In many workplaces today, we hear a lot about something called the merit system. Whether it’s in government offices, big corporations, or educational institutions, this system is usually described as a fair way to reward employees. The idea is simple and appealing: people who work hard, perform well, and show strong potential should get promoted or rewarded. No favoritism, no unfairness, just pure merit.
But what if the very idea of “merit” isn’t as neutral as we think? What if the way we define and measure merit is quietly biased in favor of certain kinds of workers, and against others?
This question becomes especially important when we look at the experiences of women in the workplace, particularly working mothers or caregivers. While the merit system may seem objective on the surface, a closer look shows that it may reinforce some of the very inequalities it claims to fight.
To understand the problem, we first need to talk about the idea of the “ideal worker.” In many organizations, the ideal worker is imagined as someone who is always available, works full-time without long breaks, can stay late or travel when needed, and is fully dedicated to the job without distractions.
This idea might sound logical in a world where productivity is king. But it favors a very specific kind of employee—usually someone who does not have major caregiving responsibilities, like children or elderly parents to look after. In many societies, including ours, that “ideal” is easier to achieve for men than for women, because women are still expected to take on more of the domestic and caregiving roles at home.
Sociologist Joan Acker famously called this kind of system a gendered organization. That means an organization that looks neutral but is built on hidden assumptions that benefit some groups over others, especially men over women. For example, when performance is judged by how long someone stays in the office or how quickly they respond to late-night emails, the system is already tilted toward people who don’t have to rush home to pick up their kids or take care of family duties.
Let’s take a common scenario. A male employee and a female employee are equally talented and committed. But the male employee has no caregiving duties and can stay late at the office, go to every out-of-town meeting, and be seen more by upper management. The female employee, who is also a mother, works just as efficiently but leaves on time every day to pick up her child. She might miss some evening networking events or optional weekend training.
When it comes time for promotion, who is more likely to be seen as “committed” or “high performing”? In many cases, the answer is: the man. Not because he does better work, but because the system rewards visibility, availability, and uninterrupted career paths, things that are easier to achieve when you don’t have caregiving responsibilities.
This is how a system that claims to be based on merit can still be unfair. It measures success through a narrow lens and fails to recognize the diverse ways in which people contribute to their organizations.
Women, and others who don’t fit the “ideal worker” mold, bring many important strengths to the workplace. They often develop strong time management skills, emotional intelligence, and the ability to lead with empathy. These are not soft or secondary skills; they are crucial to building healthy, high-performing organizations.
Yet these qualities are rarely seen as central in traditional merit systems. Instead, metrics like hours worked, visibility, or participation in “high-profile” projects are prioritized. This creates a mismatch between what is truly valuable and what is officially rewarded.
This doesn’t mean we should throw away the idea of merit altogether. Rewarding performance, effort, and impact is important. But we need to take a deeper look at how we define and measure these things.
A fairer approach would be to recognize that workers have different life situations and that success doesn’t always follow one straight path. It would also mean expanding our definition of “merit” to include not just hard numbers or long hours, but also collaboration, adaptability, emotional labor, and inclusive leadership.
In other words, we need a more human understanding of merit, one that respects both performance and context.
So, before we continue to praise the merit system as the perfect solution to workplace fairness, we should stop and ask ourselves a few important questions:
Who gets to decide what counts as “merit”? Are we rewarding the best performers, or just the most available ones? Is the system designed for people who have caregiving responsibilities, or only those who can work like they don’t? And can we really call a system “fair” if it only works well for one kind of worker?
True fairness means recognizing that not everyone starts from the same place, and not everyone walks the same path. A mother who returns to work after maternity leave and balances both work and home life is not less committed than a colleague without those responsibilities. She is showing resilience, time management, and dedication, all of which should be recognized as part of her merit.
It’s time to develop our understanding of the workplace. We need systems that value diversity, that acknowledge different kinds of life journeys, and that reward people not just for fitting into a narrow mold, but for making real, meaningful contributions in their own way. Only then can we say that the merit system is truly fair, not just in theory, but in practice.
Editor: Abdul Khalik
