Challenging the American meritocracy myth
Co-optation, nepotism, and favoritism are the real “invisible quotas” in the Boardroom
Today’s SCOTUS decision on affirmative action and the subsequent political talk about “a return to meritocracy” highlight how some in America remain blind to the “invisible quotas” of co-optation, nepotism, and favoritism.
From the classroom to the boardroom, these mechanisms perpetuate the consequences of historical injustice, such as racism, sexism, or homophobia, which we now admit were wrong. Underrepresented minorities are still invisibilized, delegitimatized, and disqualified in various ways in the economic world, making “the great American meritocracy” a myth and true equality elusive.
As I highlighted in my declaration to the Court on the now-repealed AB979 law mandating some minimal Board diversity in California, these “invisible quotas” are crucial in how Executive Committees and Boardrooms are being built. Consequently, the pace of change toward better representation has been disappointing. The discrepancy between the diversity intentions announced by companies and the reality of the figures – as highlighted in the recent NASDAQ Board composition disclosures - is staggering. The Anheuser-Busch Senior Management team (here) or the Spectrum Board (here) illustrate this inertia perfectly.
The stakes are high because ensuring access to positions of responsibility and breaking the “concrete”, “glass”, or "lavender” ceilings is integral to economic emancipation. Expanding civil rights and protections does not automatically end economic disparities. Today, the evaluation and promotion procedures, access to financing for entrepreneurs, and even gaps in remuneration all contribute to underrepresented minorities having higher rates of poverty. The dream of workplace equality requires a comprehensive approach, and today’s decision will probably discourage many companies from engaging in it.
Conservatives, including Jay Blum (see “Who is Edward Jay Blum?”), the SCOTUS Affirmative Action, AB979, and NASDAQ plaintiff, have raised the specter of the "quota" minority in the Boardroom. Their candidacy would be selected thanks to their sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, or race and not their competence. This never appeared to me as a real risk because the Association of LGBTQ+ Corporate Directors candidates' competence or work ethics invariably surpass what already exists in the Boardroom. There is no chance of any Board candidate being selected because they are LGBTQ+, but even if there were, they might still be the best option on competence alone. I like to say that anybody in that generation of LGBTQ+ people (50 to 75 years old) who made it to the top of business had to be three times as good as their cisgender heterosexual peers. I suspect it is true for other underrepresented groups. Yet, more often than not, they are not even on the radar screen of the selection committee.
At this morning’s breakfast of the Association of LGBTQ+ Corporate Directors, I reiterated that the SCOTUS decision, and its possible ripple effect in Corporate America, does not affect the Association’s strategy. We never asked for Board seats for LGBTQ+ people but only for our candidates to be considered. We lead with talent and focus on intersectional identities knowing well that, without a meritocracy, we must organize ourselves, help each other, enroll allies, and ensure that investors, recruiters, and the Board themselves understand the inherent value of LGBTQ+ diversity in the Boardroom.