I’ve been thinking about the difference between favoritism and meritocracy in leadership.
From the outside, they can sometimes look surprisingly similar.
Some people get more trust.
More autonomy.
More support.
More appreciation.
But the question is: why?
My approach to leadership has always been quite simple: mirror the energy and impact people bring to the team.
Do good work, take ownership, help others, and consistently create positive impact, and you will naturally earn more trust, support, and appreciation.
The opposite should also be true. Repeatedly showing poor ownership, negative behavior, or creating problems for the team cannot come without consequences.
You could call it carrot and stick. I prefer to think of it as actions and consequences.
At the baseline, I believe everyone in the team should be treated with the same respect, fairness, clarity, and basic support.
But treating everyone fairly doesn’t always mean treating everyone exactly the same.
That’s where meritocracy comes in.
Because meritocracy doesn’t mean treating everyone exactly the same. It means making sure trust, support, appreciation, and accountability are earned through consistent behavior and contribution.
And as a leader, one thing I care deeply about is protecting the quality of the team.
A strong team is not only built by hiring good people. It is also built by protecting good people from behaviors that slowly lower the standard around them.
One bad apple, left unchecked for too long, can eventually affect the good apples around it.
So leadership, to me, is not about having favorites.
It is about appreciating and supporting what makes the team better, addressing what makes it worse, and being consistent in how we respond to both.