Can an organization ever be truly meritocratic? That’s a question Emilio J. Castilla, the NTU Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, explores in his new book, “The Meritocracy Paradox: Where Talent Management Strategies Go Wrong and How to Fix Them” (Columbia University Press, 2025). Castilla, who is co-director of MIT’s Institute for Work and Employment Research (IWER), researches how talent is managed inside organizations and why — even with the best intentions — workplace practices often fail to deliver fairness and effectiveness.

Castilla’s book brings together decades of research to explain why organizations struggle to achieve meritocracy in practice — and what leaders can do to build fairer, more effective, and higher-performing workplaces. In the following Q&A, he unpacks how bias can unintentionally seep into hiring, evaluation, promotion, and reward systems, and offers concrete strategies to counteract these dynamics and design processes that recognize and support merit.

Q: One central argument of your book is that true meritocracy is not easy for organizations to achieve in practice. Why is that? 

A. A large body of research has found that bias and unfairness can creep into the workplace, affecting talent management processes such as who gets interviewed for jobs, who gets hired, what kind of performance evaluations employees receive, and how employees are rewarded. So it’s not easy for an organization to be truly meritocratic.

In fact, research I conducted with Stephen Benard found that, ironically, emphasizing that an organization is a meritocracy may lead decision-makers to behave in more biased ways. Specifically, in our study, we found that when participants were told they were making decisions for an organization that emphasized meritocracy, they were more likely to recommend higher bonuses for male employees than for their equally-performing female peers, compared to when meritocracy wasn’t emphasized. We called this phenomenon the “paradox of meritocracy,” and it may stem from managers paying less attention to monitoring their own biases when they are assured the organization is fair.

A study I conducted with Aruna Ranganathan PhD ’14 further showed that managers’ understanding of what constitutes “merit” varies widely — even within the same organization. There is no universally agreed-upon definition, and our research found that managers often apply the concept of merit in ways that reflect their own experiences as employees. This variability can lead to inconsistent, and sometimes inequitable, outcomes.

Q. What are some of the things organizations can do to make their talent management practices more meritocratic?

A. The encouraging news is that making your organization’s talent management processes fairer and more meritocratic doesn’t have to be complex or expensive. It does, however, require buy-in from top management. The key factors, my research in organizations has shown, are organizational transparency and accountability.

To improve organizational transparency, you need to be very explicit and open about the criteria and procedures you use in talent management processes such as hiring, evaluation, promotion, and reward decisions. That’s because research has shown that having clear and specific merit-based criteria and well-defined processes can help reduce biases.

On the accountability side, you need to have at least one person responsible for monitoring the organization’s talent management processes and outcomes to ensure fairness and effectiveness. In practice, companies often give this responsibility to a group from different parts of the organization. Research has shown that knowing that your decisions will be reviewed by others causes managers to think carefully about their decisions — something that can reduce the impact of unconscious biases in the workplace.

Q. How realistic is it to think that organizations can ever be true meritocracies — and why do you nonetheless believe meritocracy is worth striving for?

A. It’s true that organizations are unlikely to ever be perfectly meritocratic. Still, striving for meritocracy and fairness in your talent management strategies is beneficial, and you should be aware of the pitfalls. Employers that hire, reward, and advance the most talented and hard-working employees, regardless of their demographic background, are likely to benefit in the long run. That’s the promise and enduring appeal of meritocracy.

Many in the United States may not realize that one of the world’s earliest formal meritocracies emerged in China during the Han and Qin dynasties more than 2,000 years ago. As early as 200 B.C.E., the Chinese empire began developing a system of civil service exams in order to identify and appoint competent and talented officials to help administer government operations throughout the empire.

Those Chinese emperors were on to something. Once an organization reaches a certain size, leaders won’t achieve the most effective performance if they make talent management decisions based on non-meritocratic factors such as nepotism, aristocracy/social class, corruption, or friendship. When it comes to choosing a guiding principle for people management decisions within an organization, meritocracy beats a lot of the alternatives.

Massachusetts is uniquely positioned to become a leader in climate tech, said Emily Reichert MBA ’12, the CEO of the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) and former CEO of Greentown Labs, to members of the MIT community at a seminar in November. 

Reichert outlined the interconnectedness of economic development and clean energy innovation in MassCEC’s efforts to advance the energy transition and address climate change, as part of the MITEI Presents: Advancing the Energy Transition speaker series. An MIT Sloan School of Management alumna, Reichert stepped aside as the agency’s CEO in late November and the MITEI speaker series was her final presentation in that role.

“There’s not another [agency] in the country exactly like us focused on innovation and economic development for clean energy and climate tech,” stated Reichert. Created in 2008, MassCEC is the state’s economic development agency dedicated to the growth of the clean energy and climate tech sector. Reichert stressed that economic development is just as much about businesses as it is about the jobs they create.

The organization’s economic development plan is built on its knowledge of the commonwealth’s infrastructure, talent capabilities, academic resources, startup culture, and regional strengths. Reichert explained that there are four areas at the core of MassCEC’s work.

First, bringing emerging climate-tech ideas out of the laboratory and into the world. To do this, MassCEC provides grants, internships, and has a small investment fund that is co-invested with different investors in the area. “We are increasingly focusing on the longer-term growth trajectory of these young companies,” said Reichert, adding that the hope is for these startups to stay, grow, and create jobs in Massachusetts.

Second, MassCEC aims to accelerate decarbonization by taking commercialized technologies and helping to get them into as many homes and businesses as possible. This can often require specialized knowledge of Massachusetts’ infrastructure, given that the state has relatively older buildings and unique structures, such as triple-deckers. One example is finding a way to make charging technology available to electric vehicle owners when they don’t have a single-family home with a garage.

MassCEC is also focused on enabling the large-scale deployment of offshore wind. “It’ll be 400,000 homes that are powered by the clean energy that’s being generated by offshore wind right off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. MassCEC’s role is to support the port infrastructure from which we marshal those offshore wind projects,” stated Reichert. “We also support innovation that is needed to do all the things that support the offshore wind industry, in general.”

Finally, Reichert reiterated that MassCEC’s overarching goal is to support clean energy workforce development through job creation, as well as professional development opportunities such as providing internships, training for high school and community college students, and supporting students returning to school for a second career in clean energy.

Reichert emphasized that Massachusetts is particularly well-equipped to house this level of climate-tech innovation since the state is already a leader in the life sciences. The Healey-Driscoll administration charged MassCEC with spearheading the state’s Climatetech Economic Development Strategy and Implementation Plan, a 10-year strategy to position Massachusetts as a global climate tech leader and drive a more equitable and resilient climate future.

To complement this plan and further position the state as an epicenter for energy innovation, the Healey-Driscoll administration also passed the Mass Leads Act, which established the Climatetech Tax Incentive Program, an annual tax incentive to be administered by MassCEC. “This is the money piece,” said Reichert. “How we do it. How we implement it.”

To unlock Massachusetts’ full potential, MassCEC uses a regional approach to take advantage of the strengths held in each area of the state. “We have a fantastic ecosystem. We have more startups per capita than any other state,” said Reichert. The quantity of startups is in large part due to the strengths of the Greater Boston region, with its strong venture capital community and good research institutions, said Reichert, who also highlighted MIT as a key factor. MIT spinout companies like Sublime Systems, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, Boston Metal, and The Engine are all part of MassCEC’s ecosystem.

For the agency, retaining talent in Massachusetts is just as important as supporting its development. “How can we help companies to do their processes, find their facilities, build their facilities, do their demonstrations, do their testing, and find the talent?” asked Reichert. “How can we reduce the time and money barriers to all of that, and therefore make it as easy as possible and as inexpensive as possible for the company to stay here and grow here?”

Reichert expressed her confidence in climate-tech innovation’s ability to endure the changing energy landscape. “The rest of the world is going in this direction. We can decide not to compete as a country, or we can decide that we want to compete and that we want to be part of the future,” said Reichert. “Innovation isn’t going anywhere. I think when you have places like MIT, who are very focused on climate innovation and the energy transition, that activity helps move the ball forward.”

This speaker series highlights energy experts and leaders at the forefront of the scientific, technological, and policy solutions needed to transform our energy systems. Visit MITEI’s Events page for more information on this and additional events.