This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

Workplaces need to re-examine and challenge what merit-based positions actually mean, according to an Australian report which says meritocracies sometimes hide gender biases and protect a male-dominated status quo.

The report from Chief Executive Women and Male Champions of Change cited research which found that the more an organisation described itself as a meritocracy, the greater the bias from managers towards men over equally qualified women.

Women start out as ambitious as men but it erodes over time, says researcher Read more

“Many studies confirm that we are drawn to those who think, look and act like us,” the report found.

“This is a problem for women working in male-dominated environments where there are deeply held beliefs and norms about who is suitable for leadership. Research has found that gender bias persists in many organisations, and even more so in self-labelled ‘meritocracies’.”

Managers in some meritocracies genuinely believed they hired objectively and therefore did not examine their biases, the report said. Yet research had found senior men in Australian business were twice as likely to rank other men over women as effective problem-solvers, despite also saying they believed women were as capable of achieving desired outcomes as men.

“A recent study of 200 performance reviews in a US high tech company found women were more than three times more likely to receive feedback about having a negative (aggressive) communication style than men, with women often criticised for behaviour that may be considered leadership credential if shown by a man,” the report said.

Male Champions of Change convener Elizabeth Broderick said the idea that merit is objective was often taken for granted.

“But in fact, it’s been shown to be highly subjective, particularly when trying to assess someone’s potential for a role,” she said. “And wherever there’s subjectivity, we’re at risk of bias.”

Five myths about why there aren't more women at the top Read more

Many senior leaders did not value the different attributes that women were perceived as bringing to an organisation, and as a result, were more likely to promote individuals similar to themselves, the report found.

“The leadership attributes perceived to be more likely to be demonstrated by men are more readily acknowledged and rewarded by most organisations,” it said. “Valuing diverse leadership is key to confronting and overcoming the merit trap.”



While answering questions from reporters following his address to the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday, the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, spoke about the Labor party being progressive because more than 40% of its caucus are women, with the aim of achieving 50-50 representation by 2025.

He accused the Liberal party of “going backwards” in terms of female representation in leadership.

“I know there are some conservatives who always talk about under their rules that women get promoted by merit,” Shorten said.

“But when merit is defined by a ruling group, it’s a little hard to broaden the definition.”

The report said that leaders answer questions such as: is your preferred candidate just like you? Does your organisation struggle to retain diverse recruits? Are you labelling candidates with different styles, skills and experiences as risky or a poor fit with the team? Are you regularly dismissing otherwise suitable candidates because they aren’t seen as the ‘right cultural fit’ or as having a familiar leadership and communication style? Are the criteria based on past requirements and a description of the incumbent rather than future strategic needs?

“If you answered ‘yes’, then your assumptions may be getting in the way of an outcome based on merit,” the report said.