The myth of meritocracy

What Careless People Gets Right

I haven’t read Careless People yet, but the reviews alone bring back memories I’d rather forget.

Sarah Wynn-Williams’ new memoir peels back the layers of excess, hubris, and entitlement inside Meta (Facebook), but for those of us who’ve worked in tech, none of it is surprising.

We’ve seen it firsthand.

Tech’s Illusion of Greatness

Tech has always marketed itself as different. Smarter. More progressive. The industry that moves fast and builds the future.

And in some ways, that’s true. I’ve worked with some of the sharpest minds in my career. People who could see around corners, invent whole new categories, and challenge the status quo.

But behind the brilliance, there’s another side to tech—one that doesn’t get splashed across the funding announcements and innovation showcases.

I’ve seen rampant drug and alcohol abuse at company events, the kind that would make Wall Street look tame. I’ve watched companies bend over backward for authoritarian governments in the name of market expansion. And I’ve seen a CEO on stage extolling “meritocracy” while entire departments quietly operated as an old boys’ club, where power mattered more than performance.

And let’s talk about that so-called meritocracy.

The Hardest Worker Doesn’t Always Win

I once led a massive, company-wide project—one that changed processes, increased efficiency, and made a real business impact. But in a culture where meritocracy was more of a slogan than a reality, the credit didn’t always go where it was due. The VP who presented the results publicly attributed the success to someone else, a move that wasn’t an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern where visibility and politics often outweighed actual contributions.

Then, months later, I was laid off. Not by that VP—he was fired shortly after—but by the former CIO, who took over the marketing team. The same CIO I had clashed with during that project now had the authority to make that decision. It was a stark reminder that in many organizations, power dynamics often outweigh performance. Leadership decisions aren't always driven by merit, but by alliances, personal histories, and the unspoken rules of who holds influence.

Tech loves the myth that the best ideas win—that the smartest, hardest-working people rise to the top. But if that were true, leadership in tech would look very different. The reality? Power, politics, and personal connections shape careers more than talent, perhaps more than in any other industry, because tech refuses to admit it.

Even in the midst of frustrating power dynamics, I found myself wanting to understand the people at the top—what motivated them, what shaped their decisions. Looking back, I realized something—I actually enjoyed working with these imperfect leaders. They weren’t evil masterminds. They were complex, brilliant, and deeply human. And they were chasing something.

What Really Drives Tech’s Leaders?

One CEO I worked with was one of the smartest people I’d ever known. He had a degree in astrophysics and could have been great in that field, but he knew others were better. So he tried a different path. But what he was really chasing was filling the hole left by growing up poor with a single mother and never knowing his father.

Another was driven by the pressure of his family’s sacrifices after immigrating to the U.S. as a child, leading him to build a company where relentless work ethic was valued above all else. Another always felt like he had something to prove because he didn’t come from an Ivy League pedigree, which manifested in a leadership style that prioritized prestige over collaboration.

Understanding what drove these leaders changed how I worked with them—but it didn’t change the damage their choices caused. It helped me navigate high-stakes, high-conflict environments—not by clashing, but by knowing when to challenge, when to guide, and when to step back.

And in the end, that’s what separates real leadership from just holding power.

What Leadership in Tech Needs Now

I’ve led teams in this environment. I’ve built high-performing marketing organizations inside these cultures. And what I’ve learned is this:

• The best teams don’t just rely on smarts—they create systems that recognize contribution. A culture where credit is given fairly isn’t just nice—it’s a competitive advantage. People do their best work when they know their impact matters.

• Accountability isn’t a buzzword—it’s leadership in action. The best leaders don’t look for scapegoats or spin. They take responsibility, make hard calls, and ensure decisions are tied to results, not relationships.

• Growth and ethics aren’t at odds. The companies that thrive long-term are the ones that build trust—not just with customers, but internally. When leadership operates with integrity, teams execute faster, smarter, and with more resilience.

I’ve built marketing strategies that drive revenue. I’ve worked inside toxic cultures and built high-performing teams in spite of them. And I’ve seen firsthand that companies that get this right—that prioritize accountability, clear decision-making, and real meritocracy—win.

Because here’s the real secret: when you fix the leadership, everything else follows—culture strengthens, innovation accelerates, and real growth becomes possible.

Tech's aura of untouchable greatness is fading, and the cracks are turning into fault lines. The only question is: who’s willing to lead differently—ensuring that leadership is about both technical excellence and the emotional intelligence needed to build resilient, high-performing teams?

What personal motivations have you seen shape leadership—for better or worse? Have you worked with a leader whose personal struggles influenced their leadership style?