On the Basis of Merit: The Only Fair Way Forward

Merit must be the driving force in business leadership in this country today—in hiring, retention, promotion, and assignment of duties. In order for the American economy and culture to be successful, rewards must be on the basis of merit.

The presumption that diversity, equity, and inclusion are at odds with merit is not only incorrect, it is revolting. Any bifurcation of the U.S. workforce into “DEI-hires” and “merit-hires” is divisive and must be challenged, especially when the DEI label is used to refer to anyone except white men. Merit is distributed across all groups and not the purview of any one group.

The irony is that the theory of meritocracy has been a struggle Americans have faced in government, across economic sectors and throughout society for more than 100 years. The Pendleton Act of 1883 pronounced an end to the familiar practice of awarding federal jobs “on the basis of political affiliation or personal relationships.”

It was revamped and upheld by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.

In his first term as president, Donald Trump introduced Schedule F to restore executive power for appointments, which was undone by President Joe Biden in an attempt to reinstate hiring fairness. Mr. Trump recently signed an executive order to reinstate Schedule F and re-establish executive power in hiring. This is indicative of the ongoing tug-of-war over the scope and scale of the civil service.

The latest top-level Cabinet confirmations – though contested vigorously – and the unprecedented dismantling of DEI efforts in government agencies, companies, universities, and organizations, have rattled what the federal government established with The Merit System, which is upheld by the U.S. Merit Systems Management Board. The system aims to manage the federal workforce and eliminate the “spoils system” of hiring on the basis of political patronage and loyalty, not performance or results.

Hiring on the basis of merit in the government is now at risk.

According to the 2020 updated document, “The merit system principles (MSPs) are nine basic standards that govern the management of the executive branch workforce and serve as the foundation of the federal civil service.’’

The principles include recruitment, equity, and neutrality, with these specific actions to avoid: basing personnel decisions on factors other than merit," and assuring employees are “protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purpose.”

Recent moves show these are not only blatantly ignored by the executive branch today, but trampled. There is pushback, as, recently, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld all DEI efforts in the state.

To level-set, merit is about results – such as measurable outcomes, acquired skills or education, job performance, competencies, certificates, credentials, problem-solving, innovation, collaboration, and more. Knowing a person’s race, ethnicity, or gender tells us nothing about their merit. Assumptions about a person’s merit that are based upon their race or gender are useless unless they are proven by examination of results.

Not just in government, but in the workplace, subjectivity needs to be removed and replaced with objective comparisons based on ethical and transparent modes of assessment that are tied to specific goals and accomplishments. Legacy, loyalty, alliance, and allegiance are not factors of merit.

The decision to hire, retain, and promote individuals should be based on objective criteria, not on potential, aspirations, likeability, or promises. These decisions are routinely taken by leaders and leading organizations. The best leaders know the power of objectivity in getting the best people from a robust talent pool, but this has not hindered the latest attempts by some major corporations and organizations to model federal compliance and adhere to anti-DEI initiatives with their own shutdowns of programs, resources, and efforts aimed at inclusion.

Pepsico is cutting back on DEI efforts, and Disney recently canceled its Reimagined Tomorrow program to give space to underrepresented voices in the same week that Goldman Sachs and Deloitte each catapulted their diversity programs. The roster of companies that earlier rejected DEI efforts include Meta, Amazon, Google, McDonald’s, and Walmart.

Deloitte has recently jumped onto the anti-DEI bandwagon; a confusing move as Deloitte is the author of the annual global Diversity initiatives report that unequivocally demonstrates the benefits and profitability of diversity initiatives.

“We will sunset our workforce and business aspirational diversity goals, our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Transparency Report, and our DEI programming,” said Deloitte Chief People Officer Doug Beaudoin.

Costco, on the other hand, stands out as a giant operation that is openly rejecting the anti-DEI demands.

Recent research from The Conference Board shows momentum towards race and gender equity in corporate boardrooms has slowed. The number of women in boardrooms increased from 32% in 2023 to 34% in 2024, while the percentage of racially/ethnically diverse directors increased from 25% in 2023 to 26% in 2024. The rest are white and male.

Success is attributed to a leader’s ability to hire, train, retain, and promote those individuals who have merit and produce the results needed. It is not about aspiration or intention; it is about outcomes. Mandating business leaders to follow new rules that constrain them to eliminate valuable employees from the candidate pool will be disastrous, not just for that organization, but for the economy and for America in the short- and long term.

The notion that America is a place where only competent white men – to the exclusion of everyone else – can be in charge is reprehensible. The recent actions of the White House and C-suites to bar diverse candidates from competing for positions is not corrective, it is destructive. It is a conversation based on what leaders are against, not what they are for.

There is no need for anyone in America to hide from the metrics of merit. Merit itself is colorblind and genderblind—like justice.