Extract from The Guardian
We’ve been hearing a lot about the pitfalls of recruiting ‘gender’ as opposed to ‘merit’ - as if the two were mutually exclusive
“Merit” is the oft-quoted retort in certain quarters when discussing
the woeful underrepresentation of women, usually, in those very same
quarters.
The Liberal party is particularly fond of touting “merit” as the reason it cannot take affirmative action to redress the dearth of women among its ranks. It’s worth noting that the Coalition currently has 13 female MPs in the lower house, which is four fewer than John Howard had in his first term in 1996.
Senator Jane Hume’s remarks on Q&A on Monday encouraging aspiring female liberals to simply “work harder” to get pre-selected and win seats is just the latest rendition of a familiar song.
(None more audacious, it has to be said, than Tony Abbott’s tune back in 2013 when he unveiled a cabinet featuring a single “meritorious” female on the coalition’s side of the building. There were women – he conceded – “knocking on the door” but with the exception of Julie Bishop none were meritorious enough for a seat at the table.)
In business “merit” arises often too in connection with the inequality of women in leadership positions, and it has most recently amid the fall-out from the banking royal commission. The departure of AMP chair, Catherine Brenner, has sparked fervent reports about the pitfalls of recruiting on “gender” as opposed to “merit” (as if the two are mutually exclusive).
Some reporting around Brenner would suggest that no male chair of any listed organisation in Australia’s corporate history has ever encountered trouble.
Nonetheless, a single high profile female chair missteps and the credentials, nay merit, of all female executives (comprising around 20% of all directors) are ripe to be dissected.
Chris Corrigan gave an interview over the weekend stating that the “mood of the moment” with gender diversity on boards has meant that the best person is not necessarily getting the job. Which presumably has never occurred in the history of corporate Australia until women started lobbying for positions?
Corrigan and Senator Hume are not alone in relying on “merit” as their trump card to explain why any attempts to engineer equality are problematic. But what is more problematic is merit itself.
To believe merit is a wholly fair proposition is to believe men are disproportionately and overwhelmingly more talented, capable and accomplished than women in virtually every realm.
If merit is an entirely fair and effective mechanism then, it must hold, that men are simply better company directors, chief executives, judges, surgeons, professors, pilots, politicians, leaders, bureaucrats, principals and lawyers than women.
To believe in merit is to accept that in 2018 the fact there are more men called Andrew running ASX200 companies than there are women is not a reflection of any structural or systemic barriers. Rather it’s just extraordinarily fortunate for an estimated 0.01% of the population named Andrew and bad luck for the 51% of the population who happen to be women.
Relying on merit as the only basis upon which roles of any nature are attained presupposes that men and women occupy identical starting positions and that they enjoy the same opportunities to access “merit” along the way.
It takes admirable – wilful even – conviction to consider that despite more women than men having graduated from university for more than two decades, women still comprise less than 20% of board directorships in ASX200 companies, and account for only 5% of CEO positions, and conclude that men and women access the same opportunities.
The reality is “merit” is neither an objective nor a neutral proposition: it is wholly subjective. It lies in the eye of the beholder and, lo, the beholders tend to find the most merit in those who look the most like themselves. Andrew? Meet Andrew.
It is difficult to demonstrate this as definitively as an orchestral blind audition process did in 2001. Jennifer Whelan from the Melbourne Business School observed in 2013 that according to research from Claudia Golding and Cecilia Rouse in 2001, “from a base of 10%, women’s representation increased to 45% of new hires at the New York Philharmonic Orchestra after the adoption of a blind audition process. ... Selectors have long insisted that the lack of women musicians was not gender discrimination per se, but simply that the preferred playing style just so happened to predominate among male musicians. Of course, the introduction of blind auditions has put that defence to rest.”
Sadly, conducting blind auditions en-masse to test this theory in the Liberal party or at board room tables is not feasible. But the research makes clear that meritocracies are not always what they seem.
Merit is the bastion favoured by those wedded to the status quo, and it shall be touted many many more times to justify inaction, but it is in effect discriminatory. It simply serves to compound the many structural barriers that explain why women in Australia remain a distinct minority in leadership roles.
As the former president of UN Women Australia, Julie McKay, wrote in a white paper on why the meritocracy is failing Australian business:
"Those who view Australia as a functioning meritocracy are failing to understand the limits of our own conceptions of merit, which involve a range of biases that discriminate against women and other diverse groups in employment practices in Australian business.”
Merit is a myth, a mask for bias, that certainly won’t help increase the number of women in leadership positions anytime soon. Which is perhaps why it appeals.
• Georgina Dent is a journalist, editor and advocate for women’s empowerment and gender equality
The Liberal party is particularly fond of touting “merit” as the reason it cannot take affirmative action to redress the dearth of women among its ranks. It’s worth noting that the Coalition currently has 13 female MPs in the lower house, which is four fewer than John Howard had in his first term in 1996.
Senator Jane Hume’s remarks on Q&A on Monday encouraging aspiring female liberals to simply “work harder” to get pre-selected and win seats is just the latest rendition of a familiar song.
(None more audacious, it has to be said, than Tony Abbott’s tune back in 2013 when he unveiled a cabinet featuring a single “meritorious” female on the coalition’s side of the building. There were women – he conceded – “knocking on the door” but with the exception of Julie Bishop none were meritorious enough for a seat at the table.)
In business “merit” arises often too in connection with the inequality of women in leadership positions, and it has most recently amid the fall-out from the banking royal commission. The departure of AMP chair, Catherine Brenner, has sparked fervent reports about the pitfalls of recruiting on “gender” as opposed to “merit” (as if the two are mutually exclusive).
Some reporting around Brenner would suggest that no male chair of any listed organisation in Australia’s corporate history has ever encountered trouble.
Nonetheless, a single high profile female chair missteps and the credentials, nay merit, of all female executives (comprising around 20% of all directors) are ripe to be dissected.
Chris Corrigan gave an interview over the weekend stating that the “mood of the moment” with gender diversity on boards has meant that the best person is not necessarily getting the job. Which presumably has never occurred in the history of corporate Australia until women started lobbying for positions?
Corrigan and Senator Hume are not alone in relying on “merit” as their trump card to explain why any attempts to engineer equality are problematic. But what is more problematic is merit itself.
To believe merit is a wholly fair proposition is to believe men are disproportionately and overwhelmingly more talented, capable and accomplished than women in virtually every realm.
If merit is an entirely fair and effective mechanism then, it must hold, that men are simply better company directors, chief executives, judges, surgeons, professors, pilots, politicians, leaders, bureaucrats, principals and lawyers than women.
To believe in merit is to accept that in 2018 the fact there are more men called Andrew running ASX200 companies than there are women is not a reflection of any structural or systemic barriers. Rather it’s just extraordinarily fortunate for an estimated 0.01% of the population named Andrew and bad luck for the 51% of the population who happen to be women.
Relying on merit as the only basis upon which roles of any nature are attained presupposes that men and women occupy identical starting positions and that they enjoy the same opportunities to access “merit” along the way.
It takes admirable – wilful even – conviction to consider that despite more women than men having graduated from university for more than two decades, women still comprise less than 20% of board directorships in ASX200 companies, and account for only 5% of CEO positions, and conclude that men and women access the same opportunities.
The reality is “merit” is neither an objective nor a neutral proposition: it is wholly subjective. It lies in the eye of the beholder and, lo, the beholders tend to find the most merit in those who look the most like themselves. Andrew? Meet Andrew.
It is difficult to demonstrate this as definitively as an orchestral blind audition process did in 2001. Jennifer Whelan from the Melbourne Business School observed in 2013 that according to research from Claudia Golding and Cecilia Rouse in 2001, “from a base of 10%, women’s representation increased to 45% of new hires at the New York Philharmonic Orchestra after the adoption of a blind audition process. ... Selectors have long insisted that the lack of women musicians was not gender discrimination per se, but simply that the preferred playing style just so happened to predominate among male musicians. Of course, the introduction of blind auditions has put that defence to rest.”
Sadly, conducting blind auditions en-masse to test this theory in the Liberal party or at board room tables is not feasible. But the research makes clear that meritocracies are not always what they seem.
Merit is the bastion favoured by those wedded to the status quo, and it shall be touted many many more times to justify inaction, but it is in effect discriminatory. It simply serves to compound the many structural barriers that explain why women in Australia remain a distinct minority in leadership roles.
As the former president of UN Women Australia, Julie McKay, wrote in a white paper on why the meritocracy is failing Australian business:
"Those who view Australia as a functioning meritocracy are failing to understand the limits of our own conceptions of merit, which involve a range of biases that discriminate against women and other diverse groups in employment practices in Australian business.”
Merit is a myth, a mask for bias, that certainly won’t help increase the number of women in leadership positions anytime soon. Which is perhaps why it appeals.
• Georgina Dent is a journalist, editor and advocate for women’s empowerment and gender equality
No comments:
Post a Comment