How meritocratic is Swiss business today?

Realizing any meaningful version of meritocracy depends on many principles and practices falling under the umbrella of “DEI.” Inclusive meritocracy is more important than ever given our demographic challenges. How so?

Creating access for all allows companies to hire the best

To find the best candidates, companies need to have access to the biggest possible pool of candidates with diverse skills and perspectives. If diversity is not part of the hiring strategy, some employers will be at a distinct disadvantage.

• You can only hire the best if you are able to reach them. Organizations can’t interview those who don’t apply. DEI practices can encourage qualified yet reluctant candidates to apply for posted opportunities whether or not they believe they meet all of the stated qualifications (Mohr, 2014; Lischwe et al., 2024). At the same time, hiring managers must possess the skills to recognize the potential of diverse talents.  Inclusive leaders (who are aware of their own biases with regard to merit and understand why it is important to make transparent, critiera-based decisions) are more likely to rethink and reframe job descriptions to refine or broaden the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics considered meritorious (Nishii & Leroy, 2022).

Companies are not maximizing their external talent pool

Claiming to hire or promote the “best” only works if one can access the broadest possible talent pool and rely on objectivity and a level playing field.

Are companies accessing the full, diverse talent pool right now? Companies are not fully utilizing the external talent pool. For example, while women make up 46% of non-management — and 47% of the overall working population in Switzerland (FSO, 2024x) their share in lowest/lower management hires is only 39%.

The under-utilization of female talents when it comes to hiring becomes even more apparent when we look at management hires by gender and age. Past age 30, the share of women among management hires becomes smaller and smaller. In other words: Companies are not able to access the full talent pool when it comes to hiring.

Management hires by gender and age

Evidence with identical resumes shows that hiring is not meritocratic

A study of hiring behavior on a large Swiss job platform clearly shows: Recruiters tend to spot talent and potential more easily where they expect to find it – a bias (Hangartner et al., 2021). For example, rates of contact by recruiters are 4–19% lower for individuals from immigrant and minority ethnic groups, depending on their country of origin, than for citizens from the majority group. Women experience a penalty of 7% in professions that are dominated by men, and the opposite pattern emerges for men in professions that are dominated by women (Ibid).

Fair and transparent processes and criteria ensure you are promoting and championing those who deserve it most

• Without equitable processes, companies are unlikely to support, champion and select the most qualified candidates (Bohnet, 2016).
• In the absence of equitable talent management, well-qualified minority hires might not have access to the same career support and staffing opportunities as their peers. This is often a result of organizational policies that fail to challenge biases and prejudices casually baked into organizational life. (See, for example, Alston, 2023)
• While individual managers have significant discretion in evaluating employees, their assessments are often shaped by their own biases. Specifically, managers tend to interpret “merit” in different ways, frequently using their own personal characteristics as benchmarks for evaluation (Castilla & Ranganathan, 2020). This problematic approach means that employees might be judged based on their similarity to the manager and on the manager’s instincts rather than on their actual achievements measured against objective and agreed-upon organizational standards (Strauss et al., 2010).

Looking at promotions, meritocracy is already broken on the first rung.

The first promotion step from non-management to lowest/lower management is an interesting place to evaluate if meritocracy is at play. In non-management, gender representation is close to 50:50, and the first promotion level is often reached earlier in one’s professional life in the younger age groups, where the genders are the most equal regarding experience, education levels and employment percentages. In fact, women are also overtaking men in the under-35 age group when it comes to tertiary degrees, which will have significant effects on the workforce over the coming years (FSO, 2025).

With such a level playing field, one would expect promotion rates that reflect the talent pool’s potential, indicating that promotions are meritocratic. However, women’s promotion rates in most industries are far below the talent pool’s potential – i.e., they are likely not meritocratic.

Internal talent pipeline development from non-management to lowest/lower management – by industry

In the full sample and in six out of nine sectors, the percentage of women among promotions to lowest/lower management is lower than their share in non-management. The most significant differences are in the public sector (17 percentage points), consulting (15 percentage points), banking (11 percentage points), and healthcare (9 percentage points). Pharma/med-tech and the tech industry promote equitably. In ICT & media the percentage of women among promotions is higher than in non-management.

Part-time under 80% is a merit barrier

Another case, where it becomes clear that the current business world is not meritocratic: Employees working less than 80% are less likely to get promoted. In other words, the system fails to recognize performance and impact beyond hours logged, and presence is still seen as equal to performance.

Internal talent pipeline development by employment percentage

The significant gender part-time gap of 27 percentage points in the sample analyzed for this report (43% of women and 16% of men work part-time) shows how the current merit system disadvantages women, mainly because it tends to favor those in full-time roles. The OECD notes a 30-percentage-point gender part-time gap for Switzerland, that is, the second-highest in Europe (OECD, 2025). This also overlooks the value of unpaid work, which is more frequent among women who still take on the lioness’s share of care responsibilities in Switzerland. On average, women spend 12.1 hours more per week on unpaid work than men (FSO, 2025x).

The (unwritten) rule of working (near) full-time to be perceived as meritorious of career advancement and promotion remains a barrier, mainly to women.

Realizing genuine meritocracies will remain elusive as long as men and women have to operate under unequal conditions regarding compatibility topics.  

Pipeline development by age group

Fostering and investing in talent relatively early in their life cycle makes sense for an organization, as it may expect a long-term return on investment. Work experience is often a factor, but this is not always linear with age. Some people may be in the army for a few years, others take time off to travel, and others work part-time because of care responsibilities, an engagement in politics, or voluntary work. Therefore, expecting and spotting “best” talent in certain age groups rather than in others is also a bias that can be in the way of finding the “best person for the job”. Perhaps it is a 50+ woman who had a career break earlier in her life and therefore a slower career progression than her male peers, or it might be a young talent under 30.

Many employees don’t feel that they have access to fair development opportunities

Only 44% of female and 61% of male talents agree or strongly agree with having fair, transparent, and attractive development opportunities. In other words, 56% of female talents lack concrete perspectives to advance. Even worse, 26% of women and 22% of men disagree or strongly disagree that they have fair, transparent, and attractive development opportunities. If a quarter of the workforce feels excluded from access and opportunities, chances are high that meritorious talent will be overlooked. – Reaching meritocracy is still a long way off.

Perceived fairness and transparency of development opportunities by gender (Workplace Culture Survey, 2025)

Employees perceive that equal opportunities for career advancement should be improved

What can companies do better regarding DEI, according to their employees? With 74% by far the most mentioned and ranked as number one for women, and in third place for men, are equal opportunities for career advancement. This indicates that women are being impacted more by the lack of meritocracy than men, though it affects all genders.

Employee mentions what companies can do better regarding DEI (Workplace Culture Survey, 2025)