top of page

By:

Rahul Kulkarni

30 March 2025 at 3:32:54 pm

When Meritocracy Starts to Feel Like Favoritism

At The Workshop, nobody said it aloud. But everyone felt it. It wasn’t a policy. It wasn’t a memo. It was a pattern. The founder, Rohit, had a rhythm … a gravitational pull toward certain people. The ones he brainstormed with, called into client meetings, turned to for “quick feedback”. It didn’t look like favoritism. But it didn’t feel like meritocracy either. And that’s where the distortion begins … not in what leaders intend, but in what teams observe. Two months after the grand town hall,...

When Meritocracy Starts to Feel Like Favoritism

At The Workshop, nobody said it aloud. But everyone felt it. It wasn’t a policy. It wasn’t a memo. It was a pattern. The founder, Rohit, had a rhythm … a gravitational pull toward certain people. The ones he brainstormed with, called into client meetings, turned to for “quick feedback”. It didn’t look like favoritism. But it didn’t feel like meritocracy either. And that’s where the distortion begins … not in what leaders intend, but in what teams observe. Two months after the grand town hall, the strategy wasn't what people were trying to decode anymore. They were decoding proximity: Who does Rohit trust? Who gets access without asking? Whose mistakes are overlooked? Whose ideas make it to execution? There were no formal rules for this. But everyone was learning them. And Rohit? He had no idea. Because in his mind, he was just moving with speed while leaning on the people who “got it” fastest. But what the team saw was something else: A quiet hierarchy of influence. One built not on titles, but on closeness. That moment It happened during a Friday sprint retro. Aman proposed a workflow change. Bold, unconventional … the kind of idea Rohit usually encouraged. But instead of responding, Rohit turned to Meera: “Let’s hold that thought. Meera, what do you think?” Meera had worked with him the longest. Her judgment was sharp. Trusted. But to everyone else in the room: Aman felt dismissed. The interns updated their playbook: “Run bold ideas through Meera.” The ops lead made a mental note: “Pitch safely, not directly.” Rohit hadn’t intended to promote a gatekeeper. But in that moment, the team had just created one. Favoritism before leaders Because leaders operate from intention. Teams live with impact. Rohit didn’t like Meera more. He simply trusted her process. She could take his half-sentence and turn it into action without much translation. He wasn’t rewarding loyalty. He was rewarding ease. But that distinction doesn’t matter when the team sees the same voices dominate every meeting. Familiarity starts looking like favoritism. And culture quietly reshapes around that perception. Echo chamber Most founders don’t wake up wanting to build echo chambers. They just gravitate … toward the people who mirror their speed, their style, their language. Here’s what happens: The founder starts ideating more with “trusted” voices. Those voices gain unofficial influence. Everyone else speaks less – not from fear, but from futility. Decision quality drops. Alignment fractures. Initiative dies. Before you know it, you’re not building a meritocracy. You’re building a familiarity loop. And in fast-growth companies, loops are sticky. Real case In a national sales team we worked with, the VP insisted decisions were data-driven. Until we ran a blind assessment. A top performer was barely visible. A mid-level player got promoted … not because of results, but because she was always in the VP’s orbit. A high-potential new joiner was overlooked because he didn’t “sound confident”. When we showed the gap, the VP was stunned. What he thought was merit… was actually compatibility. In a factory setup, a supervisor promoted the wrong person for three cycles in a row. Not due to bias. Due to comfort. He chose: The one who never challenged him. The one who echoed his thinking. The one who felt “safe.” Meanwhile, the real performers watched quietly. One line worker summed it up best: “Performance is for the reports. Promotions are for the familiar.” Team effect The damage isn’t instant. It’s cumulative. First, people stop pitching bold ideas. Then, they stop asking questions. Eventually, they stop trying to compete at all. Because the game feels rigged… even if it’s not. And that’s the real cost of the Power Paradox. The leader thinks they’re being objective. The team experiences a hierarchy of trust. Real paradox Founders say, “We’re a meritocracy.” The team replies, “Then why does the same inner circle always win?” They’re not wrong. Neither is the founder. Because power isn’t about what you say. It’s about how often you say it to the same people. And when that circle goes unexamined, it quietly shapes a culture where: Familiarity outruns contribution, access outranks talent, and initiative dies before it begins. Meritocracy is not just what you believe. It’s what your team can see. (Rahul Kulkarni is Co-founder at PPS Consulting. He writes about the human mechanics of growth where systems evolve, and emotions learn to keep up. Views personal. Write to rahul@ppsconsulting.biz)

A Reset, Not a Romance

ree

The diplomatic chill between India and Canada has rarely been as stark as it was during the final years of Justin Trudeau’s premiership. Accusations, expulsions and frozen channels of communication left a relationship once built on shared democratic values looking threadbare. Yet, after months of acrimony and one sensational allegation that pushed ties to their lowest ebb in decades, both countries have now begun edging back toward normalcy. A new political configuration in Ottawa, coupled with India’s determination to steer relations away from confrontation, has opened a path to something neither country has experienced in years: predictability.


Canada and India have long portrayed themselves as natural partners, two democracies shaped by British colonial rule, bound by an expansive diaspora and linked through decades of academic, scientific and commercial exchange. Canada’s early support for Indian nationalists during the freedom struggle is often invoked in speeches by nostalgic diplomats. After independence, Jawaharlal Nehru’s government found in Ottawa a steady - if sometimes cautious - friend. Over the decades, co-operation deepened even as irritants arose.


But history has never insulated the relationship from contemporary pressures. Under Trudeau, Ottawa’s domestic politics repeatedly spilled into foreign policy. India bristled at what it saw as Canadian indulgence of Khalistani separatism. Ottawa, for its part, accused Delhi of heavy-handedness abroad. By late 2023, the relationship had drifted into something approaching paralysis.


Functional ties

The election of Mark Barney as Prime Minister has broken that pattern. Barney, a pragmatic centrist, has signalled a desire to lower the temperature and rebuild functional ties. His government has quietly stepped back from the more performative elements of his predecessor’s foreign policy, and opened the door to a reset with Delhi. For India, this provides an opportunity to reclaim a relationship that until recently offered commercial promise and strategic heft.


The turning point arrived, symbolically at least, at this year’s G7 summit in Canada when Barney and Modi met on the sidelines and agreed on a roadmap for co-operation. This paved the way for restoring consular operations disrupted during the standoff and for reopening channels necessary for visas, education and commerce. It was the clearest signal yet that both sides were tired of the ice age.


The real test, however, came later, when India’s external-affairs minister, S. Jaishankar, travelled to Canada for talks with Anita Anand, the foreign minister whose own family roots lie in India. Their discussions were not glamorous, but were productive.


Pending projects stalled during the Trudeau years were dusted off. Security concerns were aired without public mudslinging. And both sides committed to operationalising a ‘Roadmap 2025’ - a framework aimed at reviving collaboration in trade, energy, science, technology and higher education.


While not a dramatic transformation, it is a recognition that both countries have much to lose from prolonged estrangement. For Canada, rebalancing is essential to maintaining its credibility in the Indo-Pacific, where it seeks relevance beyond China and the United States. For India, easing tensions allows it to focus on more consequential strategic challenges while preserving access for its vast diaspora and students.


The most sensitive issue of security threats emanating from extremist networks will not evaporate overnight. Ottawa’s pledge to treat violent extremism with greater seriousness will be judged not by communiqués but by law-enforcement follow-through. Delhi, for its part, must accept that diaspora politics in liberal democracies rarely align neatly with the preferences of foreign governments. The reset depends on both acknowledging these structural misalignments and managing them with maturity rather than megaphones.


Still, the early signs of normalisation matter. Consulates are reopening. Ministerial visits have resumed. The two governments are again speaking the language of partnership rather than grievance. Even the rhetoric, so often the accelerant of Indo-Canadian disputes, has softened. The Barney government, lacking Trudeau’s ideological flamboyance, appears content with quiet fixes over symbolic flourish. India’s approach, emphasising dialogue and problem-solving diplomacy,’ reflects a similar preference for stability.


Whether this cautious thaw becomes something more durable will depend on political discipline in both capitals. Ottawa must contain domestic pressures that have previously derailed foreign policy. Delhi must recognise that progress will be incremental, not sweeping.


For the first time in years, the India-Canada relationship is not defined by crisis. The two countries have stepped back from the brink and are reacquainting themselves with the virtues of steady engagement. In an era of fractious geopolitics, that alone counts as progress.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page