There's a growing backlash against corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Critics often frame the rollback as a return to "meritocracy," with companies and policymakers emphasizing that hiring and promotions should rest solely on performance and qualifications. The Trump administration has amplified this shift, with executive orders and statements declaring a renewed focus on merit-based opportunity.
In her new book, *The Ambition Penalty: How Corporate Culture Tells Women to Step Up—and Then Pushes Them Down*, journalist Stefanie O’Connell challenges this narrative. She argues that meritocracy is largely a myth that sustains existing power structures, and she dismantles several persistent myths that blame women for their slower progress in corporate America.
The Meritocracy Myth and the Paradox of Meritocracy
Research shows that workplace decisions on pay and promotions are frequently influenced by bias, not pure merit. Studies have demonstrated that identically qualified men and women are often evaluated differently. For instance, experiments that alter only the gender of identical resumes consistently find that male applicants receive more callbacks and favorable assessments.
A striking irony emerges here: managers who most strongly believe their organizations are merit-based are often the most prone to bias. This is known as the "paradox of meritocracy." When people assume they are already objective, they tend to scrutinize their decisions less rigorously. In contrast, acknowledging the potential for bias encourages greater vigilance against it.
The "Women Are the Problem" Myths
When meritocracy is assumed, women's underrepresentation at senior levels is often attributed to personal shortcomings: they supposedly don't negotiate enough, lack confidence, avoid leadership roles, or lose ambition after having children.
O’Connell counters that women typically enter the workforce with ambition equal to—or greater than—that of men. However, they frequently encounter an "ambition penalty." Behaviors like assertiveness, speaking up, or negotiating aggressively, which are rewarded in men, often trigger backlash against women.
Salary negotiations provide a clear example. Women have been repeatedly advised to negotiate more to close the gender pay gap. Yet multiple studies, including one involving over 2,500 negotiators, show that women *do* negotiate at similar rates and with similar strategies to men. The difference lies in outcomes: women face greater penalties for doing so, especially when they have strong alternatives. They are less likely to receive what they ask for precisely because they ask assertively.
The Opting-Out Myth
Another common narrative suggests that mothers "opt out" of high-powered careers to prioritize family, implying a voluntary choice rather than systemic issues. O’Connell highlights research showing that access to affordable childcare, paid parental leave, and flexible arrangements significantly improves women's ability to stay in the workforce. When these supports are absent, mothers— who still shoulder a disproportionate share of childcare responsibilities—often scale back. What gets labeled as "choice" is frequently the result of structural constraints.
Outside-In vs. Inside-Out Change
These myths share a core assumption: the system is fair, so women must change to succeed. This "inside-out" approach focuses on self-improvement—negotiating better, leaning in, building confidence. While personal development has value, O’Connell argues it cannot resolve systemic problems.
She advocates for "outside-in" change: reforming the structures and norms that penalize women for the same behaviors rewarded in men. This requires collective action rather than individual effort alone. Practical steps include greater pay transparency, sharing information about promotions, advocating for family-supportive policies, and challenging biased norms.
Ultimately, O’Connell urges women to stop internalizing unequal outcomes as personal failures and to recognize the role of institutional and cultural factors in shaping career trajectories. Addressing these realities, rather than perpetuating outdated myths, offers a clearer path toward genuine opportunity.