal. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), students from disadvantaged backgrounds are significantly less likely to achieve high levels of academic success compared to their more affluent peers. A 2017 OECD report showed that in countries like the UK and U.S., socio-economic status has a strong correlation with academic performance, meaning students from wealthier families are far more likely to achieve high scores, enter prestigious universities, and secure better job opportunities.

Moreover, the criteria used to assess academic success - standardised tests and examinations, for example -are often biased toward the experiences and backgrounds of middle- and upper-class students. A 2019 study published in Educational Researcher found that standardised test scores in the U.S. closely correlate with household income, highlighting how wealth can buy educational advantage. This raises the question: Is merit really a fair measure when it is so strongly influenced by external factors beyond individual control?

Workplace Meritocracy: Myth or Reality?

Meritocracy also manifests in the workplace, where promotions and career advancements are supposed to be based on performance. Yet, research shows that gender, race, and social background continue to influence workplace outcomes, even in environments that claim to be meritocratic.

A 2019 study by McKinsey & Company found that women, especially women of colour, are significantly underrepresented in corporate leadership roles, despite performing as well as, or better than, their male counterparts.

The report highlights that while women are just as likely to ask for promotions as men, they are far less likely to receive them. This discrepancy suggests that merit is not the only factor at play in career advancement.

Similarly, a 2018 Harvard Business Review article emphasised how the concept of "cultural fit" in hiring and promotions often serves as a proxy for perpetuating existing biases.

The Hidden Curriculum of Merit

What becomes clear is that the ability to decode and achieve merit is not equally accessible to everyone. Those who have the social, economic, and cultural capital to understand and navigate the implicit rules of meritocratic systems are at an advantage. This phenomenon is often referred to as the "hidden curriculum," where unspoken norms, behaviours, and values shape individuals' success within meritocratic frameworks.

For example, soft skills like networking, self-presentation, and confidence are often not explicitly taught but are crucial to success in many professional environments. Research by sociologist Lauren Rivera, published in her 2015 book Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs, found that elite employers often prioritise these intangible qualities over hard skills, further privileging those who have been socialised to navigate these environments from a young age.

Meritocracy’s Blind Spots

Meritocracy, in its ideal form, promises fairness and equal opportunity. However, it often overlooks the complex social, economic, and cultural factors that shape individuals’ ability to achieve and demonstrate merit. Those who have already decoded what merit is - by virtue of their background, education, or social networks - are better positioned to succeed in systems that claim to reward talent and effort alone.

For meritocracy to truly work, society must address the structural inequalities that influence who gets to define and achieve merit. Without such reforms, meritocracy will continue to serve the interests of the few while leaving many behind.