The belief in meritocracy – that advancement is based solely on individual capabilities and hard work – remains ingrained in organizations despite evidence that it is a flawed concept perpetuatings gender and other social inequalities. Critical streams of research have highlighted the ideological character of meritocracy discourse, its entrenched nature and acceptance as ‘common-sense’. Less is known about how this ‘meritocracy myth’ is maintained, that is, how this hegemonic discourse retains its potency in day-to-day talk in organizations. We argue that leaders, given their active discursive roles and opportunities to establish and control discourses, play an important but underexamined role in the reproduction and legitimization of this seemingly progressive yet ultimately destructive discourse. We conduct a critical discourse analysis (CDA) drawing on qualitative interviews with leaders in higher education institutions in the United Kingdom focusing on their talk about women’s recruitment and progression in academic roles. We identify three discursive interventions through which leaders routinely maintain and reinforce and on occasion challenge the existing system of meritocracy: invisibilizing gender inequality through gender-neutrality; denying constraints through individualization; and problematizing meritocracy to uphold or challenge the status quo. We argue that by uncovering the means through which meritocracy discourse retains its resilience, our paper offers the opportunity to scrutinize and challenge these discursive underpinnings that uphold the ‘meritocracy myth’. We suggest that it is possible to re-imagine what might be considered ‘merit worthy’ in universities, recognizing and centring structural gender and other social inequalities to create more equal institutions.
AckerJoan (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139–158.
2.
AckerJoan (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20, 441–464.
3.
AlvessonMats (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28, 13–33.
4.
AlvessonMatsAshcraftKaren Lee (2012). Interviews. In SymonGillianCassellCatherine (Eds.), Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges (pp. 239–258). London: Sage.
5.
Ashencaen CrabtreeSaraShielChris (2019). “Playing mother”: Channeled careers and the construction of gender in academia. SAGE Open, 9(3), 2158244019876285.
6.
BagilholeBarbaraWhiteKate (Eds.) (2011). Gender, power and management: A cross-cultural analysis of higher education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
BakerDarrenKelanElisabeth (2019). Splitting and blaming: The psychic life of neoliberal executive women. Human Relations, 72, 69–97.
8.
BallStephen (2015). Living the neo-liberal university. European Journal of Education, 50, 258–261.
9.
BenschopYvonnevan den BrinkMarieke (2023). In the lion’s den: Doing feminist research in academia. In KatilaSaijaMeriläinenSusanBellEmma (Eds.), Handbook of feminist research methodologies in management and organization studies (pp. 419–434). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
10.
BoliverVikki (2013). How fair is access to more prestigious UK universities?British Journal of Sociology, 64, 344–364.
11.
CastillaEmilio J.BenardStephen (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 543–576.
12.
CastillaEmilio J.RanganathanAnand (2020). The production of merit: How managers understand and apply merit in the workplace. Organization Science, 31, 909–935.
13.
ContiJoseph A.O’NeilMegan (2007). Studying power: Qualitative methods and the global elite. Qualitative Research, 7, 63–82.
14.
DrewPaulHeritageJohn (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge & New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
EdleyNigel (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In WetherellMargaretTaylorStephanieYatesSimeon J. (Eds.) Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 189–228). London: Sage.
16.
EvelineJoan (1998). Heavy, dirty and limp stories: Male advantage at work. In GatensMoiraMackinnonAlison (Eds.), Gender and institutions: Welfare, work and citizenship (pp. 90–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
FaircloughNorman (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3, 193–217.
18.
FaircloughNormanWodakRuth (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In van DijkTeun A. (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage.
19.
FoleyMeraiahWilliamsonSue (2019). Managerial perspectives on implicit bias, affirmative action, and merit. Public Administration Review, 79, 35–45.
20.
FotakiMarianna (2013). No women is like a man (in academia): The masculine symbolic order and symbolic order and unwanted female body. Organization Studies, 34, 1251–1275.
21.
FotakiMariannaPrasadAjnesh (2015). Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 14, 556–575.
22.
GaleaNicolaChappellLouise (2022). Male-dominated workplaces and the power of masculine privilege: A comparison of the Australian political and construction sectors. Gender, Work & Organization, 29, 1692–1711.
23.
GuinierLani (2015). The tyranny of the meritocracy: Democratizing higher education in America. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
24.
HallStuart (1977). Culture, the media, and the “ideolological effect.” In CurranJamesGurevitchMichaelWoollacottJanet (Eds.), Mass communication and society (pp. 315–348). London: Edward Arnold.
25.
HardyCynthiaThomasRobyn (2014). Strategy, discourse and practice: The intensification of power. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 320–348.
26.
HESA. (2021). University statistics 2021. [Online]. HESA, Promenade. www.hesa.ac.uk
27.
HewlettSylviaLuceCarolyn (2005). Off-ramps and on-ramps: Keeping talented women on the road to success. Harvard Business Review, 83(3), 43–46.
28.
HolsteinJamesGubriumJaber F. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
HuppatzKateSangKateNapierJemina (2019). ‘If you put pressure on yourself to produce then that’s your responsibility’: Mothers’ experiences of maternity leave and flexible work in the neoliberal university. Gender, Work & Organization, 26, 772–788.
30.
HusuLiisaKoskinenPaula (2010). Gendering excellence in technological research: A comparative European perspective. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5, 127–139.
31.
JanksHilary (1997). Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18, 329–342.
JeffersonGail (1984). Transcript notation. In AtkinsonJ. MaxwellHeritageJohn (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 346–369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Johnson-BaileyJuanita (2015). Academic incivility and bullying as a gendered and racialized phenomena. Adult Learning, 26, 42–47.
35.
KelanElisabeth (2009). Gender fatigue: The ideological dilemma of gender neutrality and discrimination in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 26, 197–210.
36.
KlockerNataschaDrozdzewskiDanielle (2012). Commentary: Career progress relative to opportunity: How many papers is a baby ‘worth’?Environment and Planning A, 44, 1271–1277.
37.
KreftingLaurie (2003). Intertwined discourses of merit and gender: Evidence from academic employment in the USA. Gender, Work & Organization, 10, 260–278.
38.
LewisLisa (2018). Scaling the ivory tower: Merit and its limits in academic careers. Oxford: Routledge.
39.
LittlerJo (2017). Against meritocracy: Culture, power and myths of mobility. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.
40.
McCoySusanMajorBrenda (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 43, 241–351.
41.
McGregorSue (2003). Critical discourse analysis – A primer. Critical Science and Critical Discourse Analysis, 15(1).
42.
MeyersonDebra (2001). Tempered radicals: How people use difference to inspire change at work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
PadavicIreneElyRobinReidErin (2020). Explaining the persistence of gender inequality: The work–family narrative as a social defense against the 24/7 work culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65, 61–111.
45.
ParkerCharlieScottSamGeddesAlistair (2019). Snowball sampling. In AtkinsonPaulDelamontSaraCernatAlexandruSakshaugJoseph W.WilliamsRichard A. (Eds.), SAGE Research Methods Foundations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
PattonMichael (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
PhillipsNelsonHardyCynthia (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
PhillipsNelsonSewellGrahamJaynesSharon (2008). Applying critical discourse analysis in strategic management research. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 770–789.
49.
PhippsAlison (2020). Reckoning up: Sexual harassment and violence in the neoliberal university. Gender and Education, 32, 227–243.
50.
PotterJonathanWetherellMargaret (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
51.
ReskinBarbaraMcBrierDebra Branch (2000). Why not ascription? Organizations’ employment of male and female managers. American Sociological Review, 65, 210–233.
52.
SandelMichael (2020). The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good?London: Penguin UK.
53.
SchenkeinJim (1978). Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York, NY: Academic Press.
54.
ScullyMaureen (1997). Meritocracy. In WerhanePatricia H.FreemanR. Edward (Eds.), Encyclopaedic dictionary of business ethics (pp. 413–414). Oxford: Blackwell.
55.
ScullyMaureen (2002). Confronting errors in meritocracy. Organization, 9, 396–401.
56.
ŚliwaMartynaJohanssonMaria (2014). The discourse of meritocracy contested/reproduced: Foreign women academics in UK business schools. Organization, 21, 821–843.
57.
SmidtThomas B.PétursdóttirGyða M.EinarsdóttirÞorgerður (2021). When discourse is hijacked: An implicit and performative resistance strategy to gender equality in higher education. Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education, 14, 143–165.
58.
StraussAnselm (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
59.
The Russell Group of Universities. (2022). “Russell Group” and “Our Universities”. https://russellgroup.ac.uk/
60.
TreviñoLen J.BalkinDavid B.Gomez-MejiaLuis R. (2017). How ‘doing gender’ leads to gender imbalances in the higher ranks in colleges of business [and how to ‘undo gender’]. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16, 439–453.
61.
UhlmannEric L.CohenGeoffrey L. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, 16, 474–480.
62.
van den BrinkMariekeBenschopYvonne (2012a). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19, 507–524.
63.
van den BrinkMariekeBenschopYvonne (2012b). Slaying the seven-headed dragon: The quest for gender change in academia. Gender, Work & Organization, 19, 71–92.
64.
van den BrinkMariekeBenschopYvonneJansenWim (2010). Transparency in academic recruitment: A problematic tool for gender equality?Organization Studies, 31, 1459–1483.
65.
van DijkTeun (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4, 249–283.
66.
Van LeeuwenTheo (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1, 91–112.
67.
WilliamsJoan C.Blair-LowMichelleBerdahlJennifer (2013). Cultural schemes, social class, and the flexibility stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 209–234.
68.
WilliamsJoan C.ManvellJessicaBornsteinStephanie (2006). “Opt out” or pushed out? How the press covers work/family conflict. The Center for WorkLife Law. ADVANCE Library Collection. Paper 575. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/advance/575
69.
Wittenberg-CoxAvivah (2013). Stop fixing women, start building management competencies. In VinnicombeSusanBurkeRonald J.Blake-BeardStacyMooreLynda L. (Eds.), Handbook of research on promoting women’s careers (pp. 106–116). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
70.
WodakRuth (1997). Critical discourse analysis and the study of doctor-patient interaction. In GunnarssonBritt-LouiseLinellPerNordbergBengt (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. 173–197). New York, NY: Routledge.
71.
YlijokiOili-Helena (2013). Boundary-work between work and life in the high-speed university. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 242–255.
72.
YoungMichael (1958). The rise of the meritocracy (Vol. 1). London; New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
