Chapter 1: The Allure and Reality of Meritocracy

The concept of meritocracy in the workplace is often appealing. The premise is straightforward: those who work hard and deliver results are rewarded, while favoritism and politics are sidelined. Ideally, this system should allow the most dedicated individuals to rise based on their efforts.

However, the practical application of meritocracy often diverges significantly from this ideal.

In a previous role, I was part of an organization that championed meritocratic values. The best ideas were supposed to emerge from rigorous discussions, and everyone was encouraged to prioritize results over bureaucratic limitations. To climb the corporate ladder, one had to innovate and showcase their contributions. Unfortunately, those unable to meet these expectations often found themselves marginalized or let go.

While the system appeared to work well initially—everyone understood what was expected, and performance was the key to advancement—the reality was more complex.

In the process of idea generation, meetings turned into fierce arenas for promoting one’s own projects while attempting to undermine competitors. Every resource allocated to someone else was perceived as a loss for oneself. This competitive mindset stifled collaboration and fostered an environment where supporting others was seen as a disadvantage.

The ideas that gained traction were often not the most innovative, but rather those backed by the most vocal supporters. For individuals who preferred to reflect deeply before engaging in discussions, there was little room for their style of communication. If you weren’t inclined to assertively advocate for your ideas, you risked being sidelined. This approach inevitably marginalized a significant portion of the workforce.

When the focus is predominantly on results, it often leads to neglecting the people behind those results. It became not only acceptable but even commendable to trample over others in the name of progress. While this approach resonated with competitive personalities, it resulted in many feeling undervalued and either disengaging or leaving the organization.

Meritocracies thrive on internal rivalry. The path to success lies in crafting your own ideas, executing them, and promoting their benefits. Such incentives discourage collaboration, as you don’t receive recognition for the achievements of others. This dynamic creates a threat to your own success.

Despite the evident drawbacks, many organizations perpetuate these toxic environments. The relentless pursuit of short-term gains can obscure the long-term costs of such a culture. Internal competition might yield impressive quarterly results, pleasing investors, but it simultaneously erodes the collaborative spirit and diversity essential for sustained growth.

As Reid Hoffman aptly stated, “No matter how brilliant your mind or strategy, if you’re playing a solo game, you’ll always lose out to a team.” This principle becomes increasingly relevant as organizations expand. In smaller groups, individuals may manage to thrive independently, but as organizations grow, the need for diverse perspectives and strengths becomes crucial. Failure to recognize this often leads to an inability to compete effectively.

While performance should indeed be valued, it is vital to balance individual achievements with teamwork. Organizations ought to foster an environment where collective success is prioritized alongside personal initiative. In thriving cultures, individual goals are interlinked, and when one agenda thrives at the expense of the collective, all parties ultimately suffer.

One important lesson I’ve gathered in my managerial journey is that organizational culture reflects what behaviors are tolerated. In every dysfunctional workplace I’ve encountered, there was a collective awareness of the issues at hand. Employees observed toxic dynamics without addressing them, often because leadership failed to confront such behaviors.

As leaders, it is imperative to muster the courage to identify and rectify these harmful practices. We must ask ourselves: What does success truly mean, and what are we willing to accept to achieve it? Do we prioritize short-term results over long-term collaboration? Is internal competition valued more than inclusivity? If the answer is no, then we must take a stand against these detrimental behaviors and not allow them to become normalized.

The intent behind a meritocracy is to cultivate high-performance cultures, but true high performance stems from diversity and collaboration. Recognizing the unique contributions of every individual and fostering an environment that harnesses these strengths is essential for cultivating a genuinely high-performing culture. As Mother Teresa wisely remarked, “None of us, including me, ever do great things. But we can all do small things, with great love, and together we can do something wonderful.”

Thank you for taking the time to read this. If you’d like to receive concise leadership insights directly to your inbox, consider signing up here. And if you’re new to Medium, click here to become a member and explore a wealth of exceptional writers. Or, discover another author you admire and utilize their link to join—just make sure to support your favorites! Cheers!

Section 1.1: Internal Competition and Its Consequences

The competitive nature of meritocratic systems can lead to detrimental behaviors among employees.

Chapter 2: Rethinking Success in Organizations

In this episode, Michael Sandel discusses the potential downsides of a meritocratic society, examining how it can foster inequality and resentment.

This video explores the notion that "meritocracy" is a myth, arguing that true success often relies on factors beyond individual effort.