With the re-emergence of merit-based hiring through President Trump’s Executive Order 14173, many employers are reevaluating their hiring strategies, as organizations move away from earlier frameworks. Human Resource/Hiring Managers are concerned about ensuring equality in their hiring practices while aligning with the renewed focus on qualifications, performance, and job-related competencies.
At its core, merit-based hiring prioritizes an applicant’s ability to perform the job, using objective criteria such as education, experience, certifications, and relevant accomplishments. This can offer a clear roadmap for organizations aiming to build a high-performing team: hire based on what someone can do. The idea is to reduce subjectivity in hiring decisions.
Supporters of merit-based hiring argue that this approach promotes transparency and consistency by focusing on measurable performance indicators. It can help guard against favoritism and strengthen trust in the recruitment process. A merit-based system may feel like a more straightforward and reliable path to opportunity for job seekers, especially those who have worked hard to gain relevant skills, degrees, or credentials.
However, some hiring professionals are grappling with maintaining fairness under this model. One of the primary concerns is how to define “merit” in a way that doesn’t unintentionally overlook capable candidates. Critics argue that meritocracy is not a neutral system, as it reflects and reinforces the values of those who define what counts as merit. This insight challenges employers to think critically about which standards they apply and whether they reflect a broad understanding of what makes someone successful on the job.
Another ongoing challenge is unequal access to educational and professional opportunities, which is shaped by structural factors that influence which groups are more likely to succeed in a merit-based system. Some candidates from underserved communities may not have had the same opportunities to earn college degrees or other credentials often used as merit indicators. A rigid merit-based system risks overlooking talented individuals who have taken non-traditional paths.
Moreover, an overemphasis on standardized performance metrics can unintentionally narrow the range of perspectives and problem-solving approaches within organizations. As Business Professor Dr. Scott Page notes, “Diverse groups of problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers” (Hong and Page, 2004). This underscores the value of broadening hiring practices to include varied backgrounds and experiences, enhancing innovation and outcomes.
What can employers do?
- Broaden the definition of “qualified” by considering not only past achievements but also future potential.
- Critically examine job descriptions, interview processes, and selection criteria to understand how they influence who applies and advances.
- Train hiring managers on implicit bias, fair hiring practices, and legal guidelines.
- Play their role in removing systemic barriers that have historically limited access to educational and professional opportunities.
The return to merit-based hiring under Executive Order 14173 need not signal a retreat from fairness. It presents an opportunity to demonstrate high standards through inclusive strategies that recognize the many ways people show talent and potential. As we look to the future, our responsibility is to ensure that the pursuit of merit remains fair, transparent, and responsive to the real-world circumstances that shape people’s opportunities to succeed.
To learn more, check out these resources:
- Executive Order 14173
- Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers
- Trump’s Executive Order and DEI in the Private Sector
- Merit-Based Hiring Under the Trump Administration
- How Meritocracy Fuels Inequality—Part I
- How Meritocracy Fuels Inequality—Part II