How DEI Optimizes (Not Compromises) Merit

Forbes

6 days ago

Heather Price | Founder and Co-CEO at Symmetra | Recognised Global DEI Expert.
There has been no shortage of claims lately that DEI has gone too far and compromised merit, and that fair treatment in the workplace should be determined by merit alone. But I believe this view is based on a false dichotomy.
Diversity and meritocracy are not mutually exclusive. Far from undermining merit, a well-designed and well-implemented DEI strategy nurtures merit by identifying and dismantling hidden barriers and practices that exclude anyone from fair opportunity.
The Paradox Of Meritocracy
Meritocracy, the principle that rewards should be based on individual ability and effort, is a cherished ideal. But research shows that when institutions declare themselves to be meritocratic, they often become more—not less—biased.
In a foundational study, it was found that companies professing a strong belief in meritocracy were more likely to reward men over equally performing women because the belief in objectivity ironically reduces self-scrutiny in decisions, giving managers subconscious permission to act on stereotypes. This highlights a critical truth: Declaring systems meritocratic does not make them so.
Genuine meritocracy requires active effort to identify and correct systemic distortions that obstruct the fair progression of all talent. This is precisely what DEI practices set out to achieve: to recognize and reward true merit and embed fairness for all in the workplace.
In fact, new research demonstrates that a focus on high performance and rewarding merit, properly implemented, has the effect of increasing diversity.
Bias And Barriers To Real Meritocracy
There is a raft of research demonstrating the structural and cognitive barriers that prevent true merit-based decisions.
People tend to favor those similar to themselves. This affects hiring, performance reviews and promotions into leadership, which often privilege Western communication styles or prestigious educational pedigrees.
The irony is that diversity and performance are positively correlated, not contradictory. A peer-reviewed study on 43,000 hedge funds showed that diverse teams outperformed more homogenous teams by 4% to 6% annually through superior arbitrage of market anomalies, greater ability to avoid behavioral biases and superior risk management.
When non-majority individuals fear being judged through stereotypes, their performance can suffer, a phenomenon called stereotype threat. These folks internalize the message that they don't fit the mold of success, which reinforces their sense of being an "imposter." In a survey of 750 female executives, KPMG found that 75% of them reported experiencing imposter syndrome at certain points in their careers, most often when transitioning to new roles.
Meanwhile, implicit bias skews evaluations, even among well-intentioned leaders, often undervaluing the contributions of non-majority employees. The Kirwan Institute's "State of the Science" report consolidates recent findings on implicit bias, emphasizing its pervasive nature across the workplace and underscoring the importance of systemic approaches for effective mitigation.
Many high-potential non-majority candidates face barriers long before they enter the workplace: unequal access to elite schools, mentors, internships or international assignments, thereby developing less "experience capital." Without deliberate interventions, diverse talent remains underdeveloped or invisible in traditional talent pipelines.
In the workplace, merit-based advancement is defined as proven performance combined with future potential. And herein lies the problem, because studies show that men are promoted based on potential, due to more confidence in their future promise, while women employees are promoted only on proven performance and repeated proof of their capability to achieve similar advancement. This systemic bias contributes significantly to persistent disparities in diverse leadership.
Research shows that women often receive less actionable and more vague feedback compared to men. Without clear, developmental, skills-based feedback, they struggle to pinpoint what's needed for advancement, and the cumulative impact renders them less likely to advance into more senior positions.
Strategies To Build A Diverse Meritocracy—Without Backlash
The goal is not to lower the bar, but to find the best people, including those often overlooked. Below are evidence-based strategies to do so.
• Reframe and refine job descriptions with communal rather than agentic language, including recognition of transferrable skills and experience.
• Use structured interviews. These reduce bias and are more predictive of performance than unstructured ones.
• Remove identity markers from CVs to avoid implicit bias.
• Rely on skills-based assessments rather than credentials or referrals, which often perpetuate exclusivity.
• Broaden outreach to candidates who would be unaware of or unlikely to apply for opportunities.
• Offer targeted sponsorship and stretch assignments to high-potential employees from underrepresented backgrounds.
• Audit promotion data to spot patterns of attrition or stagnation.
• Use consistent, job-related, transparent criteria for advancement to minimize "cultural fit" as an exclusionary standard and disrupt similarity bias of managers.
• Introduce evidence-based approaches to ensure fairness around promotions and pay.
• Mandate the use of bias disruption processes in talent acquisition and talent management.
• Position DEI as a business and innovation strategy.
• Frame DEI as enhancing merit and objectivity, not compromising it.
• Highlight the performance dividends of diverse teams: better decision-making, greater creativity, stronger financial results.
Top-down DEI mandates can backfire if seen as imposed or punitive. Instead:
• Build coalitions and engage managers as partners in talent discovery.
• Position inclusion as a fundamental leadership competency for future-fit leaders .
• Leverage employee voices to build understanding that the objective of DEI is to recognize and reward true merit and embed fairness for all in the workplace .
Conclusion: DEI Is Merit
Meritocracy is a powerful and necessary goal—but it cannot be achieved by declaring it. It must be built, intentionally and inclusively. DEI is not a deviation from merit but a strategy to elevate it, especially when bias and inequity are systemic.
When organizations commit to dismantling these barriers, they don't dilute excellence; they multiply it. The future belongs to organizations that understand this truth and lead accordingly.
Forbes Human Resources Council is an invitation-only organization for HR executives across all industries. Do I qualify?