We tell ourselves a comforting story: that hard work and talent rise to the top, that cream floats, that merit wins out. But look closer at any organization, any industry, any society, and you’ll find something more complex and considerably less inspiring.Those already in power have a vested interest in staying there. This isn’t necessarily because they’re villains—though some certainly are—but because systems naturally calcify around the people who benefit from them. The wealthy write tax codes. The credentialed design certification requirements. The established guard peer review journals. The connected approve membership applications.
This creates what we might call “meritocracy theater”: the performance of fair competition while the actual mechanisms of advancement remain opaque, networked, and self-reinforcing. You need experience to get a job, but you need a job to get experience. You need capital to build wealth, but you need wealth to access capital. You need a platform to be heard, but you need to be heard to get a platform.The gatekeepers aren’t keeping gates because they want the best people inside. They’re keeping gates because that’s what gatekeepers do. It gives them purpose, power, and identity.
So Break the Rules?
This is where the argument gets dangerous, because there’s an important distinction between breaking unjust rules and simply breaking rules because they inconvenience you.Consider: some of history’s most important advances came from rule-breakers. The civil rights movement broke laws. Early internet developers broke telecommunications monopolies. Entrepreneurs circumvent regulations. Whistleblowers violate NDAs. Artists ignore conventions. Scientists challenge paradigms.
But not all rule-breaking is created equal. There’s a difference between Rosa Parks and Bernie Madoff, between circumventing a byzantine permit system to start a food truck and evading safety regulations that protect workers.The uncomfortable truth is that both playing by the rules and breaking them can be paths to advancement, and both can be ethical or unethical depending on context. The person who networks their way into opportunities is playing the game. The person who lies on their resume is breaking rules. One might be unfair, the other is fraud, yet both acknowledge the same underlying reality: pure meritocracy is a fiction.
What This Means for You
If you’re trying to get ahead, you face a choice that isn’t really about rules versus merit. It’s about understanding that systems are made by people, for people, and they reflect human biases, networks, and power dynamics.The most successful people typically combine genuine skills and competence with an understanding of how their field actually works, not how it claims to work. They build relationships and networks while also creating end-runs around gatekeepers when necessary. They take calculated risks that others won’t, sometimes playing by the stated rules and sometimes recognizing when those rules exist only to protect incumbents.The question isn’t whether to break rules, but which rules deserve breaking, and whether you’re willing to accept the consequences. Sometimes the most ethical path forward requires defying unjust systems. Sometimes what feels like breaking rules is actually just refusing to accept artificial barriers that serve no purpose except to protect those already inside.
But we should be honest about what we’re doing and why. If you’re cutting corners on product safety to boost profits, you’re not striking a blow against an unjust system—you’re just being reckless. If you’re sharing information that powerful interests want suppressed, you might be performing a public service, or you might be violating legitimate privacy, or both.
The meritocracy myth does real damage because it makes people blame themselves for systematic failures, and it makes systematic corruption look like personal moral failing. But the solution isn’t nihilism or sociopathy. It’s clearer eyes about how power actually works, and more thoughtful choices about when to work within systems and when to work against them.
