Explore the DEI vs. MEI debate and DEI is crucial to fostering true meritocracy and innovation in the workplace.
In recent discussions, a new acronym has emerged—MEI, which stands for Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence. Proponents of MEI argue that organizations should focus on hiring the best candidates based solely on their qualifications, without considering demographic factors, claiming that diversity will naturally happen when decisions are based purely on merit. However, this perspective misses a crucial understanding of what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) truly encompass and why they are not only compatible with merit but essential to it.
DEI vs MEI: A Broader Perspective on Merit
In the DEI vs. MEI conversation, it’s important to recognize that merit isn’t just about qualifications on paper; it’s about the full spectrum of what a person brings to the table. This includes diverse perspectives, lived experiences, and the ability to navigate and contribute to a multicultural world. When we narrow our definition of merit to traditional metrics—such as degrees, years of experience, or specific technical skills—we overlook the invaluable contributions that come from a wide range of backgrounds.
In fact, companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 25% more likely to have above-average profitability, and those in the top quartile for ethnic and cultural diversity outperformed others by 36% in profitability.
DEI ensures that merit is seen in its fullest context. It recognizes that a candidate’s potential isn’t just shaped by their resume but also by the unique insights and problem-solving abilities that stem from their cultural, social, and experiential diversity. These diverse qualities can drive innovation, foster creativity, and enable teams to better serve a global customer base.
The Myth of Natural Diversity Through MEI
The DEI vs. MEI debate often hinges on the assumption that diversity will naturally happen if we just focus on merit. This idea, while appealing, is deeply flawed. For example, research has shown that resumes with names perceived as “ethnic” are 50% less likely to get callbacks compared to those with traditionally white-sounding names, despite having identical qualifications.
Without intentional DEI efforts, unconscious biases often come into play, leading to hiring decisions that favor those who look, think, and act like the decision-makers. This isn’t just about race or gender; it’s about a tendency to choose candidates with similar educational backgrounds, work experiences, and even personality traits.
DEI challenges us to be more aware of these biases and to actively seek out talent from underrepresented groups who may not have had the same opportunities to showcase their ‘merit’ in traditional ways. By expanding the definition of what constitutes excellence, DEI allows for a richer, more inclusive understanding of talent.
The Subjectivity of “Excellence”
Proponents of MEI argue that “excellence” should be the sole criterion for hiring. However, “excellence” is often subjective and influenced by cultural norms, biases, and systemic inequalities. What one person considers excellent may be different from another’s perspective. For instance, leadership styles can vary greatly across cultures; what’s seen as strong leadership in one context might be perceived differently in another.
DEI encourages us to broaden our understanding of excellence. It asks us to consider different leadership styles, communication methods, and problem-solving approaches as valuable and worth nurturing. This doesn’t dilute merit; it enriches it by ensuring that a wider array of talents and perspectives are recognized and rewarded.
DEI and MEI: Not Mutually Exclusive
The real fallacy in the DEI vs. MEI argument is the assumption that DEI and MEI are mutually exclusive. In reality, DEI enhances MEI by ensuring that a wider pool of talent is considered and that merit is assessed more equitably. By embracing DEI, organizations aren’t lowering the bar; they’re raising it by fostering environments where all employees have the opportunity to thrive and where the best ideas, regardless of their source, can come to the forefront.
Addressing Corporate Frustration with DEI
It’s true that some organizations have struggled with implementing DEI initiatives, often citing underinvestment and a lack of experienced leaders. But abandoning DEI in favor of MEI is not the solution. Instead, organizations need to invest in DEI with the same rigor and resources as they do in other critical business areas. This means training leaders to understand and value diversity, creating clear and measurable DEI goals, and holding the entire organization accountable for progress.
When done right, DEI doesn’t just create a more inclusive workplace; it drives better business outcomes. Research has consistently shown that diverse teams outperform homogeneous ones, particularly in problem-solving and decision-making. DEI is not a nice-to-have; it’s a business imperative.
Moving Forward
The move towards MEI under the guise of pure meritocracy risks undoing much of the progress that has been made in creating more inclusive workplaces. It’s important to understand that merit, excellence, and intelligence are not in opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion. In fact, they are deeply intertwined. True meritocracy can only be achieved when we recognize and actively work to eliminate the barriers that have historically excluded talented individuals from certain backgrounds.
DEI is not about lowering standards; it’s about redefining them in a way that truly reflects the diverse world we live in. By doing so, we create a workplace where everyone has the opportunity to excel and where the full range of human potential is recognized and valued.
If you’re looking to deepen your organization’s commitment to DEI and create an environment where every employee can thrive, explore our Online Diversity Calendar. Start making a difference today.