Do you feel input (what you put in) is tied in a somewhat proportionate way to outcomes (recognition, more responsibility, better comp, faster promotion)? Or do you think it doesn’t matter? As in, if you were to actively inhibit your performance it would not materially change your trajectory? The corollary to that is, in your experience, do you often see folks rise up DESPITE obvious poor performance / lack of aptitude? Find myself in a particularly confusing situation where top performers do not reap any incremental benefit of adding value relative to poor performers and want to assess if this is widespread or an exception.
Trending Content - Off Topic Forum
| +95 | Incompetent and annoying co-intern | 28 | 16h |
| +52 | Broke up with college gf before analyst role | 31 | 1h |
| +36 | People who despise the industry you work for - uncomfortable date story | 13 | 42m |
| +17 | Why so few east asians in london Vs NYC? | 15 | 1d |
| +12 | WC Final: Spain v. Argentina | 17 | 1d |
| +9 | Mounjaro KwikPen Fifth Dose Question Answered: What That Leftover Fluid Actually Does | 1 | 6d |
| +7 | Finance Dreams vs Finance Intrest | 2 | 3d |
| +6 | WSO Off Topic is Cooked | 4 | 6d |
| +6 | London Roommate Thread | 2 | 3d |
| +5 | Masters tickets lottery | 3 | 13h |
Career Resources
Based on the most insightful WSO discussions, meritocracy in high finance is a nuanced topic. While the industry is often described as meritocratic, the reality is more complex and varies depending on the firm, team, and role.
Meritocracy in Theory vs. Practice:
Recognition and Rewards:
Exceptions and Frustrations:
Advice for Navigating This:
In summary, while high finance is generally meritocratic, the degree to which input is tied to outcomes depends heavily on the specific firm and team dynamics. If you find yourself in an environment where performance is not rewarded, it may be worth exploring opportunities elsewhere that better align with your values and goals.
Sources: Most meritocratic hedge fund?, Being an Asian in finance in the United States
When things matter little, and when things are significantly important, politics becomes substantially more important. Most high finance jobs are highly political.
There is a minimum level of competence that is generally required. But beyond this general level, it is more about politics than anything else
It matters, but it isn't linear
I understand being well liked matters (obviously), but as you look around the table and see VPs, Principals, MDs, do you feel people generally earned their seat due to competence and skill first? Or do you see a lot of folks that lag behind what anyone would reasonably expect are the minimum skills, but have gotten ahead in spite of those lacking abilities (due to politics or other reasons).
In est molestiae vel. Laboriosam iste laborum minima est saepe ut fuga non.
Incidunt repellendus ut omnis quis dolore et enim. Velit sed deleniti nam quam. Deserunt delectus quis quia. Quo dolores non totam quis. Consequatur cupiditate natus velit sint magnam quasi dicta. Beatae voluptas facere aut quia voluptatem voluptas quasi. Totam iure veritatis eius dolores sint rerum rerum.
Ducimus eum sunt deleniti sed quis. Aut cumque ipsam enim quod et. Eos tenetur blanditiis delectus voluptatum.
Laboriosam et illum eum animi ipsum amet eum. Ipsa dolores reiciendis et non dolores porro et. Sed accusamus et molestias sunt ullam magni.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...