Diversity Targets Aren’t the Problem. Lazy Hiring Is.

When ‘Merit’ Becomes a Convenient Excuse

All-male shortlists. In 2025.
Honestly, I thought we’d parked that nonsense somewhere back in the 90s along with dial-up internet and shoulder pads. But here we are, watching some companies quietly roll back their diversity commitments and cloak it in this righteous chant: “We hire on merit!”

Let’s just pause for a moment. Because every time someone shouts merit! they seem to imply women, or any underrepresented group, are somehow less meritorious by default. That we only got through the door because of a quota. That the men on the shortlist? Oh, they’re there purely on talent and grit. Pull the other one.

I’ve spent enough years in boardrooms, and advisory panels to see what “merit” really means sometimes: Bias, dressed up in a nice suit. Because if your entire leadership pipeline only ever spits out men at the top, it’s not that women don’t measure up, it’s that your pipeline’s leaking talent like a sieve.

Here’s what frustrates me: some people point to failed diversity hires and say, “See? It doesn’t work. We promoted that woman to VP and she didn’t deliver.” As if she was some sacrificial lamb for the entire gender.

I’ve heard the stories too: women parachuted into senior roles without the right backing or coaching. Token hires expected to fix a rotten culture overnight. Then when they struggle (surprise, surprise) it’s held up as proof that diversity targets compromise quality.

No. They don’t. Lazy hiring and tick-box strategies compromise quality.
Putting one woman in a room full of old boys, with no real authority, no mentorship and a magnifying glass on every move she makes? That’s setting people up to fail.

We can absolutely have diversity targets AND high calibre.
Those two things are not at war with each other. In fact, I’d argue they depend on each other. Because you can’t tell me that the best and brightest talent just happens to always be a man called John. Statistically, it’s laughable.

What do real companies who get this right do? They stop trying to ‘find a woman’ five minutes before the shortlist. They build robust, diverse pipelines years before the job opens. They sponsor people, not just mentor them. They review biased promotion criteria. They fix cultures so talented women (and other historically excluded groups) don’t look around and say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

Because here’s the thing no one wants to admit: sometimes the best person for the job isn’t even on your radar yet, because your systems have been keeping them out.

So let’s not pretend the old way was meritocracy. It was familiarity. It was comfort. It was who you went to the rugby with, who you bonded with over the water cooler, who looked and sounded like the last bloke you hired.

True meritocracy isn’t the absence of diversity targets, it’s the presence of equal access, opportunity and backing.

So no, I’m not here for the “illusion” of diversity. I want the real thing. Not performative gestures. Not last-minute box-ticking. Not tokenism. Real, consistent, system-wide change that recognises talent comes in every gender, every race, every background.

It’s 2025, for goodness sake. Half the population shouldn’t be missing from your shortlist, or your boardroom. If your hiring processes keep telling you only one type of candidate “measures up”, maybe it’s not the candidates who need fixing.

P.S. If you’re reading this and nodding, good. If you’re squirming, even better. The discomfort means you’re awake to it. Now, let’s do something about it.