The tyranny of meritocracy and the forgotten role of luck

September, 2025

Bernardo Serrano Estrada

We currently live in an age where we hear phrases like: if you work hard enough, if you get up early, if you follow the "7 habits of highly effective people," if you "never give up," success will come. This seductive narrative makes us feel in control of our lives, motivates us, and fuels the idea that as long as you want it, anything is possible.

But is that really the case?

What if success didn't depend solely on effort and talent?

What if, behind every great story, there were also invisible variables like context, opportunities... or even luck, that uncomfortable factor that many prefer to ignore to make the feat seem bigger?

The Seductive Idea of Meritocracy

Meritocracy speaks to us of a just world, where those who strive harder, achieve further. And that "utopian place" sounds pretty good! One where nothing stands in the way of success: neither social class, nor gender, nor place of birth. A world where we are fully masters of our destiny, and where our ability and dedication are enough to achieve anything.
But in reality, meritocracy often ignores the starting point. Working hard from a home surrounded by books, the internet, or emotional support is not the same as doing so from a place of poverty, violence, or hunger.

As philosopher Michael Sandel says:
"Meritocracy can become a form of moral arrogance: the successful believe they deserve their place, and that those who don't achieve it also deserve their failure."

The Real Role of Luck

Luck, that uncomfortable and often ridiculed concept, is more prevalent than we like to admit. For example, brilliant figures with their own stories:

Elon Musk
His father, Errol Musk, owned an emerald mine in Zambia. Elon didn't grow up in poverty and had access to elite education and financial resources from a young age. He founded his first companies with some family capital and always had a privileged network.

Bill Gates
The son of a prominent lawyer and a businesswoman, he had access to a computer in 1968 thanks to the private school he attended. His mother was a member of the board of directors of IBM, which influenced (indirectly or not) the first contracts that helped Microsoft grow.

Steve Jobs
He was adopted by a middle-class Californian family in the heart of Silicon Valley. He attended schools with a strong technological exposure. His partner at Apple, Steve Wozniak, was a technical genius with access to resources thanks to his job at HP.

Jeff Bezos
He studied at Princeton (one of the most selective universities in the world). His parents invested $250,000 in Amazon when he founded it. He also came from a stable and academically demanding environment from a young age.

Mark Zuckerberg
He attended a very exclusive private school where he was already programming at the age of 12. He entered Harvard, where he had immediate access to an influential social network, the technical and human resources that propelled Facebook from its inception.

Taylor Swift
Her family moved to Nashville to support her career. Her father was an executive at Merrill Lynch (investment banking) and bought a stake in the independent record label that signed her. From a young age, he had access to recording studios and key contacts.

Malcolm Gladwell
Son of a mathematician and a university psychologist, he grew up in a highly intellectual environment. Although his work is highly valued, he was also favored by his academic network and connections in media outlets like The New Yorker.

Peter Thiel
Co-founder of PayPal and one of the first investors in Facebook. He studied at Stanford and was part of an intellectual and financial elite. His access to venture capital was much easier because of that environment.

Were they brilliant? Absolutely.
But did they also have moments of “circumstantial luck”? Absolutely.

As economist Robert H. Frank said:
“Success depends as much on merit as on fortune. To deny this is to distort reality.”

Demystifying the Genius

There's a phrase that sums it up well:
"It's not a genius, it's a brilliant person with brilliant ideas."

This phrase isn't an insult. It's a way of "humanizing" those figures we tend to place on altars. They weren't born touched by the gods. They were exceptional people, yes, but also "products of their context," their relationships, their privileges, and, yes, a certain amount of chance.

This approach "doesn't diminish their merit," but rather "places it in a more honest dimension." By understanding their complete trajectories —with talent, effort, but also luck— we can stop seeing them as "gods" and instead see them as "extraordinary human beings." And in that process, "we grow closer to them," instead of feeling distant because of an unbridgeable gap.

So then? What's the point of effort?

It's not about resignation. Luck plays a role, but it's not everything.

Even in professional poker, skill isn't enough; luck plays a fundamental role:
You can't control the deal, but you can learn to play the hand you're dealt to the best of your ability, and if you play many hands well over time, you'll have a better chance of winning.

Effort, preparation, resilience, ethics, and creativity "do matter." But they're not the only ingredients.

Conclusion: More understanding and less arrogance

Accepting the existence of luck doesn't diminish the value of effort; it enriches it. It means looking at life more honestly, understanding that we don't all play with the same cards. It means letting go of easy judgments toward those who haven't achieved success, and recognizing —even if it's uncomfortable— that part of our success was also a stroke of luck.

Perhaps true maturity isn't believing that everything depends on oneself, but rather learning to live in a world where merit coexists with mystery.