Episode 8

The Vexing Notion of Merit

Transcript

Speaker1: Welcome to the Q Talks podcast from Loyola University's Quinlan School of Business. This season, we'll be exploring issues surrounding the impact of wealth inequality, its ramifications for business, and any ethical arguments or other anomalies that are a result of the inequality that currently permeates American society. Join us as we unpack important issues present in our country and our world.

Rick Sindt: Welcome to Q- talks. I'm Rick Sindt and today we are joined by Associate Professor and chair of the management department, Cedric Dawkins, to talk about notions of merit in the corporate world. Cedric, thank you for joining us today.

Cedric Dawkins: Glad to be here.

Rick Sindt: To start, I'd love to hear a bit of the origin story around what brought this your investigation into notions of merit. Can you tell us like what inspired you to look into this?

Cedric Dawkins: Sure. It was serendipity, which tends to prompt a lot of my research. I was having a conversation with a peer who had mentioned the desire for a level playing field. And I question the notion of a level playing field altogether in that conversation. And so I begin to think about why I was so skeptical about it. And that's led to this research that I've started on merit.

Rick Sindt: So what are some of the problems you have identified with the metaphor or idiom of a level playing field?

Cedric Dawkins: Well, in this conversation, it took me back to some of the meetings that I've seen or attended where the corporate team stands in front of a group of aspiring managers or workers and says, "you can go as far as your effort and ambition will take you in this company". But all the leadership at the front of the room are white males. So I recall once doing some side eye with another black male who was in the room. I didn't know him, but we both kind of made eye contact and smiled because we both thought the same thing. If this notion of merit, which was being espoused by the leaders, were true then either people like us were underachieving, or there was something else going on in terms of the leadership of the firm. Well, what troubled me more currently--this is this story that I've just given you is nothing new--what's what's been more troubling currently is the unconsidered acceptance of the others in the room of this notion that, yes, it's hard work that does it. And if they accept this notion of merit and hard work, then they would tend to perpetuate this idea of an unqualified level playing field that that I don't believe exists.

Rick Sindt: So their casual acceptance of the idea of a level playing field kind of institutionalizes the power structures that are in place already.

Cedric Dawkins: This is what I'm thinking. I was thinking that the fact that I'm questioning this, the fact that there's other black male is questioning this. This doesn't matter a whole lot. What matters is that the vast majority of the people in the room weren't questioning it. So I thought that merit needs to be qualified. And it's specified. Because there are at least three notions of merit. And we'd have to look beneath the surface when we talk about a level playing field. No pun intended. I mean, first level playing field is used as an aspiration that this is something we can achieve. And that's fine. But here it's troubling because if a level playing field is an aspiration. Then it's an objective that doesn't currently exist in the company, but at least it's acknowledged. So why use the metaphor at all? The second would be that the level playing field results from an empirical observation. And of course, the data robustly refutes that assertion, I mean even the actual playing fields throughout Chicago are not level going toward the various parks throughout Chicago and you'll see large differences. And so as an empirical notion, I don't believe that the level playing field exists. Successful entrepreneurs like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, they'll acknowledge that Luck has played a part in that success. They'll acknowledge that there are other factors besides their skill and ability. And then finally I'd say level playing field as a decision making method. But if either of the other two descriptions of level playing field are accurate, then why would we use it as a decision-making methodology? If first, it's an aspiration so we're not there, but we're going to use it as a decision-making methodology anyway. Or secondly, this is an empirical observation which is inaccurate, but we're going to use it as a decision making tool anyway. These are the things that I find most troubling about the level playing field.

Rick Sindt: So using the level playing field in practice naturally contradicts itself, is what you're saying, right? Because we're operating under this framework while at the same time acknowledging that this framework does not exist.

Cedric Dawkins: In some cases. If it's used as an aspiration, then yes, there may be some who believe that empirically that this is the case. I don't believe there's data to support that. But, yes, in that case as well.

Rick Sindt: So how do you see this playing out in this moment in social and corporate culture when anti-racism and equity have come to the forefront?

Cedric Dawkins: Well, the level playing field is consistent with notions of institutional views, and institutionalized racism. Merit is institutionalized as a perspective. And this is why anti-racism is different than just not being a racist. If you're not being a racist on a racist tide, which is the institution, then you do nothing to stop the drift. And so this notion of anti racism comes to say don't just drift with the tide of the institutions, but resist them actively. And consciously. If this same thinking is what I'm referring to with a level playing field and merit that they need to be questioned, justified, and interrogated consciously. As opposed to simply saying, I attempt to treat all workers fairly.

Rick Sindt: So ultimately, it seems like we're just we're talking about complicity in a way, and I'd like to unpack that more. So in your view, what does it mean for a corporation to be complicit when we talk about things like merit the level playing field or larger societal problems?

Cedric Dawkins: Well, complicity, it tends to occur when a corporation or a firm engages in an indirect yet impactful action or inaction. With respect to an issue over which it has some influence or control. And this action or inaction perpetuates a wrongdoing. So this is a broad sweep of complicity. It might be beneficial, meaning that the corporation benefits from not addressing an issue climate change would have would be an excellent example. Ten or 15 years ago they're saying, "oh, I don't really know if if the climate is changing. I don't really know if the actions of humans have impact" these types of statements. But silent complicity is a little more complex, I think. For example, the United Nations Global Compact speaks directly to racial inequity in describing silent complicity. In, they refer to an action or acceptance. So it's this type of, I would say, reticence or concern about getting involved that brings criticism to companies.

Rick Sindt: Talking about complicity seems something very moral and ethical to me as a standard, and there's not necessarily a legal standard we can hold corporations to. Would you agree?

Cedric Dawkins: Oh, yeah. Complicity as a legal term is separate. I don't understand the legal aspects of complicity. I'm only addressing the moral and ethical aspects of complicity. And corporations will ultimately be involved in political issues and profess their desire to be apart from political issues. There are PACs theres Citizens United, whereby giving money is speech. Which is fine, but we don't know what they're saying or to whom. So it's difficult to assess any impact. It is this type of activity. And then on the other hand, they say these are societal problems and we don't want to be dragged into them. Like what's going on in Georgia right now. We don't want to be involved in this, but they have PACs. But they have Citizens United. They have regulatory measures put in place to help with infrastructure so that businesses can grow. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. But it's inconsistent then to not want to. Be involved in other aspects of society that may be more contentious or uncomfortable.

Rick Sindt: I was thinking about Georgia, too, as we started this conversation, and I wonder if it's maybe a good example to drill into a little bit more and go a little bit deeper because we had--after legislation was passed, corporations like Coca-Cola and Delta, who are based in Atlanta made statements disapproving of the legislation quite strongly. The criticism they came under from the general public was like too little, too late, maybe you should have said this before the laws were signed? So I guess what I'm saying is I see this civic influence kind of encompassing all the things you were just talking about.

Cedric Dawkins: I think there's there's something called system justification theory. And system justification theory, it attempts to unpack why people are so resistant to change. Looks at things like the Protestant work ethic, fair market theory, or the belief that markets are fair, the belief that the world is just that you'll get what's coming to you eventually. These types of beliefs, with justification, provide some security in a world that seems to be out of your control. And so there's this resistance to changing this because what type of rule are we going to come up with to replace what I'm already familiar with? I'd be better off just arguing, maintain what I'm comfortable with, then taking the risk of a new framework, a new way of looking at things in a corporation and more directly you would simply hear people say, This has gotten us where we are so far why should we tear it up and do something different? And of course, where we are so far varies with who is making that statement.

Rick Sindt: Yeah, absolutely. Many, if not all, of the conversations we've had in this current series on wealth and equality, we always end up encountering this tension between what is the responsibility of corporations and employers to mitigate and sort out and what is the responsibility of governments. And I think we're approaching that tension line in our conversation and in your investigation. So perhaps if we just spend a few minutes hearing your thoughts on where you draw these boundaries, what you think each party is responsible for as you consider merit and corporate complicity and political action.

Cedric Dawkins: With respect to merit as a societal proposition. The particular corporation can contribute to the discussion. But their argument that 'we can't fix this,' it has some validity. But what they can fix is their own hiring and promotion practices. They have control over those things. Moreover, things like CEO compensation justify a way of thinking in society more broadly that actually what a CEO does is 20 times more important than what an air traffic controller does or what a cardiac surgeon does. This lottery system of those who get to the top getting a big, big, big reward and the remainder of workers accepting some small fraction of that. This bleeds over into conceptions of merit in society broadly. So while one corporation may not have impact, the Business Roundtable could. For example, they've put out a statement saying that shareholder wealth is no longer their predominant and overriding objective of providing value to all stakeholders to the extent that their policies follow this statement, this type of an action can have productive impact in society and the fact that they've made it acknowledges that they understand that they have a growing role in this. And I would agree with that. They certainly cannot stand aside and benefit from the infrastructure that we put in place as a society and not contribute to it, which would lead to other things that we that we could get into, like paying federal income taxes. A better topic for another day, but certainly, I think that corporations need to stand beside government in terms of ethical actions that benefit the people that work for them and purchase their products and services.

Rick Sindt: Is there a place where you think the government should intervene?

Cedric Dawkins: The government provides the regulatory structure. For businesses, and mainly it's so that one business wouldn't have an advantage over other businesses within the same industry. They provide these industry outlines for competition. This is a different level playing field than what I'm referring to in this in this piece. I think the government regulation in that context is very helpful and should continue because so much of business is global now, it is difficult for government to regulate because our clothes are being sowed in Ethiopia and Bangladesh. It's left to corporations to take more of a political role in regulating themselves and then involving themselves in dialogue with other stakeholders, such as unions and consumers, so that they're regulated in under regulated environments as well. So our government could be doing more. But in this context, I don't think that government from a domestic standpoint can really addressed some of the big challenges that we have in business, that there has to be an ethical and normative perspective that can only be provided by bringing others into the conversation.

Rick Sindt: So I feel like we're approaching talking about the ethical standards of a corporation or how you how a corporation should behave. And in the notes you sent me. One of the things that really stood out that I thought was very interesting is you said to not compare proposals against the standard of absolute justice, but rather the ability to do the least amount of injustice. It kind of reminded me of when in the book Hope in the Dark, Rebecca Solnit writes, "Perfection is a stick with which to beat the possible". So I'm wondering if you can tell us a little bit more about what you mean by taking that approach? Because I think we are kind of operating in a place that maybe expects absolutes or wants us to get it right the first time and that's not at all what you're saying.

Cedric Dawkins: Yes. I don't believe even to extend beyond that, I don't believe that the party who identifies it injustice is obligated to provide a solution for that injustice. If we were to say, for example, well, if we increase increased wages to urban workers in Dhakar, then there will be fewer of them because their employers will lay people off and this will put pressure on the informal or the rural sector. So we can't address conditions in these garment factories. And if you can't solve that problem, then just go away. Because the problem that we have right now, we're willing to live with. If we looked at affirmative action in the United States and I've had this sometimes in class where I would have to say to the class, it's inconceivable to me that some white male somewhere is not going to be inconvenienced unjustly because of the affirmative action. But I would say to that male, join with me and try to fix this problem that we're all experiencing now, not just one group, but all of us experience this. Of this problem. And I would add the responsibility for addressing some issue that comes up. It can't be left to the least powerful actor in the exchange. Nike wouldn't go to workers in Bangladesh and say, So how do we address these issues in our supply chain? Because I hear you're unhappy about your wages and your break time. If you can't come up with a solution, then we're content to deal with your wages and break time as they are currently.

Rick Sindt: So how do you see specifically like labor unions in this milieu of interaction and standards?

Cedric Dawkins: Well, labor unions are an institution. I think that labor unions are a way for workers to unite and have a voice so that they're not subject to unwarranted types of subordination in the workplace. But labor unions are criticized, understandably criticized, I would say, when some of them are corrupt or incompetent in achieving their stated goal representing workers. This wouldn't condemn the entire institution of labor any more than a bad corporation, would condemn the institution of corporations pursuing profit on behalf of their shareholders. The objective of labor unions is ethically sound. It's morally sound. Certainly. Even corporations join together in their association to lobby for benefits that fit their joint interests. The labor unions could be at the table. But I'm speaking of an international world that's difficult to regulate. If labor unions are at the table, we have NGOs. I'm going to stick with Garment. We have NGOs such as the Clean Clothes Campaign or the Fair Labor Association. They're at the table. Then we have corporate interests. They're at the table. But we have the International Labour Organization. These groups can provide an infrastructure for corporations that operate globally. And if these groups can come to an agreement because they are the involved actors, then that agreement would have some moral resonance. Look at the Bangladesh accord, which was reasonably successful. It certainly had some criticisms, but all programs do.

Rick Sindt: Yeah. What were some of the things that the Bangladesh accord accomplished?

Cedric Dawkins: Well, the Bangladesh accord. And there's a Bangladesh alliance that was parallel to the accord that I won't touch on. But the Bangladesh accord was essentially negotiated between global labor federations such as Industri all which represents industrial workers worldwide, and the Retail Association's retail outlets. And they were supposed to oversee the suppliers in Bangladesh. The retailers suppliers. Help them with their factories, help them meet safety standards, things of this nature. If there was a disagreement between the labor unions and the retailers, the global retailers, they would attempt to resolve this through discourse. But if they couldn't. They had decided beforehand that they would submit themselves to arbitration from the International Arbitration Board in the Netherlands. And as a result of the fact that they had this arbitration provision in place, they tended to come to an agreement. Because what they didn't want was a third party imposing a solution that neither one of the other parties may have even wanted. So they tended to work those things out. The accord, unfortunately, came to an end earlier this year. And the safety oversight has been left to local suppliers, which is the condition that we had before the accord. Only this time they say that they're going to do a better job and hopefully they will. But I'm a little skeptical. I prefer to have independent oversight, as opposed to an association of factory owners regulating themselves.

Rick Sindt: Yeah. This seems to kind of circle back to something we were talking about before, which is that it's so easy to fall back on old systems that we know, especially if you're a person in position of power and that old system happened to make life quite comfortable for you. When I think about many of the problems we face today, I often find myself talking about a crisis of imagination for solutions. And you talk about primordial assumptions quite a bit. And I think that's an interesting thing that I'd like you to expand upon more, because I think it's easy for us to operate believing that things were always this way and therefore they should stay this way rather than being imaginative and understanding that our current social relations are arbitrary and very malleable.

Cedric Dawkins: Sure. Well the primordial assumption--primordial is somewhat self explanatory prime in order that because it was here first it's a better thing. And sometimes a primordial assumption is useful. But seniority is a primordial assumption. If you've been here longer, you can pick the better office. We shouldn't cut down old trees. They kind of just earned it. You know, they hung around for 150 years, their prime in order. This is useful, but it's not useful if it's unquestioned. If it's applied broadly and without consideration. And this is where it would fit into what we're describing as a failure of imagination and what I've described in terms of system justification theory. There's uncertainty about changing what we've had and if you add that to an assumption of what's been here being better, then it makes the types of changes that we need to have more difficult to make. Now that Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers Association, they are familiar. They've been there. Factory owners are familiar with them. So to go back to that would be an easy thing. Similarly in corporations, in terms of selecting workers and promoting workers, the notion of a level playing field as accepted is comfortable. It doesn't require change. But what I'm asking is not to throw this out altogether, but to consider it and to qualify it and to say where you are with respect to this level playing field. The more accurate metaphor in many cases is home-field advantage. It's not level playing field. Where does that advantage come from? Considering those two concepts, so juxtaposing home field advantage and level playing field, those are the types of discussions that corporate decision makers would involve themselves in.

Rick Sindt: This is very nice because it brings me back to--I wanted to discuss more about the benefits corporations have by being complicit in our current views of merit. And you just started to touch on them. But I also remember at the beginning you talked about merit being defined in three different ways. What are those ways?

Cedric Dawkins: Right. I had said that there was merit as an aspiration, and this could be useful to say we aspire to an environment whereby there's a level playing field, but if you're aspiring to it, then that's an admission that you're not there. And what types of adjustments are you going to make in the meantime as you strive for this? Then the second would be level playing field as an empiric. As an empirical state, and there's copious data to indicate that it is not an empirical state. And for those who believe that it is, they need to be exposed to the data. Then the third is a level playing field as a methodology. This is how we make our important decisions. But this methodology, which would have to be verified as either aspirational or empirical, either one of which is a problem. With aspirational why are you using it if you're already saying that the environment I'm using, level playing field doesn't exist, but I hope that it will one day. Or we're using this because we believe that it absolutely produces the best people. Empirically, there's copious data to indicate that that's a questionable assumption. Now, I can hear someone saying that, well, in the main, it does work out. But many of our problems with equity, with justice, with ethical behavior exist on the margins. They don't exist in the big middle. So to say 'well, for the main part, for the for the most part, persons are disadvantaged by this and will accept the marginal damage' that's problematic. Because those margins become larger if they aren't attended to.

Rick Sindt: So I'm seeing a lot in your in investigation and ponderings on merit. It seems like  you're finding contradictions and kind of pointing them out and saying, like, what should we do next or in light of this? And I think maybe some more context that would be helpful for me, and something I'm curious about is say I'm a Corporation and I am operating under the assumption of a level playing field, but I feel like I could easily not consider it aspirational and I could ignore the empirical stuff. Like what benefits am I receiving because I've adopted this assumption? Is it just workers for less wages? Is there more than that?

Cedric Dawkins: It sounds like you're saying, well, why is it such a damaging thing?

Rick Sindt: Yeah, we've talked about this from the perspective of the workers.

Cedric Dawkins: Right.

Rick Sindt: And I wonder, with the current systems that are in place that are being maintained, what are the benefits that corporations are receiving that incentivize them to maintain the current conditions?

Cedric Dawkins: Well I think for many corporations its very profitable. And they'd like to maintain those profits. Coca-cola and Delta would love not to not to have been drawn into this voter rights issue in Georgia. So there's benefits of stability and avoiding a controversy. There's benefit to not challenging your workers long maintained assumptions. There benefits to the idea that everyone is well treated and has the same chance to make it in the corporation as the person on their left or right. Those are convenient assumptions to maintain for a corporation if they don't require the types of discussions that I'm advocating for with respect to what kind of level playing field condition exist in your firm? And it's not that I have the answers on what to do with this, but it begins with an acknowledgment that a level playing field metaphor wouldn't just be bandied about as something we all can agree on. That's not the case, in my view.

Rick Sindt: So as you propose switching from a level playing field metaphor to a home field advantage metaphor, I think that's quite nice, right? Like two sports metaphors? I think it's.

Cedric Dawkins: I'm not saying it to make the home field advantage metaphor prevalent in corporations, this came to my mind when talking about sports. And if you're going to describe what the condition of competition is in the country and in corporations, that there is a home field advantage, actually.

Rick Sindt: And presumably or I'm presuming that home field advantage is to people of the dominant culture.

Cedric Dawkins: Right. Right.

Rick Sindt: I guess I started asking this question because as I was thinking about it. My brain told me that I had made sense of it, but I feel like there are perhaps more nuances to it. Like how do you see this paradigm shift altering the way people think about the workplace or merit?

Cedric Dawkins: Well, that gets me to an area of kind of practical implications of this commentary or of this complaint. One is to interrogate the status quo rather than simply accept it. And you see that in programs such as the 30% Club, that attempt to have at least 30% of their board or executive management female. Revisit the metaphor, qualify the metaphor, respect organized labor, understand the place of seniority. In some positions, it really doesn't matter so much who takes on this responsibility. I mean, look at the US Senate that's opposed to labor unions, our committee assignments and leadership determined seniority. So I think it deserves a place in the system of rewards and corporations. It's not all merit. Many times it's just who's been here longer because neither individual is going to do that much better of a job than the other. Of course, A corporations wouldn't want to acknowledge that as a principle. But practically speaking, this is the case and not only for unskilled labor. It doesn't matter so much in the Senate. Then be explicit regarding the challenges of marginal cases and how difficult they are to address. It's challenging to find who's better. It's challenging to pick amongst workers with similar characteristics. I mean, a similar levels of qualification. So I think that merit is for more exceptional cases than what is commonly thought of or perpetuated in corporations today. But who wants to pick up that rock? Who wants to look under that rock? What's the benefit of doing so? You ask that question earlier. It's going to be headaches. It's probably a headache that some people need to have.

Rick Sindt: I think this is a nice place to draw to a close because then in closing, I want to ask you if you've come to any conclusions, for example, when do you what how do you think we should define merit and when should it be utilized?

Cedric Dawkins: Yes, I think I mentioned that I believe that merit should be a term that's qualified. That in many instances merit should come after a qualifying phrase or adjective. To the extent that we can determine who's most meritorious, that is the individual that we will afford this privilege. This doesn't seem like much. But it doesn't assume that merit is equally determined. It indicates that merit requires interrogation and work. And that you may not get there. In its acknowledgment that there's an imperfection in the way that you're pursuing things currently. Now because I'm an ethicist. I don't spend an inordinate amount of time, at least in my view, an inordinate amount of time on the implementation. But that's where I would start.

Rick Sindt: Are there any other revelations or conclusions you've drawn from your thinking on this so far?

Cedric Dawkins: No, I'm at my post and I'm waiting. I look at this I work at this, right now is at the stage of peer discussion. I will send an outline to some people who I know will disagree. And we'll have some discussions and I'll have an opportunity to reconsider or refine the work.

Rick Sindt: Well, Cedric, thank you so much for joining us and talking about your ongoing investigation into merit and how it operates in our society.

Cedric Dawkins: Well, thank you. Your questions have given me occasion to think more carefully, and I continue to work on this. So thanks for having me.

Speaker1: This has been an episode of the Q Talks podcast where we seek to marry the wisdom of the Quinlan community with the issues of today. Special thanks to our guests as well as Dean Kevin Stevens for his generous support of this podcast. Matt Shelley, our student producer for editing this episode, as well as Loyola School of Communication and UW for their continued collaboration. Before you leave, take a minute to support us by sharing with friends or rating and reviewing our episodes to help expand our reach. Thanks for listening. I hope you join us next time.