Diversity And/Or Meritocracy: How Zero-Sum Beliefs Shape Attributions of Merit in Hiring

• In Event: Organizational Drivers of Economic Inequality (Co-sponsored by Inequality, Poverty, and Mobility Section)

Abstract

Organizations today often hold normative commitments to both meritocracy, or advancement of people based on their own efforts and abilities, and diversity, or inclusion of people with diverse identities and backgrounds. Yet, recent years have seen an increasingly explicit articulation of a belief that was long held, by some, more privately: that there is a zero-sum tradeoff between meritocracy and diversity, with more meritocracy implying less diversity, and more diversity necessitating less meritocracy. This paper proposes that two distinct worldviews underpin divergent beliefs about the relationship between these values, with material implications for organizational inequality. One worldview sees them as aligned (meritocracy and diversity) while the other sees them as conflicting (meritocracy or diversity). We provide evidence for variation in zero-sum beliefs and document concrete impacts: people with stronger zero-sum beliefs are more likely to assume that a Black candidate was not hired because of merit, compared to a White candidate with equal observable credentials. We explore interventions that may reduce race effects among people with strong zero-sum beliefs. The paper contributes to the understanding of meritocratic beliefs, racialized assumptions about competence, and the changing politics of diversity initiatives.

Authors

• Laura Adler, Yale University

• Julia Hur, NYU Stern