Minary: Why merit beats seniority and DEI in hiring and leadership

By Russ Minary | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

With the federal debt now topping $35 trillion, it’s clear there’s too much fraud, waste, abuse, corruption, redundancy, reckless spending and status quo. Change is in order.

In Jan. 2025, Pres. Trump issued an Executive Order entitled: “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing” which introduced MERITOCRACY into the system.  A lot of people applauded the change and others reacted negatively.  

MERIT is a good thing. The dictionary defines MERIT as: 1) Superior quality or worth; 2)  Quality deserving praise or approval; 3) Virtue and demonstrated ability or achievement. 

Those qualities are all good when you’re looking for a surgeon, banker, financial advisor, employee, mechanic, plumber or dining establishment 

Businesses depend upon high ratings from people. People who like something will recommend it to others. Most people want and expect what is best, excellent and popular.   

Government, on the other hand, is generally based upon status quo. It’s a Latin phrase meaning ‘we’ve always done it this way.” Productivity, efficiency and customer service are lacking in most government operations and programs. For examples, consider Congress, the IRS or the Dept. of Motor Vehicles.  

Government and many corporations have used three primary methods to hire, manage and promote people: 1) SENIORITY, 2) DEI (or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) and, 3) MERITOCRACY. Each method has inherent benefits, problems and mixed results which are explained below.

SENIORITY rewards longevity, good performers and those who have institutional memory. It stabilizes the culture and ensures that processes and traditions are maintained. The longer a person sticks around, the more they are eligible for promotion, pay increases, perks, benefits, ownership/stock and a cushier job. 

Seniority has drawbacks. Good performers tend towards status quo levels and risk avoidance. They often hire people who think and act like them so there can be a lack of diversity. They work within the system rather than innovating or pushing the envelope. People who’ve come up through the ranks often stifle or reject new ideas and methods as radical, negative, threatening.

DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) often focuses on external characteristics like race, gender, culture, political views or sexual identity when hiring or promoting. Its intentions are good. It ensures, overtly or covertly, that certain preferences or quotas are established and maintained in the organization.

DEI has drawbacks. Rather than hiring, promoting and rewarding those who are well-suited, most capable, experienced, properly trained and successful in a role – regardless of their external characteristics – this method often fails to benefit the organization or produce results. Performance suffers when an unqualified person is placed in the wrong role for the wrong reason and under-performs.   

I am a proponent of MERITOCRACY.  

Here Are Six Reasons Why Meritocracy Works Better Than Both DEI and Seniority:

1. Meritocracy provides a clear, fair and understandable system for making decisions.  When the expectations and rules are clear, both the organization and the employees understand how and why performance is measured and rewarded. Performers are recognized and rewarded.  Every experienced manager remembers that one problem employee. This person was allowed to stay too long, sapping the organization of time and energy. In a meritocracy, non-performers are given the opportunity, coaching and resources to improve and succeed – or to leave.  
2. Meritocracy focuses on results and not individual personalities. It levels the playing field when it’s time for performance reviews, raises and promotions. Every person is responsible and accountable for their performance. Of course, this assumes that expectations are clearly defined and results are being measured. If it can’t be measured, it can’t be managed. And everything can be measured.
3. Meritocracy makes it difficult for anyone to play favorites and manage by opinion, intimidation or personal bias.  No more bullies, nepotism, teacher’s pets or sacred cows.  
4. Meritocracy allows an organization to set, monitor and reward different levels of achievement differently and fairly. The best can quickly rise to the top. A newly hired person can be rewarded at a higher level for results that are even more valuable than those of more senior employees. If a new salesperson breaks every sales record, they’re compensated accordingly. If a programmer or engineer develops an idea that revolutionizes the company, they may be offered an ownership share in the business right away. Healthy competition is encouraged.
5. Meritocracy increases retention by recognizing and rewarding top performers appropriately. Whatever the economy is doing, good people are hard to find. Top performers are in high demand so they are heavily recruited (and stolen) by your competitors. SO keeping the best people is cheaper and easier than constantly trying to replace them. NOTE: In order to retain your top performers, you must recognize and focus on their results and reward them accordingly. If you don’t they’ll still be top performers – somewhere else. 
6. Meritocracy is all about ‘extras’  and everyone wants extras. It allows the best person to succeed, win and prosper based on empirical measures of performance. The best idea, best employee, best manager, best customer service and best sales results will rise to the top.  That is good in every type of organization.

One final thought. No system created or implemented by humans is perfect because humans are imperfect. But history and experience prove that it’s hard to change and improve if you always stay the same.  

Russ Minary is a retired sales executive, marketing consultant, small business owner and veteran. He helped businesses with hiring, talent consulting and organizational effectiveness before retiring. 

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.