Episode 12: The Corporate BS of Meritocracy

Joao

Hey everyone, welcome back to The H2H Experiment! It's Joao here, flying solo again this week. And honestly, I'm excited, because we're diving into a topic that, well, gets under my skin a bit: the myth of meritocracy in organizations. You know, that idea that if you just work hard and play by the rules, you'll rise to the top. It sounds so fair, right? But, uh, let's be real—it's not how things actually work. I used to believe in it, too. Early in my career, I thought, 'If people just deliver, if they just keep their head down, they will be noticed.' Spoiler alert: that's not how it happens. And I know I'm part of privileged minority but I see this happening around quite often. So, let's unpack why this myth sticks around and what it really means for all of us at work.

Joao

So, let's start with something we don't talk about enough: inherited advantages. I mean, think about it—your family background, where you went to school, who your parents know, even your accent or the neighborhood you grew up in. These things shape your opportunities way before you even send your first resume. For example, someone who grew up with access to great schools and a network of influential people? They're already a few steps ahead, even if they're not the most talented in the room. And yet, in most organizations, we kind of ignore this. We act like everyone started at the same line. But how often do we actually stop and look at who gets the big projects, or who gets mentored? Are we really seeing the full picture, or just the surface?

Joao

If you zoom out, this isn't new. Throughout history, those in power have always found ways to justify why they deserve to be on top. Kings claimed divine right, landowners said they were 'better bred,' colonial systems used race as an excuse for dominance. These stories weren't just random—they were designed to keep certain people in charge. And honestly, if you look at modern corporate culture, it's not that different. Take the legacy of Ivy League recruitment in Fortune 500 companies. It's like, if you went to the 'right' school, doors just open for you. It's the same old power structure, just with a new coat of paint.

Joao

Now, here's where it gets sneaky. We don't say, 'You can't move up because of your background.' Instead, we use words like 'culture fit' or 'executive presence.' These are just subtle ways of gatekeeping. Language shapes how we see merit. I remember early in my career, someone told me I needed more 'executive presence.' I had no idea what that even meant. Was it my accent? The way I dressed? It felt like code for 'you're not like us.' And that's how bias hides—in plain sight, behind fancy words.

Joao

There's actually some neuroscience behind this. Our brains are wired to trust people who look and sound like us. It's about safety, familiarity. So, in the workplace, we end up hiring and promoting people who remind us of ourselves—not necessarily the best or the brightest, just the most familiar. That's why you see so many organizations where everyone at the top kind of looks the same, went to the same schools, maybe even plays the same sports. It's not always intentional, but it's real.

Joao

And the cost? It's huge. When we only promote people who echo the existing culture, we limit innovation and waste so much talent. I've seen brilliant, marginalized leaders get overlooked again and again. The quiet genius who builds the systems, the woman who carries the emotional load of the team, the immigrant who speaks five languages but not 'corporate English'—they're invisible. It makes me wonder: what breakthroughs have we missed because we keep choosing sameness over difference?

Joao

Let's talk about how we actually define merit. It's way more subjective than we admit. Organizations often overvalue traits like extroversion or assertiveness, even when those aren't the best indicators of performance. There's this famous example from the world of music—when orchestras started doing blind auditions, suddenly, way more women were hired. Turns out, when you remove the bias, the definition of 'talent' changes. So, how much of what we call merit is just... habit?

Joao

So, what do we do about it? There are practical steps. One is doing a 'shadow audit'—really looking at who gets promoted and why. Another is mentorship, especially for people who don't already have those networks. Anonymous idea-sharing can help surface voices that usually get drowned out. I have a mentor who is relentless about inclusive hiring. He frequently asks, 'Who are we missing? Who's not at the table?' That kind of leadership changes everything.

Joao

Alright, time for this week's H2H Experiment. I want you to try a 'shadow audit' in your own workplace. List five to ten people who have recently advanced—what do they have in common? Whose voices are missing from the conversation? If you're feeling brave, interview a few people who feel unseen and ask them what keeps them from speaking up. And hey, if you find something interesting, share it with us anonymously. Maybe we'll talk about it in a future episode. This is about making the invisible visible.

Joao

If we want truly equitable workplaces, we have to recognize the myth for what it is. Leaders need to get honest about who's being left out and why. That means redefining what success looks like—rewarding risk-taking, listening, community-building, not just polish or confidence. Imagine what our organizations could achieve if we actually had a real meritocracy. What would be possible if everyone had a fair shot?

Joao

To get there, we need to build a culture of equity. That means real bias training, not just a checkbox—like scenario-based exercises that help people recognize their own blind spots. Hiring panels should be diverse and transparent, so decisions aren't just based on gut feeling. And we need accountability—diversity metrics, regular audits of who gets promoted, and making sure we're actually making progress, not just talking about it.

Joao

We can also foster true meritocracy by running peer-led workshops where people share their stories and challenge each other's assumptions. Mentorship programs should intentionally pair leaders with underrepresented employees, so talent gets seen and nurtured. And there should be a feedback loop—let people report bias or unfair treatment anonymously, and actually use that data to change policies. It's not about handouts; it's about leveling the playing field.

Joao

Alright, let's wrap up. Today we talked about why the myth of meritocracy is so persistent, how inherited advantages and old power structures still shape who gets ahead, and how language and bias keep the system running. We looked at the neuroscience behind trust and sameness, the cost of homogeneity, and how subjective our definitions of merit really are. I shared some strategies for inclusive leadership, and your H2H Experiment this week is to do a shadow audit—really look at who's getting ahead and why. Remember, you can find more on this and other topics by checking out our videos on YouTube or reading our articles on LinkedIn—just search for 'The H2H Experiment.' Thanks for listening, everyone. Keep questioning, keep experimenting, and I'll see you next time. Ciao!