JUNE 2018 | management.co.nz | M 19
MANAGING FOR A BETTER WORLD MANAGEMENT
WHEN DISCUSSIONS AROUND
diversity fire up, particularly diversity at
senior leadership levels, it doesn’t usually
take long for the word “merit” to be
uttered.
“We appoint on merit”, “we promote
on merit” are the phrases trotted out.
Gone are the days when your family ties,
race, religion or wealth could open up
opportunities unavailable to others. Merit
is seen as an objective measure where
everyone has a chance of getting to the
role they aspire to as long as they put in
the work. If there’s a lack of diversity then
it’s because there aren’t the candidates
with the skills for the job.
It’s something I’ve talked about in my
role as Dean of the AUT Business School.
My faculty executive team has flipped the
gender balance, but I’m quick to point
out that every one of them deserves their
spot at the table and got there on merit.
However, I must admit, I’ve never thought
to say that about the male appointments
to my disproportionately male team of
departmental heads.
The “merit” argument has the effect of
masking the lack of equal opportunity.
A report by McKinsey released late
last year says that despite earning more
college degrees than men for at least 30
years, women were under-represented at
every level in corporate America.
Highlights from the Women in the
Workplace 2017 report show women
were less optimistic than men about
their prospects of promotion. Breaking
down the genders further, 59 percent
of white women thought they had an
equal opportunity for growth as their
peers, 41 percent agreed that promotions
were based on fair and objective criteria,
and 40 percent thought that the best
opportunities went to the most deserving
employees. For black women those
stats were at least 10 percentage points
lower, with only 29 percent of black
women agreeing that the most deserving
employees got the best opportunities.
As researchers Ruth Simpson and
Savita Kumra point out in their article
“The Teflon effect: when the glass slipper
Talk of merit, not always helpful
The “merit” argument in appointing someone to a role has the effect of masking the lack
of equal opportunity. By Kate Kearins.
to risky or precarious roles with a
high likelihood of leadership failure,
or the glass wall that corrals women
into jobs or functional areas with
less opportunity of advancement –
the glass slipper metaphor describes
hidden but durable organisational
processes that favour some groups at
the expense of others, say Simpson
and Kumra.
When the glass slipper meets merit
you get the Teflon effect, say the pair.
In some people merit “fails to stick”.
Qualities that are seen as positives
in a man, are dismissed in women.
They say the Teflon effect explains
how the glass ceiling persists
even though we are supposedly
appointing on merit.
McKinsey suggest that inequality
starts at the very first appointment
or promotion. Its examination of
the corporate pipeline showed fewer
women were hired at the start of the
pipeline, with a drop-off at every
promotional step. The narrowing of
that pipeline was much more marked
for women of colour.
Some of the solutions involve
greater specification of gender
representation in the candidate
recruitment pool, having greater
gender balance on appointments or
promotions panels, and considering
candidates achievements in a more
contextualised and nuanced manner.
Candidates who confidently express
their own merit in an interview
situation need to be carefully weighed
up against those less confident.
Development opportunities need
to be considered for all, not just
the supposedly more meritorious.
Traditional models of success and
defensive discourse – such as the
singular emphasis often put on a
loaded word like merit – are ripe for
questioning. MKate Kearins KU2TQHGUUQTQH
Management and Dean of the AUT
$WUKPGUU5EJQQNmeets merit”, when organisations have
a hierarchy dominated by men, the
benchmark for the ‘best person for
the job’ is often based on a masculine
model of success.
“This bias is largely hidden by
the desire to see merit in fixed,
universal terms, where it can assuage
concerns about unequal allocations
of power and authority and provide
a discursive mechanism by which
inequality is justified.”
Like the ugly sisters, women and
other minorities are trying to squeeze
their feet into leadership ‘glass
slippers’. They might have the right
skills to be a ‘princess’ but the shoe is
not designed to fit. Like those other
barriers to promotion – the glass
ceiling stopping the advancement of
women into senior roles, the glass
cliff that sees women only appointedMcKinsey suggest that
inequality starts at the
very irst appointment
or promotion. Its
examination of the
corporate pipeline
showed fewer women
were hired at the start
of the pipeline, with
a drop-of at every
promotional step.”