In the world of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), certain words carry significant weight. They shape hiring decisions, promotions, funding allocations and leadership pathways. One of the most commonly used, and least interrogated, terms is “merit-based”. At face value, it sounds fair. Objective. Even ethical. But does it always function that way in practice?
What “Merit-Based” was Supposed to Mean
A merit-based system is generally defined as one that awards opportunities, such as jobs, scholarships or promotions, based on an individual’s demonstrated abilities, achievements, qualifications and performance. It should deliberately ignore personal connections, social or economic background in favour of talent, competence and effort.
On the surface, that feels right. Why wouldn’t we want the “best” person for the role? However, the challenge lies not in the intention of meritocracy, but in how we define and measure “merit.”
When Merit Becomes Misleading
Let’s consider a common scenario. Two candidates apply for the same engineering role. Both achieved a First-Class degree in Engineering. One studied at the University of Oxford. The other studied at the University of Kent.
On paper, their academic outcomes are identical. Yet many organisations may instinctively favour the candidate from Oxford because of its prestige. The assumption, often unconscious, is that a degree from a more “elite” institution signals greater ability.
But what if the candidate from Kent was unable to attend Oxford due to financial or structural constraints? What if they didn’t have access to the same networks, school preparation, or family support?
Imagine the same two candidates who both achieved a First: one benefited from private tutoring from an early age, strong school guidance, and the freedom to focus entirely on study. The other balanced part-time work, caring responsibilities at home, and limited academic support, yet still achieved the same outcome.
In this context, achieving a First may not signal equal opportunity, but unequal journeys. What we describe as “merit-based” decision-making can therefore unintentionally reinforce socio-economic advantage. In this case, what we call “merit-based” decision-making may actually reinforce socio-economic advantage.
The Context We Often Ignore
Traditional markers of merit, university attended, polished CVs, internships at well-known firms, often reflect access to opportunity as much as they reflect capability. The reality is simple: not everyone starts from the same place. Some people begin at what we might call “-5.”
Some start at “0.” Others begin at “+3.”
When we evaluate everyone by the same narrow criteria without acknowledging different starting points, we risk mistaking merit for privilege. This is not about lowering standards. It is about broadening our understanding of merit.
Rethinking How We Evaluate Talent
If we truly want to build meritocratic organisations, we need more context. Instead of relying solely on traditional indicators like institutional prestige, organisations can:
These approaches do not compromise quality. In fact, they often uncover high-performing individuals who may otherwise be overlooked.
Merit in an Unequal World
We do not yet live in a world of true equity. Structural barriers, such as socio-economic status, race, geography, disability, access to education, still shape who gets exposure, encouragement and opportunity. If we ignore these realities, “merit-based” systems can unintentionally perpetuate inequality while appearing neutral. True meritocracy requires acknowledging context. It requires recognising that achievement is relative to opportunity. It requires us to ask deeper questions:
Moving Forward
Merit is not a flawed concept. But our understanding of it needs refining. When we rely exclusively on traditional metrics, we risk overlooking talented individuals who could perform just as well, or better,in a role. By incorporating context into how we define and evaluate merit, we move closer to genuine fairness. In EDI work, language matters. And so does intention. Perhaps it’s time to redefine what we really mean when we say “merit-based”.
.png)
