E-Paper
Where merit and accommodation collide
This article is authored by Nupur Garg, founder, Winpe.
There is broad consensus in organisational research that inclusive, diverse teams are stronger, more innovative, and better at solving complex problems. A 2020 McKinsey report found that companies in the top quartile for ethnic and cultural diversity were 36% more profitable than those in the bottom quartile, and inclusive cultures correlate with higher retention and employee engagement.
Yet as leaders striving for equitable workplaces, many of us wrestle with recurring challenges that aren’t easily solved by intent alone.
One persistent tension I’ve observed — and I suspect many leaders and people managers will recognise — lies in balancing equity with consistent performance standards. As leaders building teams in real time, this tension is no longer theoretical.
When we talk about inclusion, we refer to creating opportunities where everyone feels respected, supported, and empowered to contribute. This includes making reasonable accommodations — whether for disability, caregiving responsibilities, or other individual needs — so that employees can perform at their best.
Where friction often appears is not in the principle — everyone wants to be judged by merit — but in the application. For some candidates or employees:
- Merit is understood as equal opportunity, but also as greater flexibility or consideration due to personal circumstances.
- They want the same treatment as peers, but also expect additional support that they see as necessary to level the playing field.
These expectations are legitimate when grounded in real needs and documented accommodations — and inclusive workplaces should absolutely meet them.
But challenges arise when performance outcomes consistently fall below the required standard, yet perceptions of bias surface when those gaps are asked to be addressed.
When managers provide performance feedback, especially to individuals who have received special accommodations, it can feel like a clash of values: fairness vs. support, accountability vs. empathy.
In today’s environment — where workplace experiences can quickly become public narratives online — leaders often feel an added layer of caution. Feedback intended to address performance can sometimes be interpreted through the lens of bias or insensitivity.
These pressures are real. But avoiding accountability does not strengthen inclusion — it weakens trust across the team.
Empirical studies in organisational behaviour reinforce a key insight:
Inclusion does not mean lowering standards — it means removing barriers so more people can thrive without lowering the bar.
That distinction matters.
What also matters is how these standards are established. Organisations must regularly examine whether their performance metrics themselves are objective, role-relevant, and free from hidden bias. High standards are essential — but they must also be fair and transparent. Research from the Harvard Business Review and Deloitte highlights that inclusive workplaces are ones where expectations are clear, feedback is regular, and performance metrics are equitable — not ambiguous or subjective. And transparency is a key underlying principle.
Inclusion is not the opposite of accountability. In fact, it demands a higher level of leadership skill — empathy without bias, support without favouritism, and fairness without inconsistency.
The strongest teams are not those where difficult conversations never happen. They are the teams where expectations are clear, communication is honest, and standards are applied consistently.
If inclusion is about ensuring that more people have the opportunity to succeed, then leadership must ensure something equally important: That success itself remains clearly defined.
As Aristotle reminds us, fairness is not always about identical treatment. But neither is it about uneven expectations. The real work of inclusion lies in holding both truths at once.
This article is authored by Nupur Garg, founder, Winpe.
