As the pendulum of conversation swings back toward meritocracy—or at least the rhetoric of it—and away from diversity hiring, here’s a question worth asking: Are we just handing out another version of an “I ran in a race” ribbon? And does anyone preaching meritocracy even know what it truly means? 

Millennials often get unfairly blamed for the rise of “everyone gets a trophy” culture, yet participation awards date back to the 1920s. They peaked in popularity during the ’70s and ’80s before the backlash began in the ’90s. Supporters claimed these awards boosted confidence and encouraged participation, fostering inclusive spaces. Critics, backed by solid evidence, argued that rewarding everyone equally breeds entitlement, narcissism, and complacency. If showing up earns you the same reward as winning, why bother trying? This mentality didn’t stop with kids’ sports.

Workplaces are equally guilty of “trophy culture.”

Service anniversary awards or automatic promotions and pay bumps simply for sticking around. These are adult participation trophies, rewarding presence rather than performance, impact, or results. 

Research shows participation awards can initially help young children—especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds—by giving them motivation and time to develop. They help level the playing field temporarily. However, by their teens, young people recognise that these ribbons are meaningless. At that stage, genuine effort, improvement, and achievement matter—not just attendance. 

Here’s where nuance is essential: recognising that achievement looks different for everyone. Awards like “Most Improved,” community or values based contributions, rookie recognition, and leadership awards drive motivation and performance more effectively. So why, in workplaces filled with adults, are we still handing out rewards for tenure rather than results? 

Workplace loyalty is dead—and rightfully so.

Traditional HR thinking promoted rewarding longevity to boost allegiance and reduce turnover. This logic worked for older generations, who valued job security and titles. Loyalty also thrived when opportunities were limited to local newspapers or word-of-mouth. 

But younger generations—Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z—don’t buy this outdated narrative. Their motivations differ, shaped by abundant access to information about workplace realities and organisational loyalty. They’ve watched loyalty rewarded with layoffs and observed colleagues promoted just for tenure—not skill, value, or ethics.

Promotions based on time served feel less like meritocracy and more like mediocrity. 

True meritocracy rewards actual effort, results, and potential—not wealth, social connections, or seniority. However, biases often distort decision-making. Too often, managers default to simplistic shortcuts—time served, job titles, role scope—to measure merit. Past achievements overshadow accountability for ongoing performance. Occupying a corner office today doesn’t automatically equate to added value tomorrow. 

On the flip side, is diversity hiring merely a participation trophy or a strategic advantage? At its worst, diversity hiring can indeed feel like another participation award—rewarding people from closed, pre-defined groups merely for presence, undermining the effort and contributions of others. Adults rightfully recognise and reject this tokenism. 

At its best, diversity hiring is far from tokenistic; it resembles building a premiership-winning sports team.

It’s data-driven, results-focused, experimental, and methodical. Performance stats inform trades and salaries, while diverse skills enhance team dynamics. Strategic bets on potential are backed by targeted development opportunities, and performance continuously informs team adjustments. Incentives reward both team and individual contributions. The performance of the team is more than just the players on the field, it’s the coaches, physiotherapists, nutritionists, marketing team, finance. It’s the executives and the Board. 

Executives must ask themselves: are they aiming for a single victory or sustained success? Do they want to win this year at the future expense of the club and their stakeholders? The tallest, strongest, or most experienced player isn’t always the MVP—and a team of identical “ideal” players rarely wins championships.

Defence and attack are not the same. Successful teams blend varied strengths—experience, agility, creativity, leadership, resilience, strategy—to maintain a winning edge. 

So, what do meritocracy and diversity hiring truly share? 

First, workplaces aren’t kids’ sports fields—showing up isn’t enough to earn or keep your spot. Effort, results and potential matter. However, success genuinely looks different for each person. A real meritocracy isn’t about tenure or privilege; it’s about current and future performance. Great diversity hiring recognises workplaces resemble team sports more than solo races—getting the right mix of current skills and future potential. Like elite sports teams, the most successful organisations strategically build diverse teams based on data and evidence aimed at common goals and reward genuine team contributions over individual vanity metrics. 

Winning may look different for each individual, but until it’s universally understood that effort, results and potential—not mere participation—should earn rewards, victories will be short-lived. And, like team sports, it’s not just individual stats that matter—it’s how those varied skills and experiences unite. 

And if your club takes home the premiership? You’ve earned that gold, not merely for showing up, but for genuinely contributing to the victory.