Merit or Quota imposition?

When someone seeks access to a job or executive position, one should always consider their knowledge, capabilities, skills, experience, suitability for the position, etc. However, this conflicts with the mandates of the "Agenda 2030," which, in the name of equality, promotes the implementation of quotas to ensure representation of all groups, thereby prioritizing quota fulfillment over professional merit.

The debate between meritocracy and diversity is one of the most engaging and complex in today's workplace. While meritocracy advocates for a system where positions and rewards are based solely on individual merit, diversity emphasizes the need to include people from different backgrounds, genders, ethnicities, and abilities to create more equitable and representative work environments.
 
Meritocracy is grounded in the idea that success and opportunities should be based exclusively on talent, effort, and ability. In theory, this system promises a world where everyone has the opportunity to advance according to their merits, regardless of their socioeconomic background, gender, race, or any other identity factor.
 
This approach is based on:
Justice and Efficiency: Meritocracy ensures that the best and most capable occupy the most significant roles, leading to greater productivity, innovation, and efficiency.
Merit Above All: Selection based on merit guarantees that hiring and promotion decisions are objective, avoiding favoritism or nepotism.
Equality of Opportunity: Although meritocracy doesn't guarantee equality of outcomes, it does promise equality of opportunity, where everyone can compete on equal terms.
 
However, critics of meritocracy argue that this system can perpetuate or even exacerbate existing inequalities, as not everyone starts from the same baseline; for example, individuals from marginalized backgrounds might face educational, economic, and social obstacles not considered in a purely meritocratic system, and even in systems purporting to be meritocratic, unconscious biases and prejudices can influence the perception of merit.
 
This is why proponents of the "Agenda 2030" advocate for diversity over merit. They argue that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies aim to correct historical and structural inequalities, promoting a workplace that reflects the demographic composition of society.
 
Arguments in favor of diversity include:
Diverse teams bring a broader range of perspectives, potentially leading to more innovative and creative solutions.
A diverse workforce ensures businesses better understand and serve an equally diverse customer base.
These policies help level the playing field for those historically excluded or underrepresented.
 
However, advocates for prioritizing diversity over merit do not consider that this can lead to hiring less qualified individuals, and if quotas are set, it can result in merit and professional qualifications being relegated to a secondary position, favoring less prepared individuals from underrepresented groups.
 
The challenge is to design systems that value merit while also addressing structural inequalities, ensuring opportunities are truly accessible to all. This balance is not only morally right but can also translate into competitive advantages for organizations and broader social benefits.
 
For success, meritocracy is essential, but that doesn't mean the fight for equality should be neglected. Instead, actions should be promoted that give disadvantaged individuals the opportunity to prepare and join the path of merit for their professional success.
Quotas should not be imposed based on gender, race, social origin, etc. For each position, the best-prepared person should always be chosen, and from there, everyone - including the disadvantaged or those with fewer opportunities - should be given the help and training needed to develop their full personal and professional potential and embark on the path to excellence.
 
In Spain, for example, we see how national, regional governments, etc., seek to balance the representation of men and women, which means discriminating against others who are undoubtedly better prepared. Can't there be a government where women, for instance, are the majority because they are better prepared? Why give them those positions just for being women? And if it turns out that men are the majority better qualified for those roles, why can't they be in the majority? This ideology has also been transferred to businesses where many people are hired "to meet quotas" rather than for their suitability for the job.
 
"Equality" should be in access to education, and from there, let work, effort, and the merits each individual acquires determine their future without any quotas or impositions distorting the final outcome.
 

A journey through the history of the pharmaceutical industry and one of its great laboratories that had its origins in Alfred Nobel...
“From Alfred Nobel to AstraZeneca” (Vicente Fisac, Amazon) is available in e-Book and print editions: https://a.co/d/9svRTuI