[b0nz]

How do you know that there were as many qualified female candidates for the job? How do you know that the women that you think were underpaid were producing the same quality of work as the men in similar roles? You don't. You assume it because it fits your worldview.

[Aqueous]

I'm choosing to believe the study, the abstract of which says:

"The main finding is consistent across the three studies: when an organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in managerial positions favor a male employee over an equally qualified female employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward."

The fact of the matter is I don't, which is more, not less, of a reason to be skeptical that the concept of meritocracy is bad because it causes a paradoxical outcome.

[b0nz]

I appreciate your well thought out reply.

I honestly haven't read the study, but I'm skeptical about how its authors reached their conclusion. How are they determining that the male and female job candidates are equally qualified? Are statisticians experts on hiring software engineers or sys admins? Were they directly involved in the hiring process of a group of tech workers? Do they have access to said workers skill assessments?

I think anyone could pick a bunch of tech companies which describe themselves as meritocracies and determine that they hire men more frequently than they do women. I think you would find that to be the norm in any tech company, regardless of how they describe themselves. There are more men in tech. Duh.