Hidden bias in recruitment has been a big topic recently. When the backlash to DEI intensified, new acronyms emerged to undermine its legitimacy. Critics dismissed DEI as “Didn’t Earn It,” suggesting that efforts to remove systemic barriers amounted to unearned advantages. Meanwhile, proponents of MEI—merit, excellence, and intelligence—claim that it results in hiring the best candidates for a position, without considering demographics, such as race. However, this framing is shortsighted. MEI is not a neutral or objective approach; instead, it reinforces the same inequitable systems that exclude and disadvantage Black professionals.
The Myth of Meritocracy
Many organizations pride themselves on claiming, “We hire based on merit.” On its face, the concept of merit appears valid: only competent and qualified candidates should be hired and promoted. Even the Government of Canada’s Public Service Employment Act provides that “Canada will continue to benefit from a public service that is based on merit …”
However, the concept of merit is deeply flawed. Merit assumes that all candidates are competing on an equal playing field. It ignores systemic barriers that create disparities in opportunities, resources, and networks.
I have sat on selection committees where a candidate was eliminated because they lacked a university degree, despite having extensive experience necessary for the position. I have also witnessed a candidate dismissed for failing to make direct eye contact with an interviewer—a cultural norm in many communities that signifies respect, not a lack of trustworthiness.
In 2021, the Public Service Commission of Canada published an Audit of Employment Equity Representation in Recruitment. It found that even though Black applicants formed the largest sub-group of applicants, “Black candidates experienced the overall largest drop in representation of all visible minority sub-groups from job application to the appointment stage (from 10.3% down to 6.6%).”
In 2024, three years after the Clerk’s Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity, and Inclusion in the Federal Public Service, a report found that “[m]ost organizations have set goals for Indigenous employees and racialized employees, but there is a lower rate of setting goals specific to Black employees.”
When we talk about merit, we need to contextualize the experiences of Black professionals who, despite high qualifications and education, face many barriers in their careers, from lower salary ranges and a lack of representation in senior leadership positions.
Merit is also often used to undermine employment equity in Canada. The assumption is that when we intentionally address barriers and increase representation, we are lowering standards and recruiting unqualified people. However, as former Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache pointed out in his report on sexual harassment in the RCMP, merit is not neutral and may be highly subjective. The definition of merit itself must be scrutinized, and diversity can, in fact, enhance merit.
The Heavy Burden of Black Excellence
Organizations frequently position excellence as being at odds with DEI, as though diversity, equity, and inclusion compromise high performance. When looking into the hidden bias in recruitment, this is key. However, what is considered “excellence” is often shaped by dominant cultural norms that favour certain experiences and ways of thinking.
This narrow concept of excellence ignores the reality of Black exceptionalism. Black professionals are expected to be perfect—held to higher standards than their peers. They must over-perform just to be seen as competent, subject to double standards that demand excellence at all times. This expectation creates an unfair burden, reinforcing the myth that Black success is purely a result of personal effort, rather than acknowledging the systemic barriers that limit access to opportunities.
Black professionals often work twice as hard to be considered for the same roles, promotions, and leadership positions as their peers. The traditional definitions of merit, excellence, and intelligence privilege elite school credentials, specific communication styles, and leadership traits that align with Eurocentric norms, marginalizing diverse ways of leading and thinking.
This burden is unsustainable. Black professionals frequently experience burnout, imposter syndrome, and isolation. They must constantly prove their worth, knowing that any mistake will be scrutinized more harshly. Research shows that when an organization fails, Black women are disproportionately blamed. The weight of these expectations creates environments where Black professionals must always be “on,” striving for perfection just to maintain their place.
Intelligence and the Implicit Bias of Who is Considered Smart
Organizations claim to seek “the best and the brightest,” but whose intelligence is being valued? When looking at hidden bias in recruitment, this is important to consider.
Historically, intelligence has been measured through Eurocentric standards—standardized tests, academic credentials, and verbal fluency—all of which have been used to justify exclusion. Intelligence is often associated with confidence and assertiveness, qualities that are culturally reinforced in some groups but not others.
Black professionals frequently face biased assumptions about their intellectual capabilities. They are more likely to be questioned on their expertise, interrupted in meetings, or overlooked for strategic roles. Even within boardrooms, Black directors are often assumed to be “diversity hires” rather than recognized for their expertise and strategic insight.
If organizations are serious about intelligence, they must broaden their understanding of what it means. Intelligence is not just academic credentials—it includes lived experience, emotional intelligence, and cultural competency. Valuing diverse knowledge systems and perspectives leads to better decision-making and stronger organizations.
Black Equity and Inclusion Beyond February
Black History Month may be ending, but the work of achieving equity and inclusion must continue beyond these 28 days. Organizations need to critically examine how merit, excellence, and intelligence are defined and applied.
Challenge the myth of meritocracy
- Redefine merit and limit the hidden bias in recruitment by focusing on competencies and potential rather than credentials and tenure. Organizations should review their staffing processes to eliminate unnecessary credential inflation and ensure that job criteria are directly tied to the actual work being performed.
- Adopt structured and inclusive hiring practices that remove bias from decision-making. This includes using standardized rubrics, a representative selection committee, and competency-based evaluations rather than subjective assessments that focus on “culture fit” .
- Implement sponsorship and career acceleration programs for Black professionals, ensuring that they have access to leadership opportunities, networks, and resources that are often informally provided to their peers.
Address the burden of Black excellence
- Examine performance review processes to ensure that Black professionals—workforce and governance—are not held to higher scrutiny than their peers.
- Assess whether Black leaders are being set up to fail by being placed in high-risk roles, a phenomenon known as the “glass cliff.”
- Focus on systemic solutions that create opportunities for a wider pool of Black talent, rather than celebrating a select few who “beat the odds.”
- Provide culturally responsive wellness and mental health support, addressing racial trauma in the workplace and boardroom, and implementing policies that address burnout and overwork.
Rethink excellence
- Expand the concept of intelligence to recognize lived experience, emotional intelligence, and cultural competency.
- Challenge assumptions about who is considered a “thought leader.” Black professionals often have their ideas dismissed until validated by their colleagues.
- Develop equitable performance assessments that do not rely on biased measures of intelligence. Value diverse problem-solving approaches, not just verbal fluency and assertiveness. Hidden bias in recruitment can be very nuanced.
Mante
