Here’s what ChatGPT had to say

A genuine meritocracy is much harder to build than most organisations admit because human beings are not naturally meritocratic. We are wired to trust people who are familiar, who look like us, who validate our views, or who belong to our networks. Unless an organisation deliberately designs systems to counter these biases, what it calls “merit” often becomes a proxy for loyalty, pedigree, proximity to power or political skill.

The question therefore is not, “How do we reward merit?” but rather, “How do we prevent everything else from masquerading as merit?”

A genuinely meritocratic organisation has several characteristics.

1. Define merit objectively

The first challenge is agreeing on what merit actually means.

Merit should be based on evidence such as:

• Consistently delivering results.
• Quality of decision-making.
• Ability to solve difficult problems.
• Learning agility.
• Collaboration and leadership behaviours.
• Ethical conduct.
• Positive impact on customers and the organisation.

Merit should never depend on:

• Being someone’s favourite.
• Having attended an elite university.
• Speaking confidently while producing little.
• Being visible to executives.
• Agreeing with the boss.
• Working the longest hours.

If two people cannot independently examine someone’s contribution and reach similar conclusions, then the criteria are probably too subjective.

2. Separate performance from relationships

One of the greatest threats to meritocracy is when relationships become the primary currency.

Managers naturally prefer people they trust. That is normal.

The danger begins when trust is defined as:

“This person agrees with me.”

instead of

“This person consistently delivers results.”

High-performing organisations deliberately create processes that prevent managers from rewarding only people within their inner circle.

3. Make evidence stronger than opinion

Many careers are damaged by comments like:

“I’m not sure she’s strategic.”

“He’s difficult.”

“She’s not ready.”

None of these statements are evidence.

Every significant performance judgement should require observable examples.

Questions should include:

• What specific behaviour was observed?
• What measurable impact did it have?
• How frequently has it occurred?
• What data supports this conclusion?

Without evidence, organisations end up rewarding narratives instead of performance.

4. Reduce the power of one manager

Many organisations claim to have performance management systems, but in practice a single line manager can determine:

• ratings
• bonuses
• promotions
• visibility
• development opportunities

This creates enormous opportunities for favouritism, retaliation or unconscious bias.

Better organisations introduce safeguards such as:

• calibration meetings
• multiple reviewers
• cross-functional feedback
• objective performance metrics
• appeal mechanisms

No single person should be able to quietly derail another person’s career.

5. Reward constructive challenge

Ironically, organisations often say they value innovation while rewarding compliance.

A meritocracy protects people who:

• challenge assumptions respectfully
• identify risks
• question inefficient processes
• present uncomfortable truths supported by evidence

When disagreement is punished, political behaviour flourishes while innovation dies.

6. Create transparency

Employees should understand:

• why promotions happened
• why bonuses differed
• what competencies were assessed
• what development gaps exist

Opaque decisions create rumours.

Transparent decisions create trust—even among people who were unsuccessful.

7. Measure managers, not only employees

Many organisations measure employee performance while never measuring managerial fairness.

Executives should ask questions such as:

• Does this manager consistently promote one demographic?
• Does their team experience unusually high turnover?
• Do high performers leave their team?
• Are performance ratings statistically unusual?
• How diverse are their successors?
• What do engagement surveys reveal about psychological safety?

Managers who consistently suppress talent should themselves be held accountable.

8. Protect psychological safety

Merit only emerges where people feel safe enough to contribute.

Fear causes employees to:

• stay silent
• avoid innovation
• protect themselves politically
• tell leaders only what they want to hear

A fearful organisation does not discover its best ideas because employees quickly learn that survival is more important than excellence.

9. Audit outcomes, not intentions

Many organisations sincerely believe they are meritocratic.

The evidence is found in outcomes.

Questions worth asking include:

• Who actually gets promoted?
• Who receives the highest-profile assignments?
• Who speaks in executive meetings?
• Who leaves?
• Who is consistently overlooked despite strong performance?

Patterns often reveal hidden biases that intentions never will.

10. Ensure leaders model humility

Perhaps the most important factor is executive behaviour.

When leaders admit mistakes, seek diverse opinions, change their minds in response to evidence, and recognise excellence wherever it appears, they create a culture where merit matters more than status.

When leaders surround themselves only with loyal supporters, everyone quickly learns that proximity is more valuable than performance.

The real test

A useful question for every board and executive team is:

“If we removed names, job titles, educational backgrounds and reporting lines from every promotion decision, would we still choose the same people?”

If the answer is no, then the organisation is not rewarding merit. It is rewarding something else.

The strongest organisations recognise that meritocracy is not a culture created through slogans. It is the outcome of carefully designed systems that make evidence stronger than influence, performance stronger than politics, and integrity stronger than proximity to power. Only then do people believe that excellence—not allegiance—is what truly determines success.