July 21, 2025 • 27 mins
The Myth of Meritocracy: Unpacking Workplace Inequality
In this episode of PsyberSpace, host Leslie Poston explores the illusion of meritocracy in the workplace. Despite the comforting narrative that hard work leads to success, systemic biases and structural inequalities often shape career outcomes more than individual effort. The episode digs into psychological concepts like the just world hypothesis and fundamental attribution error, and cultural factors such as the American Dream and survivor bias. Leslie discusses how these beliefs perpetuate inequality and internalized oppression, offering insights into how organizations and individuals can foster a more equitable environment. Tune in to learn why meritocracy is a myth and how recognizing this can lead to positive change.
00:00 Introduction to Meritocracy
01:43 The Just World Hypothesis and Fundamental Attribution Error
03:14 The Illusion of Control and Cognitive Consistency
04:57 Cultural Programming and Survivor Bias
07:36 System Justification and the Matthew Effect
09:37 Internalized Depression and Imposter Syndrome
14:30 Algorithmic Bias and Workplace Gaslighting
21:36 Challenging the Meritocracy Myth
25:18 Conclusion and Call to Action
Research
★ Support this podcast ★Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Leslie Poston (00:11):
Welcome back to PsyberSpace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston. And today, we'regoing to talk about something
that feels true to a lot ofpeople because it's supposed to.
We're told that success isearned, that if you just work
hard enough, if you hustle, ifyou follow the rules, you'll be
rewarded. That promotions,respect, and financial security
(00:35):
go to the most qualified people.
That the workplace is ameritocracy. It's a comforting
story, but not a very accurateone. In reality, meritocracy in
the workplace is often anillusion, a powerful one, one
that shapes how we judgeourselves, how we judge others,
and how systems justifyinequality. Today, we're
(00:58):
unpacking the psychological,cultural, and structural pieces
of that illusion, why it's sopersistent, who benefits from
it, and why it's quietly doingall of us harm. Let's start with
the basics.
Meritocracy is the belief thatpeople rise or fall based on
(01:19):
their abilities and effort. Inthis worldview, the workplace is
a kind of neutral playing fieldwhere talent gets rewarded,
laziness gets punished, andoutcomes are fair. There's a
reason this idea has so muchstaying power. Psychologically,
it serves multiple functionsthat help us navigate
(01:39):
uncertainty and maintain oursense of agency. First, there's
what we call the just worldhypothesis.
Research has shown that peoplehave a deep psychological need
to believe that their world isfundamentally fair, that good
things happen to good people,and bad things happen to bad
people. This belief helps peoplefeel safer and more in control
(02:04):
of their own fate. But here'sthe problem. When we apply just
world thinking to workplaceoutcomes, we end up victim
blaming. If someone doesn't getpromoted, we assume they must
have done something wrong.
If someone is laid off, we lookfor reasons why they deserved
it. We do this because thealternative, accepting that
(02:26):
unfairness is systemic and oftenrandom, feels too threatening.
The just world hypothesis workshand in hand with what we call
the fundamental attributionerror. This is our tendency to
explain other people's outcomesbased on their character while
explaining our own outcomesbased on circumstances. So when
(02:48):
a colleague gets ahead, weassume it's because they're
naturally talented orpolitically savvy.
When we don't get ahead, wefocus on external barriers, an
unfair boss, a broken system, orbad timing. Meritocracy exploits
this cognitive bias. Itencourages us to see success as
(03:09):
a personal achievement whilemaking failure feel like a
personal flaw. And there's alsothe illusion of control at play
here. Research has demonstratedthat people consistently
overestimate their ability toinfluence outcomes, especially
in ambiguous situations.
The workplace is full ofambiguity, unclear promotion
(03:31):
criteria, subjective performancereviews, office politics that
shift without warning. In thatcontext, believing in
meritocracy gives us theillusion that we can control our
career trajectory through effortalone. But perhaps more
importantly, meritocracy tapsinto our need for cognitive
consistency. The theory ofcognitive dissonance, which
(03:54):
we've talked about before, showsus that when our beliefs
conflict with reality, weexperience psychological
discomfort. Rather than changeour beliefs, we often change our
interpretation of reality.
So when someone works incrediblyhard but doesn't advance,
instead of questioning whetherthe system is fair, we might
(04:15):
conclude they're not workinghard enough or not working smart
enough or maybe they're just notcut out for leadership. That's
psychologically easier thanaccepting that the game might be
rigged. Research shows thatAmericans in particular cling
tightly to this belief becauseit reinforces our national
(04:37):
identity. It aligns with themythology of the American dream
where anyone can supposedly pullthemselves up by their
bootstraps. The promise ofupward mobility is deeply
ingrained even as real economicdata shows it's becoming
increasingly out of reach.
This cultural programming startsearly. From childhood, we're
(05:01):
taught stories about hard workpaying off. The little engine
that could, the tortoise and thehare, Horatio Alger tales of
poor boys becoming millionairesthrough nothing but grit and
determination. In the businessworld, this narrative gets
amplified through what we mightcall survivor bias in
storytelling. We hear constantlyabout the college dropout who
(05:24):
became a tech billionaire, theimmigrant who built an empire,
the small town kid who made itto the c suite.
These stories are real, butthey're not representative. For
every success story wecelebrate, there are thousands
of people with similarbackgrounds, work ethics,
opportunities, and talents whodidn't make it. Not because they
(05:47):
lacked merit, but because theylacked luck, a certain
connection, or the exact rightcircumstances. Cultural research
has shown how these culturalmodels shape our expectations
and our behavior. In Americanculture, the model of the self
made individual is so dominantthat it becomes nearly
(06:08):
impossible to see how structuralfactors race, class, gender,
geography, or timing influenceoutcomes.
This creates what we callideological hegemony when
dominant groups' worldviewsbecome so normalized that
they're accepted even by thepeople who are disadvantaged by
them. Working class peopledefend tax cuts for the wealthy.
(06:33):
Women argue against family leavepolicies. People of color oppose
affirmative action. Why?
Because they've internalized themeritocratic narrative so deeply
that they can no longer see howthe system is working against
them. In corporate settings, themeritocracy myth isn't just
(06:55):
culturally comforting it'sfunctional. It gives leaders a
convenient justification fordecisions that might otherwise
require more transparency andaccountability. A manager
promotes someone who looks andtalks like them? Well, they
earned it.
A leadership team is mostly menfrom elite schools? Well, that's
(07:15):
just where the best talent camefrom. A new leader comes on and
fires the team of women andhires men that they've worked
with before? Well, that companyhad better talent. It's rare for
anyone to stop and ask whetherthe selection criteria
themselves are biased,exclusionary, or simply
arbitrary.
(07:36):
Research on system justificationtheory shows that people are
motivated to rationalizeexisting social arrangements
even when they're unequalbecause it helps reduce
uncertainty and cognitivedissonance. Believing that the
system is fair, even when itisn't, is psychologically easier
than facing how deeply it'srigged. But system justification
(07:59):
doesn't affect everyone equally.The people who benefit most from
existing systems are the mostlikely to defend them. And this
creates what we call the Mattheweffect, a phenomenon where
advantages compound over time.
Those who start with smalladvantages, a better network, a
little more resources, culturalfamiliarity, accumulate larger
(08:23):
and larger benefit, while thosewho start with disadvantages
fall further and further behind.Organizations amplify the
Matthew effect through seeminglyneutral policies that actually
favor the already privileged.Networking events happening
after work hours disadvantagepeople with caregiving
(08:43):
responsibilities or who rely onpublic transportation. Stretch
assignments go to people who canafford to take risks. Leadership
potential gets attributed topeople who display confidence in
culturally specific ways.
And meanwhile, the halo effect,our tendency to let one positive
trait influence our overalljudgment, means that once
(09:06):
someone is marked as highpotential, their mistakes get
excused and their successes getamplified. Once someone is
perceived as not leadershipmaterial, the opposite happens.
If you've ever felt like afailure for not being promoted
or wondered why your colleaguewho does so much less gets
(09:27):
rewarded more or doubted yourown talent despite working twice
as hard, this part's for you.Meritocracy doesn't just distort
reality. It also shifts blamedownward, creating what
psychologists are callinginternalized oppression.
When people from marginalizedgroups don't succeed in systems
that claim to be fair, they canoften conclude that something is
(09:51):
wrong with them rather than withthe system. This feeds directly
into impostor syndrome, thepersistent feeling that you're
not qualified for your role andthat others will eventually
discover that, oh, you're afraud. Research first identified
this phenomenon in highachieving women, but subsequent
studies have shown it affectsanyone who feels like an
(10:12):
outsider in their environment.Here's the insidious part.
Imposter syndrome is often arational response to being in
spaces where you are genuinelynot welcome or where standards
are being applied differently toyou.
Instead of recognizing this as asystemic issue, we pathologize
it as an individual problem thatcan be fixed with more
(10:34):
confidence or a better selftalk, maybe by doing a power
pose in your mirror. Thepsychological toll of constantly
questioning your own competenceis enormous. It leads to what we
call vigilance fatigue, theexhaustion that comes from
constantly monitoring yourenvironment for threats and
adjusting your behavior to fitin. People from underrepresented
(10:58):
groups often report feeling likethey have to work twice as hard
to prove themselves, and databacks this up. Stereotype
threat, a groundbreakingresearch concept, tells us that
when people are aware they mightconfirm negative stereotypes
about their group, theirperformance actually suffers.
(11:18):
So a black employee worryingabout being seen as angry might
become less assertive inmeetings. A woman concerned
about being seen as tooemotional might suppress
legitimate concerns. The veryawareness of bias creates
additional cognitive load thatimpacts performance, And this
creates a vicious cycle.Marginalized employees
(11:41):
underperform due to extra stressand cognitive burden, which gets
interpreted as evidence thatthey're less capable, which
reinforces the biases thatcreated the problem in the first
place. Let's be clear (11:52):
talent and effort do matter, but
they're far from the wholestory.
Who gets ahead at work oftendepends on networks, visibility,
communication style, pedigree,and perceived confidence,
factors that are deeply shapedby socioeconomic background. And
(12:15):
this is where the concept ofcultural capital becomes
crucial. Research shows thatpeople bring with them a set of
habits, tastes, and ways ofmoving through the world that
signal status to gatekeeperseven if they're unaware of it.
People who know how to performprofessionalism, something we've
talked about in a previous inthe dominant style tend to get
(12:38):
ahead faster even if others havestronger technical skills.
Studies on class reproductionhave shown that middle and upper
class children are often trainedfrom a young age to navigate
institutions and advocate forthemselves in ways that later
look like competence inprofessional settings.
(12:58):
They learn to speak up inmeetings, question authority
respectfully, and presentthemselves with confidence.
Working class children, bycontrast, are often taught to
defer to authority and not makewaves. These are adaptive
strategies in theirenvironments, but they can be
misread as a lack of leadershippotential in professional
settings. Research on hiring inelite professional service firms
(13:22):
revealed that managers oftenselected candidates not based on
objective performance but onculture fit, shared hobbies,
communication style, even howyou dress. These subjective
preferences were framed asindicators of merit, but in
practice, they reinforced class,racial, and gender bias.
(13:44):
The concept of homophily, thetendency for similar people to
associate with each other, meansthat hiring managers
unconsciously favor candidateswho remind them of themselves.
This isn't necessarilymalicious. It can be, but it
definitely systematicallyexcludes people from different
(14:05):
backgrounds. And there's alsothis issue of social networks
and what we call the strength ofweak ties. Many of the best job
opportunities are never postedpublicly.
They're filled through informalnetworks. If you don't have
access to those networks, you'reautomatically excluded from
opportunities regardless of yourqualifications. In theory,
(14:32):
digital hiring tools andartificial intelligence decision
systems are supposed toeliminate bias. In practice,
they often replicate andreinforce it while adding a
veneer of objectivity that makesbias harder to detect and
challenge. A recent field studytested algorithmic hiring tools
(14:52):
and found that bias emerged notonly from the data being fed
into the system, but from howdesigners operationalized
fairness.
In other words, even whenbuilding tech to improve merit
based decisions, bias seeped in,both from historical patterns
and from human assumptions aboutwhat merit looks like. These
(15:14):
systems often penalizecandidates who don't follow
dominant cultural norms.Unstructured resumes, gaps due
to caregiving, alternativeeducational backgrounds,
nontraditional career paths, allthings a human will contextually
understand become automaticrejections in an algorithmic
(15:36):
system. The problem is whatcomputer scientists call
algorithmic bias. When we trainthese algorithmic systems on
historical data, they learn toreproduce historical patterns of
discrimination.
If companies have historicallyhired mostly white men for
leadership roles, the algorithmwill learn that white men make
(15:58):
better leaders, not because it'strue, but because that's what
the available data shows. Evenworse, these systems create what
we call weapons of mathdestruction. They operate at
scale, have opaque decisionmaking processes, and create
feedback loops that reinforceinequality. When candidates are
rejected by an algorithm, theyrarely get feedback about why,
(16:23):
making it impossible to improveor challenge the decision. This
automation bias, our tendency totrust automated systems even
when they're wrong, means thathiring managers often defer to
algorithmic recommendationswithout questioning them.
What gets coded as neutral andobjective is actually built on
historical patterns of advantageand exclusion. Let's connect
(16:49):
this to our previous episode oninstitutional gaslighting. One
of the most subtle forms ofworkplace gaslighting is when
companies use meritocraticlanguage to shut down concerns
about inequality. An employeepoints out a racial pay gap.
Leadership responds with, weonly promote based on
performance.
(17:10):
A disabled worker asks foraccommodations and is told they
need to meet the same standardsas everyone else. A woman is
passed over for a promotion andis told the other candidate was
just a better fit. On thesurface, these sound like
objective statements, but theyerase context. They ignore
barriers, and they subtly implythat speaking up is equivalent
(17:32):
to asking for special treatment.This is what we call color blind
ideology, the idea that treatingeveryone the same is
automatically fair.
But treating people the same inan unequal system just
perpetuates inequality. That'slike insisting that everyone has
an equal opportunity to reach ahigh shelf while ignoring that
(17:54):
some people are standing onladders. Research on stereotype
content shows that marginalizedgroups are often perceived as
less competent, even whenperformance is equal. Studies
reveal that competence andwarmth are the two primary
dimensions by which we judgeothers, and that different
groups get stereotypeddifferently along these
(18:15):
dimensions. Women might be seenas warm but not competent.
Asian Americans might be seen ascompetent but not warm. Black
Americans often face negativestereotypes on both dimensions.
These unconscious biases affecteverything from performance
evaluations to promotiondecisions, but they're invisible
(18:36):
to people who hold them. Whencompanies claim objectivity but
fail to audit their assumptions,they end up using merit as a way
to reinforce existing biases andpunish people who don't conform
to a dominant norm. Perhaps themost insidious effect of
(18:56):
workplace meritocracy is how itturns structural inequality into
personal doubt and self blame.
If you are constantly told thathard work leads to success, and
you're working hard but notadvancing, what conclusion do
you draw? For many people, it'sthat something is wrong with
them. They develop what we calllearned helplessness, something
(19:18):
we've talked about before, andthe belief that their actions
don't matter and that they'repowerless to change the
situation. Classic experimentsshowed that when animals were
subjected to uncontrollablenegative events, they eventually
stopped trying to escape evenwhen escape was possible. The
same thing happens to people intoxic work environments.
(19:41):
When their efforts consistentlyfail to produce results not
because they're incompetent butbecause the system is rigged
they eventually stop trying. Andthis feeds into what we call
attribution theory. When peopleexperience failure, they make
attributions about the cause.These attributions can be
internal or external, stable orunstable, global or specific.
(20:05):
The most psychologicallydamaging attributions are
internal I'm not good enoughStable.
I'll never be good enough. Andglobal. I'm a failure at
everything. Meritocracyencourages these toxic
attributions. It tells peoplethat success is always earned
and failure is always deserved.
(20:27):
This creates what we call afixed mindset, the belief that
abilities are static andunchangeable. People with fixed
mindsets are more likely to giveup when they face obstacles
because they interpretchallenges as evidence of
inadequacy. The constant stressof feeling inadequate despite
working hard leads to what wecall allostatic load, the
(20:50):
cumulative wear and tear on thebody from chronic stress. This
can manifest as anxiety,depression, insomnia, digestive
issues, or a weakened immunesystem. The pursuit of
meritocratic success isliterally making us sick.
Research shows that both winnersand losers in this system are
(21:10):
harmed. The winners becomeobsessed with achievement and
status, unable to stopperforming. They suffer from
what researchers callmeritocratic anxiety, the
constant fear of falling behind.The losers internalize failure
even when they've beenstructurally locked out. It's a
machine that runs on stress andshame, and it's wearing everyone
(21:33):
down.
Rejecting meritocracy doesn'tmean rejecting excellence or
accountability. It means beinghonest about what really shapes
outcomes and designing systemsthat account for structural
barriers while still encouraginggrowth and achievement. Research
(21:53):
on growth mindset shows thatwhen people believe abilities
can be developed through effortand good strategies, they're
more resilient in the face ofsetbacks. But individual mindset
isn't enough if the systemitself is designed to exclude
certain groups. This is wherecollective efficacy comes in.
Research shows that people'sbelief in their group's ability
(22:16):
to organize and execute actionsaffects their motivation and
performance. When organizationsemphasize team success over
individual competition, they cancreate environments where
everyone has incentive to lifteach other up. Some companies
are experimenting with skillsbased hiring that focuses on
what people can do rather thanwhere they went to school or
(22:39):
what companies they've workedfor. Others are implementing
blind resume reviews that stripout identifying information to
reduce bias. Still others areusing structured interviews with
standardized questions to ensureall candidates are evaluated
consistently.
The concept of psychologicalsafety shows that teams perform
(23:01):
better when members feel safe tospeak up, ask questions, and
make mistakes without fear ofnegative consequences. This
directly contradictsmeritocratic environments where
people feel they must appearperfect to succeed. Restorative
justice principles are alsobeing applied in workplace
settings. Instead of focusingpurely on punishment and
(23:23):
exclusion, these approachesemphasize repair, learning, and
community building. When someonemakes a mistake or causes harm,
the focus becomes onunderstanding why it happened
and how to prevent it in thefuture rather than shaming the
individual.
On an individual level,recognizing meritocracy as a
(23:46):
myth can be psychologicallyliberating. It can help reduce
self blame and redirect energytoward a more strategic action.
But individual awareness aloneisn't enough to change systems.
Social identity theory shows usthat people derive part of their
self-concept from groupmemberships. When members of
(24:07):
marginalized groups connect witheach other, they can develop
what we call criticalconsciousness an awareness of
structural oppression combinedwith a sense of agency to change
it.
Employee resource groups,professional associations, and
union organizing all provideopportunities for collective
action. Research on socialmovements shows that change
(24:31):
happens when people move fromindividual frustration to
collective action. The conceptof ally behavior is also
essential. When people withprivilege use their position to
challenge unfair systems, it canbe more effective than when
marginalized people speak upalone. And this is not because
marginalized voices don'tmatter.
(24:53):
It's because people in power aremore likely to listen to people
who look like them. Transparencyis one of the most powerful
tools for challengingmeritocratic myths. When
organizations are required topublish salary data, promotion
criteria, and demographicbreakdowns, it becomes harder to
maintain the fiction thatoutcomes are purely merit based.
(25:19):
Meritocracy in the workplace isnot just an idea. It's an
organizing principle.
One that's baked into oursystems, our language, our
expectations, and our sense ofself worth. But when you start
to look closely, it doesn't holdup. Not because people aren't
working hard, because hard workalone has never been enough. And
(25:41):
pretending otherwise just givescover to systems that reward
sameness, privilege, andperformance over substance. The
research is clear (25:50):
believing in meritocracy makes us less likely
to notice inequality, lesswilling to support policies that
address it, and more likely toblame individuals for systemic
problems.
It's not just wrong, it'sactively harmful. Here's what
gives me hope. Once you see theillusion, you can't unsee it.
(26:12):
Once you understand how thesesystems really work, you can
start working to change them.Once you stop blaming yourself
for structural barriers, you canstart building collective power
to remove them.
The goal isn't to eliminate allforms of evaluation or
achievement. It's to createsystems that are actually fair,
that account for differentstarting points, recognize
(26:34):
different forms of contribution,and provide genuine equal
opportunity rather than justequal treatment. Your value is
not determined by yourproductivity. Your worth is not
measured by your achievements.You are not a meritocracy of
one.
Thanks for listening toPsyberSpace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston, signing off.Remember, the system's not
(26:56):
always fair, but your awarenesscan be the start of something
better. And you're not alone inquestioning what we've all been
told is just the way things are.Until next time, stay curious,
and don't forget to subscribe soyou don't miss a week and share
it with a friend in case youthink this would be interesting
for them as well.
Welcome back to PsyberSpace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston. And today, we'regoing to talk about something
that feels true to a lot ofpeople because it's supposed to.
We're told that success isearned, that if you just work
hard enough, if you hustle, ifyou follow the rules, you'll be
rewarded. That promotions,respect, and financial security
(00:35):
go to the most qualified people.
That the workplace is ameritocracy. It's a comforting
story, but not a very accurateone. In reality, meritocracy in
the workplace is often anillusion, a powerful one, one
that shapes how we judgeourselves, how we judge others,
and how systems justifyinequality. Today, we're
(00:58):
unpacking the psychological,cultural, and structural pieces
of that illusion, why it's sopersistent, who benefits from
it, and why it's quietly doingall of us harm. Let's start with
the basics.
Meritocracy is the belief thatpeople rise or fall based on
(01:19):
their abilities and effort. Inthis worldview, the workplace is
a kind of neutral playing fieldwhere talent gets rewarded,
laziness gets punished, andoutcomes are fair. There's a
reason this idea has so muchstaying power. Psychologically,
it serves multiple functionsthat help us navigate
(01:39):
uncertainty and maintain oursense of agency. First, there's
what we call the just worldhypothesis.
Research has shown that peoplehave a deep psychological need
to believe that their world isfundamentally fair, that good
things happen to good people,and bad things happen to bad
people. This belief helps peoplefeel safer and more in control
(02:04):
of their own fate. But here'sthe problem. When we apply just
world thinking to workplaceoutcomes, we end up victim
blaming. If someone doesn't getpromoted, we assume they must
have done something wrong.
If someone is laid off, we lookfor reasons why they deserved
it. We do this because thealternative, accepting that
(02:26):
unfairness is systemic and oftenrandom, feels too threatening.
The just world hypothesis workshand in hand with what we call
the fundamental attributionerror. This is our tendency to
explain other people's outcomesbased on their character while
explaining our own outcomesbased on circumstances. So when
(02:48):
a colleague gets ahead, weassume it's because they're
naturally talented orpolitically savvy.
When we don't get ahead, wefocus on external barriers, an
unfair boss, a broken system, orbad timing. Meritocracy exploits
this cognitive bias. Itencourages us to see success as
(03:09):
a personal achievement whilemaking failure feel like a
personal flaw. And there's alsothe illusion of control at play
here. Research has demonstratedthat people consistently
overestimate their ability toinfluence outcomes, especially
in ambiguous situations.
The workplace is full ofambiguity, unclear promotion
(03:31):
criteria, subjective performancereviews, office politics that
shift without warning. In thatcontext, believing in
meritocracy gives us theillusion that we can control our
career trajectory through effortalone. But perhaps more
importantly, meritocracy tapsinto our need for cognitive
consistency. The theory ofcognitive dissonance, which
(03:54):
we've talked about before, showsus that when our beliefs
conflict with reality, weexperience psychological
discomfort. Rather than changeour beliefs, we often change our
interpretation of reality.
So when someone works incrediblyhard but doesn't advance,
instead of questioning whetherthe system is fair, we might
(04:15):
conclude they're not workinghard enough or not working smart
enough or maybe they're just notcut out for leadership. That's
psychologically easier thanaccepting that the game might be
rigged. Research shows thatAmericans in particular cling
tightly to this belief becauseit reinforces our national
(04:37):
identity. It aligns with themythology of the American dream
where anyone can supposedly pullthemselves up by their
bootstraps. The promise ofupward mobility is deeply
ingrained even as real economicdata shows it's becoming
increasingly out of reach.
This cultural programming startsearly. From childhood, we're
(05:01):
taught stories about hard workpaying off. The little engine
that could, the tortoise and thehare, Horatio Alger tales of
poor boys becoming millionairesthrough nothing but grit and
determination. In the businessworld, this narrative gets
amplified through what we mightcall survivor bias in
storytelling. We hear constantlyabout the college dropout who
(05:24):
became a tech billionaire, theimmigrant who built an empire,
the small town kid who made itto the c suite.
These stories are real, butthey're not representative. For
every success story wecelebrate, there are thousands
of people with similarbackgrounds, work ethics,
opportunities, and talents whodidn't make it. Not because they
(05:47):
lacked merit, but because theylacked luck, a certain
connection, or the exact rightcircumstances. Cultural research
has shown how these culturalmodels shape our expectations
and our behavior. In Americanculture, the model of the self
made individual is so dominantthat it becomes nearly
(06:08):
impossible to see how structuralfactors race, class, gender,
geography, or timing influenceoutcomes.
This creates what we callideological hegemony when
dominant groups' worldviewsbecome so normalized that
they're accepted even by thepeople who are disadvantaged by
them. Working class peopledefend tax cuts for the wealthy.
(06:33):
Women argue against family leavepolicies. People of color oppose
affirmative action. Why?
Because they've internalized themeritocratic narrative so deeply
that they can no longer see howthe system is working against
them. In corporate settings, themeritocracy myth isn't just
(06:55):
culturally comforting it'sfunctional. It gives leaders a
convenient justification fordecisions that might otherwise
require more transparency andaccountability. A manager
promotes someone who looks andtalks like them? Well, they
earned it.
A leadership team is mostly menfrom elite schools? Well, that's
(07:15):
just where the best talent camefrom. A new leader comes on and
fires the team of women andhires men that they've worked
with before? Well, that companyhad better talent. It's rare for
anyone to stop and ask whetherthe selection criteria
themselves are biased,exclusionary, or simply
arbitrary.
(07:36):
Research on system justificationtheory shows that people are
motivated to rationalizeexisting social arrangements
even when they're unequalbecause it helps reduce
uncertainty and cognitivedissonance. Believing that the
system is fair, even when itisn't, is psychologically easier
than facing how deeply it'srigged. But system justification
(07:59):
doesn't affect everyone equally.The people who benefit most from
existing systems are the mostlikely to defend them. And this
creates what we call the Mattheweffect, a phenomenon where
advantages compound over time.
Those who start with smalladvantages, a better network, a
little more resources, culturalfamiliarity, accumulate larger
(08:23):
and larger benefit, while thosewho start with disadvantages
fall further and further behind.Organizations amplify the
Matthew effect through seeminglyneutral policies that actually
favor the already privileged.Networking events happening
after work hours disadvantagepeople with caregiving
(08:43):
responsibilities or who rely onpublic transportation. Stretch
assignments go to people who canafford to take risks. Leadership
potential gets attributed topeople who display confidence in
culturally specific ways.
And meanwhile, the halo effect,our tendency to let one positive
trait influence our overalljudgment, means that once
(09:06):
someone is marked as highpotential, their mistakes get
excused and their successes getamplified. Once someone is
perceived as not leadershipmaterial, the opposite happens.
If you've ever felt like afailure for not being promoted
or wondered why your colleaguewho does so much less gets
(09:27):
rewarded more or doubted yourown talent despite working twice
as hard, this part's for you.Meritocracy doesn't just distort
reality. It also shifts blamedownward, creating what
psychologists are callinginternalized oppression.
When people from marginalizedgroups don't succeed in systems
that claim to be fair, they canoften conclude that something is
(09:51):
wrong with them rather than withthe system. This feeds directly
into impostor syndrome, thepersistent feeling that you're
not qualified for your role andthat others will eventually
discover that, oh, you're afraud. Research first identified
this phenomenon in highachieving women, but subsequent
studies have shown it affectsanyone who feels like an
(10:12):
outsider in their environment.Here's the insidious part.
Imposter syndrome is often arational response to being in
spaces where you are genuinelynot welcome or where standards
are being applied differently toyou.
Instead of recognizing this as asystemic issue, we pathologize
it as an individual problem thatcan be fixed with more
(10:34):
confidence or a better selftalk, maybe by doing a power
pose in your mirror. Thepsychological toll of constantly
questioning your own competenceis enormous. It leads to what we
call vigilance fatigue, theexhaustion that comes from
constantly monitoring yourenvironment for threats and
adjusting your behavior to fitin. People from underrepresented
(10:58):
groups often report feeling likethey have to work twice as hard
to prove themselves, and databacks this up. Stereotype
threat, a groundbreakingresearch concept, tells us that
when people are aware they mightconfirm negative stereotypes
about their group, theirperformance actually suffers.
(11:18):
So a black employee worryingabout being seen as angry might
become less assertive inmeetings. A woman concerned
about being seen as tooemotional might suppress
legitimate concerns. The veryawareness of bias creates
additional cognitive load thatimpacts performance, And this
creates a vicious cycle.Marginalized employees
(11:41):
underperform due to extra stressand cognitive burden, which gets
interpreted as evidence thatthey're less capable, which
reinforces the biases thatcreated the problem in the first
place. Let's be clear (11:52):
talent and effort do matter, but
they're far from the wholestory.
Who gets ahead at work oftendepends on networks, visibility,
communication style, pedigree,and perceived confidence,
factors that are deeply shapedby socioeconomic background. And
(12:15):
this is where the concept ofcultural capital becomes
crucial. Research shows thatpeople bring with them a set of
habits, tastes, and ways ofmoving through the world that
signal status to gatekeeperseven if they're unaware of it.
People who know how to performprofessionalism, something we've
talked about in a previous inthe dominant style tend to get
(12:38):
ahead faster even if others havestronger technical skills.
Studies on class reproductionhave shown that middle and upper
class children are often trainedfrom a young age to navigate
institutions and advocate forthemselves in ways that later
look like competence inprofessional settings.
(12:58):
They learn to speak up inmeetings, question authority
respectfully, and presentthemselves with confidence.
Working class children, bycontrast, are often taught to
defer to authority and not makewaves. These are adaptive
strategies in theirenvironments, but they can be
misread as a lack of leadershippotential in professional
settings. Research on hiring inelite professional service firms
(13:22):
revealed that managers oftenselected candidates not based on
objective performance but onculture fit, shared hobbies,
communication style, even howyou dress. These subjective
preferences were framed asindicators of merit, but in
practice, they reinforced class,racial, and gender bias.
(13:44):
The concept of homophily, thetendency for similar people to
associate with each other, meansthat hiring managers
unconsciously favor candidateswho remind them of themselves.
This isn't necessarilymalicious. It can be, but it
definitely systematicallyexcludes people from different
(14:05):
backgrounds. And there's alsothis issue of social networks
and what we call the strength ofweak ties. Many of the best job
opportunities are never postedpublicly.
They're filled through informalnetworks. If you don't have
access to those networks, you'reautomatically excluded from
opportunities regardless of yourqualifications. In theory,
(14:32):
digital hiring tools andartificial intelligence decision
systems are supposed toeliminate bias. In practice,
they often replicate andreinforce it while adding a
veneer of objectivity that makesbias harder to detect and
challenge. A recent field studytested algorithmic hiring tools
(14:52):
and found that bias emerged notonly from the data being fed
into the system, but from howdesigners operationalized
fairness.
In other words, even whenbuilding tech to improve merit
based decisions, bias seeped in,both from historical patterns
and from human assumptions aboutwhat merit looks like. These
(15:14):
systems often penalizecandidates who don't follow
dominant cultural norms.Unstructured resumes, gaps due
to caregiving, alternativeeducational backgrounds,
nontraditional career paths, allthings a human will contextually
understand become automaticrejections in an algorithmic
(15:36):
system. The problem is whatcomputer scientists call
algorithmic bias. When we trainthese algorithmic systems on
historical data, they learn toreproduce historical patterns of
discrimination.
If companies have historicallyhired mostly white men for
leadership roles, the algorithmwill learn that white men make
(15:58):
better leaders, not because it'strue, but because that's what
the available data shows. Evenworse, these systems create what
we call weapons of mathdestruction. They operate at
scale, have opaque decisionmaking processes, and create
feedback loops that reinforceinequality. When candidates are
rejected by an algorithm, theyrarely get feedback about why,
(16:23):
making it impossible to improveor challenge the decision. This
automation bias, our tendency totrust automated systems even
when they're wrong, means thathiring managers often defer to
algorithmic recommendationswithout questioning them.
What gets coded as neutral andobjective is actually built on
historical patterns of advantageand exclusion. Let's connect
(16:49):
this to our previous episode oninstitutional gaslighting. One
of the most subtle forms ofworkplace gaslighting is when
companies use meritocraticlanguage to shut down concerns
about inequality. An employeepoints out a racial pay gap.
Leadership responds with, weonly promote based on
performance.
(17:10):
A disabled worker asks foraccommodations and is told they
need to meet the same standardsas everyone else. A woman is
passed over for a promotion andis told the other candidate was
just a better fit. On thesurface, these sound like
objective statements, but theyerase context. They ignore
barriers, and they subtly implythat speaking up is equivalent
(17:32):
to asking for special treatment.This is what we call color blind
ideology, the idea that treatingeveryone the same is
automatically fair.
But treating people the same inan unequal system just
perpetuates inequality. That'slike insisting that everyone has
an equal opportunity to reach ahigh shelf while ignoring that
(17:54):
some people are standing onladders. Research on stereotype
content shows that marginalizedgroups are often perceived as
less competent, even whenperformance is equal. Studies
reveal that competence andwarmth are the two primary
dimensions by which we judgeothers, and that different
groups get stereotypeddifferently along these
(18:15):
dimensions. Women might be seenas warm but not competent.
Asian Americans might be seen ascompetent but not warm. Black
Americans often face negativestereotypes on both dimensions.
These unconscious biases affecteverything from performance
evaluations to promotiondecisions, but they're invisible
(18:36):
to people who hold them. Whencompanies claim objectivity but
fail to audit their assumptions,they end up using merit as a way
to reinforce existing biases andpunish people who don't conform
to a dominant norm. Perhaps themost insidious effect of
(18:56):
workplace meritocracy is how itturns structural inequality into
personal doubt and self blame.
If you are constantly told thathard work leads to success, and
you're working hard but notadvancing, what conclusion do
you draw? For many people, it'sthat something is wrong with
them. They develop what we calllearned helplessness, something
(19:18):
we've talked about before, andthe belief that their actions
don't matter and that they'repowerless to change the
situation. Classic experimentsshowed that when animals were
subjected to uncontrollablenegative events, they eventually
stopped trying to escape evenwhen escape was possible. The
same thing happens to people intoxic work environments.
(19:41):
When their efforts consistentlyfail to produce results not
because they're incompetent butbecause the system is rigged
they eventually stop trying. Andthis feeds into what we call
attribution theory. When peopleexperience failure, they make
attributions about the cause.These attributions can be
internal or external, stable orunstable, global or specific.
(20:05):
The most psychologicallydamaging attributions are
internal I'm not good enoughStable.
I'll never be good enough. Andglobal. I'm a failure at
everything. Meritocracyencourages these toxic
attributions. It tells peoplethat success is always earned
and failure is always deserved.
(20:27):
This creates what we call afixed mindset, the belief that
abilities are static andunchangeable. People with fixed
mindsets are more likely to giveup when they face obstacles
because they interpretchallenges as evidence of
inadequacy. The constant stressof feeling inadequate despite
working hard leads to what wecall allostatic load, the
(20:50):
cumulative wear and tear on thebody from chronic stress. This
can manifest as anxiety,depression, insomnia, digestive
issues, or a weakened immunesystem. The pursuit of
meritocratic success isliterally making us sick.
Research shows that both winnersand losers in this system are
(21:10):
harmed. The winners becomeobsessed with achievement and
status, unable to stopperforming. They suffer from
what researchers callmeritocratic anxiety, the
constant fear of falling behind.The losers internalize failure
even when they've beenstructurally locked out. It's a
machine that runs on stress andshame, and it's wearing everyone
(21:33):
down.
Rejecting meritocracy doesn'tmean rejecting excellence or
accountability. It means beinghonest about what really shapes
outcomes and designing systemsthat account for structural
barriers while still encouraginggrowth and achievement. Research
(21:53):
on growth mindset shows thatwhen people believe abilities
can be developed through effortand good strategies, they're
more resilient in the face ofsetbacks. But individual mindset
isn't enough if the systemitself is designed to exclude
certain groups. This is wherecollective efficacy comes in.
Research shows that people'sbelief in their group's ability
(22:16):
to organize and execute actionsaffects their motivation and
performance. When organizationsemphasize team success over
individual competition, they cancreate environments where
everyone has incentive to lifteach other up. Some companies
are experimenting with skillsbased hiring that focuses on
what people can do rather thanwhere they went to school or
(22:39):
what companies they've workedfor. Others are implementing
blind resume reviews that stripout identifying information to
reduce bias. Still others areusing structured interviews with
standardized questions to ensureall candidates are evaluated
consistently.
The concept of psychologicalsafety shows that teams perform
(23:01):
better when members feel safe tospeak up, ask questions, and
make mistakes without fear ofnegative consequences. This
directly contradictsmeritocratic environments where
people feel they must appearperfect to succeed. Restorative
justice principles are alsobeing applied in workplace
settings. Instead of focusingpurely on punishment and
(23:23):
exclusion, these approachesemphasize repair, learning, and
community building. When someonemakes a mistake or causes harm,
the focus becomes onunderstanding why it happened
and how to prevent it in thefuture rather than shaming the
individual.
On an individual level,recognizing meritocracy as a
(23:46):
myth can be psychologicallyliberating. It can help reduce
self blame and redirect energytoward a more strategic action.
But individual awareness aloneisn't enough to change systems.
Social identity theory shows usthat people derive part of their
self-concept from groupmemberships. When members of
(24:07):
marginalized groups connect witheach other, they can develop
what we call criticalconsciousness an awareness of
structural oppression combinedwith a sense of agency to change
it.
Employee resource groups,professional associations, and
union organizing all provideopportunities for collective
action. Research on socialmovements shows that change
(24:31):
happens when people move fromindividual frustration to
collective action. The conceptof ally behavior is also
essential. When people withprivilege use their position to
challenge unfair systems, it canbe more effective than when
marginalized people speak upalone. And this is not because
marginalized voices don'tmatter.
(24:53):
It's because people in power aremore likely to listen to people
who look like them. Transparencyis one of the most powerful
tools for challengingmeritocratic myths. When
organizations are required topublish salary data, promotion
criteria, and demographicbreakdowns, it becomes harder to
maintain the fiction thatoutcomes are purely merit based.
(25:19):
Meritocracy in the workplace isnot just an idea. It's an
organizing principle.
One that's baked into oursystems, our language, our
expectations, and our sense ofself worth. But when you start
to look closely, it doesn't holdup. Not because people aren't
working hard, because hard workalone has never been enough. And
(25:41):
pretending otherwise just givescover to systems that reward
sameness, privilege, andperformance over substance. The
research is clear (25:50):
believing in meritocracy makes us less likely
to notice inequality, lesswilling to support policies that
address it, and more likely toblame individuals for systemic
problems.
It's not just wrong, it'sactively harmful. Here's what
gives me hope. Once you see theillusion, you can't unsee it.
(26:12):
Once you understand how thesesystems really work, you can
start working to change them.Once you stop blaming yourself
for structural barriers, you canstart building collective power
to remove them.
The goal isn't to eliminate allforms of evaluation or
achievement. It's to createsystems that are actually fair,
that account for differentstarting points, recognize
(26:34):
different forms of contribution,and provide genuine equal
opportunity rather than justequal treatment. Your value is
not determined by yourproductivity. Your worth is not
measured by your achievements.You are not a meritocracy of
one.
Thanks for listening toPsyberSpace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston, signing off.Remember, the system's not
(26:56):
always fair, but your awarenesscan be the start of something
better. And you're not alone inquestioning what we've all been
told is just the way things are.Until next time, stay curious,
and don't forget to subscribe soyou don't miss a week and share
it with a friend in case youthink this would be interesting
for them as well.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.