IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aic/ejpair/y2025v10p17-32.html

Beyond Meritocracy In The Digital Age: Evolving Bias Awareness And Women'S Leadership In High-Tech. Insights From A Qualitative Study On The Bias Awareness In High-Tech Leadership

Author

Listed:
  • ZEALA PINTO

    (Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi)

Abstract

This paper explores how women’s leadership aspirations and experiences are shaped by an enduring yet often illusory belief in meritocracy, particularly within high-tech sectors that pride themselves on innovation and data-driven decision making. Drawing on contemporary research (Eagly & Heilman, 2016; Ibarra, Ely & Kolb, 2013; Derks et al., 2016; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004; Fine, 2005; Brescoll, 2016; Hewlett, 2019; Joshi et al., 2015; Cech & Blair-Loy, 2010; Seron et al., 2018), we illustrate how deeply held individualistic and meritocratic ideologies can mask or justify pervasive gender biases in recruitment, promotion, and leadership evaluations. Even as technology-driven businesses advocate a boundary-breaking ethos, women still confront micro-inequities, subtle exclusion from networks, and a “diversity–quality†trade-off narrative that keeps them on the margins. Through an analysis of content diaries and interview excerpts, the paper shows that women often internalize, rationalize, or minimize inequitable treatment, partly due to cultural norms elevating technical prowess and dismissing socially oriented skills. Moreover, rather than galvanizing collective reform efforts or feminist critiques, many women’s recognition of bias remains fragmented and personalized—an obstacle to broader organizational change. In light of Industry 4.0 transformations—encompassing digital platforms, algorithmic decision making, and disruptive business models—this study urges reevaluations of workplace cultures that unquestioningly assume neutrality. We propose that addressing gender imbalance requires not only boosting women’s participation in data-driven leadership but, more importantly, rethinking how digital-era “meritocracy†can inadvertently replicate old hierarchies. By questioning the assumption that pure technical capability alone ensures fairness, leaders and organizations can generate more inclusive cultures and move toward genuinely transformative practices in the digital age.

Suggested Citation

  • Zeala Pinto, 2025. "Beyond Meritocracy In The Digital Age: Evolving Bias Awareness And Women'S Leadership In High-Tech. Insights From A Qualitative Study On The Bias Awareness In High-Tech Leadership," European Journal of Public Administration Research, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 0, pages 17-32, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:aic:ejpair:y:2025:v:10:p:17-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://eu-pair.uaic.ro/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/17-32_PintoZ.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://eu-pair.uaic.ro/october-2025/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Debra E. Meyerson & Maureen A. Scully, 1995. "Crossroads Tempered Radicalism and the Politics of Ambivalence and Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(5), pages 585-600, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lisa Buchter, 2025. "“We are Our Own Best Advocates”: When Disability Rights Activists Constructed Legal Compliance to Address Ableism in France," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 201(4), pages 915-940, November.
    2. Ea Høg Utoft, 2021. "Maneuvering within postfeminism: A study of gender equality practitioners in Danish academia," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 301-317, January.
    3. Sue Durbin & Margaret Page & Sylvia Walby & Hazel Conley & Margaret Page, 2017. "Revisiting Jewson and Mason: The Politics of Gender Equality in UK Local Government in a Cold Climate," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 7-19, January.
    4. Elisabeth Yang & Julia DiBenigno, 2025. "Opportunistic Change During a Punctuation: How and When the Front Lines Can Drive Bursts of Incremental Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 40-64, January.
    5. Michel Anteby & Curtis K. Chan, 2018. "A Self-Fulfilling Cycle of Coercive Surveillance: Workers’ Invisibility Practices and Managerial Justification," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 247-263, April.
    6. Elisa Alt & Justin B. Craig, 2016. "Selling Issues with Solutions: Igniting Social Intrapreneurship in for-Profit Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 794-820, July.
    7. Lisa Buchter, 2023. "Militer de l’intérieur : Les stratégies des réseaux professionnels LGBT," Post-Print hal-04325686, HAL.
    8. O’Leary, Susan & Smith, David, 2020. "Moments of resistance: An internally persuasive view of performance and impact reports in non-governmental organizations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    9. Katherine C. Kellogg, 2012. "Making the Cut: Using Status-Based Countertactics to Block Social Movement Implementation and Microinstitutional Change in Surgery," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1546-1570, December.
    10. Michael D. Santonino III, 2024. "Humanistic Supervisors as Change Agents—The Core of an Organization," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 417-430, December.
    11. Isabel Fernandez-Mateo & Sarah Kaplan, 2018. "Gender and Organization Science: Introduction to a Virtual Special Issue," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1229-1236, December.
    12. Carl Rhodes, 2017. "Ethical Praxis and the Business Case for LGBT Diversity: Political Insights from Judith Butler and Emmanuel Levinas," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 533-546, September.
    13. Rebecca Tildesley & MariaCaterina La Barbera & Emanuela Lombardo, 2023. "“What use is the legislation to me?” Contestations around the meanings of gender equality in legislation and its strategic use to drive structural change in university organizations," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 1996-2013, November.
    14. Chatterjee, Ira & Cornelissen, Joep & Wincent, Joakim, 2021. "Social entrepreneurship and values work: The role of practices in shaping values and negotiating change," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(1).
    15. Stoyan V. Sgourev, 2013. "How Paris Gave Rise to Cubism (and Picasso): Ambiguity and Fragmentation in Radical Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 1601-1617, December.
    16. Aileen Corley & Ann Thorne, 2006. "Action learning: avoiding conflict or enabling action," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(01), pages 31-44.
    17. Sarah Childs, 2024. "Gender Sensitizing Parliaments: Reflections on Becoming a Feminist Academic Critical Actor," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
    18. Alexandra Rheinhardt & Ethan J. Poskanzer & Forrest Briscoe, 2024. "The Career Consequences of Workplace Protest Participation: Theory and Evidence from the NFL “Take a Knee” Movement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 888-910, May.
    19. Egan, Matthew & Voss, Barbara de Lima, 2023. "Redressing the Big 4’s male, pale and stale image, through LGBTIQ+ ethical praxis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    20. Alejandro Lara-Bocanegra & M. Rocío Bohórquez & Jerónimo García-Fernández & Vanessa Ratten & Pablo Gálvez-Ruiz, 2025. "Design, validation and psychometric properties of a questionnaire to assess intrapreneurial behaviours in sports organisations," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-26, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aic:ejpair:y:2025:v:10:p:17-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sireteanu Napoleon-Alexandru (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feaicro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.