In the world of leadership, the playing field is far from level. Women and leaders of color are often required to clear extreme hurdles to prove their worthiness for roles that demand they be not just qualified, but overqualified.
This disparity is particularly clear in Donald Trump’s latest round of cabinet appointments. From a former television host tasked with managing the nation’s healthcare system to a vaccine skeptic leading health and human services, the credentials—or lack thereof—of these picks reveal a system that rewards privilege over merit.
This imbalance doesn’t just hinder individual careers—it undermines public trust in leadership and perpetuates systemic inequities. Looking at the credentials of Trump’s appointees alongside the barriers faced by marginalized groups, the myth of meritocracy collapses under its own weight.
The Double Standard
Leadership in any context—whether in business or politics—requires a combination of experience, vision, and competence. Yet the standards used to assess these qualities often differ drastically depending on who is being evaluated. Recent appointments by Donald Trump to key cabinet positions provide clear examples of this double standard, as several nominees lack the conventional qualifications typically required for their roles.
Take Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy’s controversial views on vaccines and public health have long been criticized by experts, yet he’s been tapped to oversee one of the most critical departments in the federal government. Similarly, Linda McMahon, a former WWE executive, has been nominated for Secretary of Education despite no substantial experience in education policy. And then there’s Mehmet Oz, a television personality and former Senate candidate, who is now slated to oversee Medicare and Medicaid programs, two of the largest healthcare programs in the nation. These appointments are notable not just for their lack of alignment with the roles’ demands, but for what they say about the standards of leadership evaluation.
Contrast this with the experience of women and people of color, who often must exceed qualifications by wide margins just to be considered for similar opportunities. A 2023 McKinsey and Lean In study found that women are often promoted based on proven experience, while men are promoted based on potential. The gap is even wider for women of color, who are significantly underrepresented in leadership roles despite having comparable or superior qualifications to their peers.
The pattern extends beyond the private sector. Women and people of color in politics and public administration face consistent scrutiny over their qualifications. Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign was a recent and high-profile example of this. She was met with relentless debates over whether she was “qualified,” despite her robust background as a prosecutor, attorney general, and U.S. senator. This level of scrutiny often serves as an additional hurdle for marginalized groups, who are required to over-perform just to meet a biased baseline.
The disparity is no accident; it’s the result of historical exclusion. For much of American history, leadership roles were reserved for white men. The remnants of this exclusivity persist today in the form of unconscious bias, systemic barriers, and entrenched networks of privilege that elevate under-qualified candidates while marginalizing those from historically excluded groups.
The Harm It Causes
This double standard in leadership appointments doesn’t just harm the people overlooked—it weakens institutions, workplaces, and public trust. When unqualified candidates are elevated to powerful positions while overqualified leaders are passed over, the ripple effects are vast.
The risks of appointing under-qualified leaders are particularly worrisome in the public sector, where decisions can have life-or-death consequences. Appointing leaders without expertise to manage critical healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid risks policy missteps, inefficiencies, and harm to millions of Americans who rely on these services. Similarly, appointing a Secretary of Education with no background in education policy could exacerbate existing inequities in the nation’s school systems. Leadership is not just symbolic; it directly impacts the lives of those being governed.
The harm extends beyond immediate outcomes as well. The presence of under-qualified leaders in high-profile roles sends a disheartening message to aspiring leaders from marginalized groups: merit alone is not enough. When society tolerates mediocrity for some while demanding perfection from others, it stifles ambition and reinforces systemic inequities. It tells talented leaders—especially women and people of color—that their efforts may never be enough in a system designed to exclude them.
The stark contrast between the over-qualification demanded of women and people of color and the under-qualification tolerated in Trump’s recent cabinet picks exposes deep-rooted inequities in how leadership potential is evaluated. When marginalized groups are forced to overperform to gain access to opportunities, society not only squanders exceptional talent but also sends a damaging message to future generations about who gets to lead.
The solution lies in fostering a culture where qualifications, expertise, and performance—not identity or connections—determine leadership appointments. Achieving this requires transparent standards for leadership roles, systems designed to elevate the most qualified candidates, and a reimagining of cultural narratives around who belongs in positions of power.
If we want stronger institutions, more equitable workplaces, and leaders who inspire trust, we must confront and dismantle the double standards that continue to undermine them.