The Myth of Meritocracy — From an Immigrant Woman Who Actually Did the Math
How Meritocracy Masks the Systems That Determine Who Gets Seen
Meritocracy is one of the most comforting ideas in modern corporate culture. At its core, it promises fairness: individuals advance based on ability, effort, and measurable performance. Talent and results—not background, identity, or proximity to power—are meant to determine success.
For a long time, I believed in this framework wholeheartedly.
As an immigrant woman working in high-performance environments where everything is tracked, forecasted, and optimized, meritocracy didn’t just feel fair—it felt mathematical. Work hard. Deliver results. Advance.
So I tested the system the way I approach any complex operation: by examining inputs, incentives, and outcomes.
Across roles in large-scale operations and forecasting, I consistently delivered measurable impact—improving accuracy, scaling systems, and supporting global teams across regions and cultures. On paper, the inputs were strong. The outputs, however, were inconsistent.
That’s when the pattern became clear.
Merit did matter—but it did not operate alone.
Visibility, cultural communication norms, accent bias, and proximity to decision-makers functioned as multipliers. These factors didn’t replace performance; they amplified or diluted it. Two individuals could deliver comparable results and experience vastly different outcomes based on forces rarely acknowledged in performance reviews.
Meritocracy, then, isn’t a lie.
It’s an incomplete model.
And like any incomplete model, it produces distorted conclusions.
Immigrant women are often positioned at the intersection of high execution and low narrative ownership. We run complex systems, translate across cultures, absorb operational risk, and stabilize outcomes—while others are rewarded for visibility rather than value creation.
When organizations claim to be meritocratic without interrogating how merit is recognized, interpreted, and rewarded, they mistake objectivity for neutrality. The result is not always overt bias, but structural blind spots embedded in how leadership potential is assessed.
The real question is not whether merit matters.
It does.
The question is whether leaders are willing to account for the unseen variables that determine whose merit is noticed—and whose is quietly normalized.
