THEthe problem is not – simply – women’s work, but equality at work between men and women from the first day to the last. There are many employed women: in the EU they represent 46.4% of those employed. However, there are few leaders: only 34.8% of managers and less than 10% of CEOs in large listed companies. The current opinion is that there is some form of discrimination. And that, if only systems were truly meritocratic, if hiring and promotions are based on transparent and performance-related criteria, this would not happen, e.g gender disparities would disappear, in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately, a study by Professor Mariya Todorova of Bocconi University found, this is not the case. On this May 1st 2026 let’s talk about it the paradox of meritocracy. That is, how systems designed to reward merit produce unequal outcomes.
Women’s May Day and the paradox of meritocracy: here’s why it doesn’t work
In the study Does a High-Performance Culture Fix the Leaky Pipeline? A Closer Examination of Performance-Driven Talent Management Practices Todorova’s team analyzed contexts in which promotions are strongly linked to observable performance. «Those who perform best should be rewarded: this is the sense in which we talk about meritocracy. This is certainly the way in which corporate contexts dominated by society work “high performance culture”: strongly results-oriented, they promote or retain talent, reassigning or excluding the less brilliant, based on individual performance”.
These companies, the study finds, convey a sense of fairness and opportunity, proving attractive to ambitious female professionals in the early stages of their careers. This is why they attract more women in junior roles.
Women’s work: The advantage at junior level does not last
These systems should reduce bias and support gender equality, right? By closely linking progress to observable outcomes, they should enable a level playing field, where decisions are less influenced by subjective judgments or discrimination. But no: as Todorova explains, evidence of a more complex reality emerges.
The Women’s initial advantage does not appear to last. As you move up the corporate hierarchy, the female share decreases very rapidly. «In other words, the pipeline starts strong but becomes more “permeable” at higher levels».
The study is based on an international survey entitled World Management Survey which collects detailed information on managerial practices through structured interviews with managers. And he goes so far as to list the reasons why, precisely in contexts strongly oriented towards performance, land women are, on average, less likely to be promoted to senior roles. Just as they are less likely to be hired directly into top positions.
The promotion depends on how the results are shown
Let’s start by saying that at junior level performance evaluation is rather simple and objective. It could be the number of products sold, deadlines met, cases closed. While when you move up the hierarchy things get more complicated. The performance to be measured is how a team is coordinated, leadership skills. An evaluation that is made on a perception of performance. And the mechanisms that produce it have a huge impact on this perception. Like competition, assertiveness and self-promotion. The tools that make leadership more visible.
Progress therefore depends not only on the results, but also on how these results are shown. If one is rewarded for these behaviors, women pay the bill. «The literature shows that women seem more likely to be more collaborative, more empathetic. Their teams may well progress but in a system that rewards individual performance, the result of the individual, teamwork remains less visible» explains the teacher.
Mariya Todorova, professor at Bocconi University
The cumulative disadvantage in women’s work
And from the first step lost, we move on to losing the second too. «The academic literature calls it cumulative disadvantage, or cumulative disadvantage. The lack of promotions in the early stages of the career reduces the number of women eligible for top positions, triggering a disadvantage mechanism that accumulates over time». Just as the gender pay gap, often fueled by involuntary part-time work, translates into lower social security contributions, leading to more accentuated female poverty in old age.
Meritocracy measured over time: non-stop work and constant availability
Finally, high-performance systems pay off constant availability, long working hours and uninterrupted careers. In short, the availability of time dedicated to work to the detriment of private life. Unsustainable “results” when increases in a woman’s life extra-work responsibilities, such as family and caring for children (but also for elderly parents): responsibilities that continue to fall disproportionately on women.”
In other words, whether meritocracy coincides with high performance is not neutral. So even “a human resources management choice that appears or is intended to be neutral is not.”
Should the worker or the system change?
But if the goal is really to allow women to reach the top of the hierarchy, with a view to gender equality and in compliance with European directives for gender equality, well, something has to change. Because these systems don’t get results.
And then the question is whether it should be the worker who changes (from empathetic to competitive), or the system. “The dilemma is whether individual adaptation is necessary or whether they cannot change the ways in which the systems evaluate performance, which are not working as thought.”