In recent years, the conversation around improving company culture has been focused on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). But critics of DEI suggest that the movement has gone too far, and that companies may be losing out on the best candidates for roles by focusing on hiring individuals from underrepresented groups.

The recent backlash against DEI has led to the rise of a new dialogue – MEI (Merit, Excellent, and Intelligence) – that’s all over the news. The Wall Street Journal describes MEI as an “anti-DEI approach” that’s even been “endorsed by Elon Musk.” Proponents of MEI argue that employees should be objectively evaluated based on what they define as “merit” – their abilities and achievements – rather than on their backgrounds. Though MEI may be gaining traction with notable CEOs, we see fundamental problems with using the framework to hire and promote your employees.

On the surface, MEI may seem like a fair and objective standard to evaluate your employees. However, research reveals that the concept of merit is often a subjective evaluation, because leaders can have unconscious biases that causes them to inflate merit with those who are usually the norm for leadership roles, such as white men. Since white men are usually seen as the default leaders in an organization, those who don’t fit that role, such as women, people of color, or those with disabilities – have to go above and beyond the normal requirements to be seen as equally competent. Team members from underrepresented groups can also be negatively judged as a “DEI hire”, which implies that they are less qualified for their position than someone hired strictly on merit.

To address the biases that can come with traditional concepts of “merit,” it’s important to take a proactive approach. We recommend organizations measure their hiring and promotion practices across various demographic groups using differential impact for an objective view of what’s going on. You’ll want to assess across disaggregated groups, to measure potential disparities between women, men, veterans, people with disabilities, racial groups and others to ensure some are not being unfairly filtered out. With the objective data in hand, you’ll be able to actually decide whether or not you really do have merit built into your process.

Additionally, you should rethink and define what vague terms like “excellence” and “intelligence” mean in the context of the role you’re hiring for. For example, intelligence as a concept is nebulous, and hiring someone who scores high on a traditional intelligence test may not always be the best indicator for success in every role. In many instances, qualities such as being process-oriented, or being a relationship-builder, would be much more important than a traditional intelligence assessment. Fostering an environment where all individuals have the opportunity to succeed doesn’t have to be in opposition to merit. By using a standardized approach of evaluating your talent pipeline, you’ll be able integrate merit and inclusion so that your workplace is not only successful but fair.