From Mirrortocracies to Meritocracies: Rethinking Talent Development
Some organizations continue to struggle creating a rich, diverse leadership pipeline. Despite commendable efforts to promote diversity and inclusion at the higher levels, most organizations have a long way to go to significantly change the makeup of their leadership teams.
McKinsey and LeanIn’s 2023 Women in the Workplace study revealed that women represent roughly one in four C-suite leaders, while women of color are just one in sixteen. On top of that, the study found that women continue to face barriers in middle management, and experience underrepresentation in leadership roles across the board. Although the data comes from the US, I’ve seen similar patterns playing out globally.
The culprit? Fixed mental models. Talent development and succession processes are susceptible to entrenched views of what leadership should look like. Worse, some organizations are reluctant to change their systems and processes. However, when you shift mindsets and redefine talent processes, your leaders will start to look very different.
The hallways are lined with good intentions, and a lot of thought goes into developing talent pipelines. From emergent leader programs, development rotations, and mentoring programs to 360-degree reviews, independent evaluations, and leadership transition management — an array of initiatives designed to be fair and transparent. Everything is set up to make the process as fair and transparent as possible. Yet, the needle stubbornly refuses to move.
So, what’s going wrong? When digging into this problem, you’ll often find a catalog of issues. A common thread is that organizations are accidentally creating “mirrortocracies,” rather than meritocracies, where people who look, talk, and act like the current leaders are the ones on the talent plans. These mental models of leadership perpetuate existing norms and prevent diverse talent from breaking through.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall.
In an effort to be fair and transparently meritocratic, talent identification and development programs often identify a scorecard of qualities that future leaders should possess. These qualities might include specific credentials, excellence in past projects, or certain competencies deemed essential for leadership — values, ethics, achievement-focused, strategic, emotionally intelligent, etc.
No one is questioning the importance of these competencies. And, since most are capable of being measured objectively — and organizations go to great lengths to do so — they probably won’t trip your unfairness radar. They might, however, trip your sameness radar. Why? Because organizations tend to look at their current leaders when defining these qualities, and the Venn diagram of what they’re looking for and their blind spots around what makes a good leader has a pretty big overlap.
Here’s an example. Imagine you’re in a planning meeting where leaders are discussing the competencies needed to be successful at the organization. Someone mentions self-confidence. Everyone nods in agreement, recognizing that confidence is necessary for leaders to take risks and achieve high goals.
But what is the underlying assumption about self-confidence?
How are we defining confidence — is it outgoing, assertive, charismatic?
If so, leadership research suggests that ethical leadership must move beyond charisma. Indeed, this definition of leadership is skewed masculine and emanates from the West, and I’d add, from a different era. I have worked with and coached extraordinary, humble, quiet leaders who are often mislabeled as not having confidence. Conducting research on leadership, I found many narratives on leadership are limited to Anglo-American examples.
In talent meetings, we need a deeper analysis of how different people and groups might demonstrate leadership competencies differently, and ways to account for those differences in meritocratic evaluations, seems to be missing. The process is the problem, and it’s why you can invest all the money in the world and still not see any change.
A systems check on your talent pipeline. So, how does a company rewire its leadership development and promotions programs to produce different outcomes?
The following strategies can help you rethink away from assumptions driving your organization’s mirrortocracy and towards a more inclusive talent development process.
Examine the criteria. Get granular on the definitions. Instead of defining only generic qualities in future leaders and assuming that everyone knows what they mean, consider what you really need at the top of your organization and the many ways those competencies could be displayed. Would more inclusive competencies like humility, empathy, resilience, collaboration, be predictors of success, alongside traditional markers of results-orientation? How will you define those? Spend some time getting clarity on the details, seeking insights from diverse groups and listening to their perspectivs.
Establish a ‘Thinking Environment.’ Organizations naturally have a set of behavioral standards that they reward or punish. Unfortunately, these cultural norms can hinder the progress of those who don’t conform, even if their work is exceptional. Nancy Kline’s ‘Thinking Environment’ is a counter to this. It makes space for all styles and ideas to get attention, instead of a manager swooping in like a hawk, focusing only on what they consider to be the best competencies, experiences, and solutions. The Thinking Environment stems from a single observation:
“The quality of everything we do depends on the quality of the thinking we do first.”
Kline articulated this observation after discovering that the most important factor in the quality of someone’s thinking was not their education, experience, or IQ, but the way people were being treated by those around them. She went on to identify the Ten Components of a Thinking Environment. They include listening with palpable respect and without interruption, and welcoming divergent thinking. Giving space for respectful differences allows for new ideas, and helps develop capabilities that otherwise might go untested.
Don’t leave people to sink or swim. There’s no point bringing diverse competencies to the leadership table if your onboarding practices don’t support their transition. Personalized onboarding support is critical and often overlooked. Ensure you have a robust process to help new leaders navigate informal networks and understand how decisions are made. Frameworks like the Inclusive Leadership Compass can provide direction and promote inclusivity as new leaders learn to lead effectively. Ideally, newly appointed leaders will be supported by an external coach or internal mentor. Ultimately, it’s coaching and development that will make the difference. Spend more time on this than defining competencies for future leaders, and you’ll find that the right people will emerge.
The call to action is clear: organizations must evaluate and reframe their mental models around leadership, questioning and revising what they believe a leader should look like. By doing so, they can ensure that promotion programs truly reflect merit and potential, rather than mirroring the status quo. This shift is essential for creating diverse, effective, and innovative leadership teams that engage others and drive success in our complex and fast-paced world.
