How Small Early Advantages Compound—And Why Meritocracy Is Often a Myth
Imagine a hockey league where players born just after a key cutoff date are months older—and also bigger and stronger—than their peers. Coaches pick these “early risers” for elite squads, showering them with better coaching and more practice. Soon, initial small advantages turn into significant talent gaps, and the process repeats, reinforcing the original disparity.
Economists and educators have spotted similar patterns in schools, where ability grouping from an early age can leave younger or less mature children locked out of the advanced track for years. Psychologists call this the “self-fulfilling prophecy”: labeling someone as talented leads to more support and opportunities, making the original (often arbitrary) judgment seem true.
Sociology recognizes this engine of advantage as the “Matthew Effect”—for unto everyone that has, more shall be given. An initial edge, even a small one, gets multiplied over time by systems designed to reward winners with even more resources. It’s tempting to believe any system is a perfect meritocracy, but behavioral science reminds us that structure and hidden rules often matter as much, if not more, than talent. Recognizing these compounding effects is crucial if we want to correct or prevent entrenched inequalities.
Whether in hockey, academics, or auditions, fixing these systems means first seeing how easily fair competition can tip into cumulative, self-reinforcing bias. Then, we get the chance to redesign for true inclusion and broad-based opportunity.
Pick an area in your life where selection or advancement seems fair—then map out who usually moves up, and why. Check if the process might be tilting in favor of the already-advantaged, whether that’s the kids with early birthdays, students from certain backgrounds, or newcomers with prior experience. Next, brainstorm one change that would make things fairer—perhaps creating extra tryouts, new tracks, or rotating roles. Share your findings with a coach, teacher, or manager—you might be surprised at how open they are to small improvements.
What You'll Achieve
You’ll develop the critical thinking and empathy needed to recognize compounding advantages and challenge unfair selection processes—in yourself, your teams, or your organization. The result: fairer, more effective systems, and more confidence speaking up for yourself and others.
Audit and Redesign Selection Processes
Map out how selection works in your environment.
Choose an area where people advance—sports, classes, jobs—and write down the age, skill, or timing rules that decide who moves up.
Look for biases that favor early bloomers.
Check if cutoff dates, streaming, or advanced programs favor certain birthdays, backgrounds, or skill levels, unintentionally weeding out late developers or quietly advantaged groups.
Propose or pilot fairer alternatives.
Brainstorm small changes: grouping by developmental stage instead of age, rotating leadership, or creating multiple entry points. Share your ideas with decision-makers or peers in your group.
Reflection Questions
- Where in your life could a hidden rule be holding someone back?
- Have you ever benefited from an early edge you barely noticed?
- What’s a small change that could help level the playing field in your community?
- Who else could benefit from having a second chance or a different entry point?
Personalization Tips
- A youth sports league rotates team selections so younger players aren’t always at a disadvantage to early-year birthdays.
- A high school offers “challenge” math classes with open entry after six months, so students who develop later can still join.
- A company reviews promotion pathways to spot and address hidden biases (like who gets mentorship or big projects first).
Outliers: The Story of Success
Ready to Take Action?
Get the Mentorist app and turn insights like these into daily habits.