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. 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.
    2. Muzanenhamo, Penelope & Power, Sean Bradley, 2024. "ChatGPT and accounting in African contexts: Amplifying epistemic injustice," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    3. Slavova, Mira & Metiu , Anca, 2015. "Ritualization and the Process of Knowledge Transfer," ESSEC Working Papers WP1511, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    4. James Traeger & Carolyn Norgate, 2015. "A safe place to stay sharp: action learning meets cooperative inquiry in the service of NHS OD capacity building," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 197-207, July.
    5. Inga SHALEV & Adriana PRODAN, 2018. "Limiting Terms of Office for Directors as a Policy Change in the Israeli Nursing System," REVISTA DE MANAGEMENT COMPARAT INTERNATIONAL/REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 19(2), pages 109-123, May.
    6. Lisa Buchter, 2023. "Militer de l’intérieur : Les stratégies des réseaux professionnels LGBT," Post-Print hal-04325686, HAL.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Marina N. Astakhova & Violet T. Ho & Alexander S. McKay, 2024. "Passion Amid the Pandemic: Applying a Person‐Centered Approach to Examine Cross‐Domain Multi‐Passion Profiles during a Crisis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 1457-1497, June.
    10. Luigi Russi & Cécile Renouard & Nathanaël Wallenhorst, 2024. "Beyond Rupture, Interstice and Reform: Searching for Nuance in the Portrayal of Engagement for Social and Ecological Transition," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 471-479, September.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Michal Carrington & Detlev Zwick & Benjamin Neville, 2019. "Activism and Abdication on the Inside: The Effect of Everyday Practice on Corporate Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 973-999, December.
    14. Ruthanne Huising, 2019. "Moving off the Map: How Knowledge of Organizational Operations Empowers and Alienates," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 1054-1075, September.
    15. Hoyer, Patrizia, 2016. "Making space for ambiguity: Rethinking organizational identification from a career perspective," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 166-177.
    16. W. E. Douglas Creed & Maureen A. Scully & John R. Austin, 2002. "Clothes Make the Person? The Tailoring of Legitimating Accounts and the Social Construction of Identity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(5), pages 475-496, October.
    17. Stewart, Alex, 2020. "Family control, ambivalence, and preferential benefits," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 11(4).
    18. Katherine C. Kellogg, 2011. "Hot Lights and Cold Steel: Cultural and Political Toolkits for Practice Change in Surgery," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 482-502, April.
    19. James Traeger, 2016. "Embodied generosity -- the ethics of doing action research in the places where we work," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 3-9, March.
    20. Kathryn L. Heinze & Klaus Weber, 2016. "Toward Organizational Pluralism: Institutional Intrapreneurship in Integrative Medicine," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 157-172, February.

    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.