In the latest corporate showdown, a new hiring philosophy known as MEI—Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence—is taking center stage. Backed by influential figures like Alexandr Wang, CEO of Scale AI and Elon Musk, MEI is being promoted as the solution to the perceived issues with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. But is this the revolutionary approach they claim, or a clapback against DEI.
MEI proponents argue that focusing on merit ensures the best candidates rise to the top. Wang recently stated, “A hiring process based on merit will naturally yield a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas.”
Let’s get real. As Leslie Cornfeld once said, “Talent is created equally, opportunity is not.”
The positioning here is problematic. The Wall Street Journal states that MEI was created to be the opposite of DEI. And as John Frehse highlighted, “The idea that DEI is not about merit, excellence, and intelligence is troubling.” This is clearly the anti-DEI movement and it is, ironically, unintelligent.
The assumption behind MEI—that a merit-based system will automatically produce diversity—is not only flawed but dangerously naive. Studies show that merit-based hiring often perpetuates existing inequalities, as biases influence who gets deemed “meritorious.” For instance, I recently spoke with an investment banker about their hiring practices. After the skills assessments and the interview panels, candidates are informally put to the “airplane test.” The airplane test answers the question: “all things being equal about these candidates, if you had to be stuck on an airplane next to one of these candidates for four hours – who would you want to sit next to?”
Neurologically, socially, and psychologically, we are wired at every level to pick the person who thinks, looks, and acts like us. Given the imbalance of power and privilege, that’s a problem for women, it’s a problem for black people, it’s a problem for everyone who doesn’t look like the typical investment banker.
The rise of MEI is fueled by a growing backlash against DEI initiatives. Alexandr Wang’s promotion of MEI has echoed across boardrooms, resonating with executives frustrated by what they perceive as the failures of diversity programs.
Merit, excellence, and intelligence—we want all of those things in business. But the idea that this is the anti-DEI movement helps us understand how a large part of the population feels about DEI. They feel that DEI is none of those things.
This backlash isn’t just theoretical. SHRM, the leading human-resources lobby, recently dropped the word “equity” in favor of Inclusion and Diversity, citing societal backlash against corporate DEI approaches. In a conversation I had with Johnny C. Taylor, CEO of SHRM, just days after the announcement, he explained the decision: “The E was creating a lot of division, divisiveness, disagreement, incivility…our effort to say, let’s agree on what we can agree on, and that was the struggle.” Taylor’s pragmatic approach reflects the tension in balancing these principles amidst growing polarization.
If you didn’t get a chance to catch my full interview with Johnny C. Taylor, search for “Culture Leaders” wherever you listen to podcasts or click below.
Watch on Youtube: https://lnkd.in/gu4p358J
Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://lnkd.in/gs3_ayZ3
Listen on Spotify: https://lnkd.in/gz–97rh
Even the MEI advocates like Alexandr Wang and Matt Cole of Strive Asset Management claim that their approach leads to organic diversity. So Johnny was right, even the MEI advocates don’t discount diversity. It’s the equity part they are railing against.
So, where does this leave us? It’s clear that we need a more nuanced approach. MEI is a political statement that is much more about the election year than it is about results.
The MEI vs. DEI debate isn’t about choosing one over the other. It’s about recognizing that diversity and excellence are not mutually exclusive—they’re mutually reinforcing. As we continue this conversation, it’s crucial to challenge the simplistic narratives and dig deeper into the complexities what drives results and what is just talk. Only then can we move towards a future where excellence and inclusion are not just buzzwords, but the foundation of a thriving workplace.
To hear more of John’s and my thoughts on this, check out today’s episode of ‘Culture Leaders’ wherever you listen to podcasts or click below.
Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/culture-leaders-the-masters-behind-movements/id1725350421?i=1000663415562
Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3zjUZnRorXyLfap89P5Ykr?si=b21cd31c57b54263
Elsewhere In Culture
A quarter of bosses admit their return-to-office mandates were meant to make staff quit
A quarter of bosses have finally admitted what we’ve all suspected: those return-to-office (RTO) mandates were a sneaky way to make employees quit. According to new research from BambooHR, a survey of over 1,500 U.S. managers revealed that a significant chunk of C-suite executives were banking on some voluntary turnover after rolling out their in-office policies. And let’s not forget the HR folks—one in five admitted their in-office policy was designed to push staff out. Essentially, these RTO mandates are nothing more than layoffs in disguise.
But guess what? It’s not working as planned. Employees are pushing back hard. Just look at Amazon—30,000 employees signed a petition against the company’s in-office mandate, and over 1,800 pledged to walk out. Yet, Amazon is still struggling to enforce its three-day in-office rule more than a year later. Companies are seeing a drop in engagement and unexpected spikes in attrition. Nearly half of the companies with RTO mandates are having a tough time recruiting. Even more telling, 40% of managers believe their organizations had to lay off staff because the RTO mandates didn’t drive enough people to quit. This tough-love approach to workplace culture is not just failing—it’s backfiring spectacularly. Employees want flexibility and trust, not ultimatums. It’s time for companies to get with the program or risk losing their best talent to more adaptable, forward-thinking competitors.
China wants to raise its retirement age. People aren’t happy.
China’s plan to raise its retirement age has ignited a firestorm of discontent among its citizens. The proposal, which aims to push the retirement age beyond the current 60 for men and 50-55 for women, has been met with widespread backlash on social media platforms like Weibo and Xiaohongshu, where a related hashtag garnered over 100 million views. Critics argue that young people are already struggling to find jobs, and extending the working years for older individuals only exacerbates the problem. One particularly biting comment summed up the sentiment: “Young people have a hard time finding jobs, but elderly people are not allowed to retire. What are you doing?” This public outcry underscores the deep-seated frustration with a policy seen as prioritizing economic metrics over the well-being of the populace.
Despite the uproar, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is pressing forward cautiously, suggesting the reforms will be rolled out gradually by 2029 and framed as somewhat voluntary. This cautious approach hints at the government’s awareness of the potential backlash. With China’s aging population—over 297 million people aged 60 and above, nearly the entire population of the U.S.—the strain on the pension system is undeniable. However, the reality on the ground is stark; many older Chinese citizens already struggle with inadequate pensions and are forced to continue working part-time to make ends meet. This move by the CCP, while economically driven, faces significant resistance from a public grappling with the implications of an aging society and a frayed social contract.