In startups, promotions rarely begin during the review cycle.

They begin much earlier, in the moment a manager decides who gets the hard project, who joins the important meeting, and who is trusted to represent the team when the stakes are high.

Most companies do not describe it that way.

They say they promote on merit. They say performance speaks for itself. They say the best people rise. But in many startups, what gets called merit is often built through access first.

Culture decides who gets seen

Workplace culture is often treated like a soft issue.

It sits next to values decks, off-sites, and internal messaging. It is discussed as something important, but not always as something operational.

That is a mistake.

In startups, culture acts more like infrastructure. It shapes who gets visibility, whose judgment gets tested, and who becomes familiar to leadership before promotion discussions even begin.

This matters because formal review processes usually come late. By the time someone is being discussed for a bigger role, the room is often not deciding from scratch. It is confirming a view that has been forming for months.

By then, the bet has usually already been made.

The hidden feeder system into leadership

Most startups have a hidden feeder system into leadership.

It is not written down. It does not show up in the org chart. But it is there.

It looks like stretch assignments. It looks like cross-functional launches. It looks like being invited into difficult conversations. It looks like being trusted with work that carries risk and visibility.

The people who get these opportunities build a record that later looks like leadership readiness.

The people who do not get them may still perform well. In many cases, they are the ones keeping the team stable. But they are often seen as reliable executors rather than future leaders.

That is where culture starts shaping outcomes.

The real question is not only who performs well. It is who gets the kind of work that later gets rewarded.

Also Read: From lead generation to pipeline hygiene: What startups often miss

How this plays out inside startups

This pattern does not always look dramatic.

That is part of the problem.

Picture a lean startup preparing for an important product launch. It needs someone to coordinate across product, marketing, operations, and leadership. The project is messy. It is visible. It comes with pressure.

A manager picks someone they already feel comfortable with. Maybe that person is available late into the night. Maybe they are already part of informal leadership circles. Maybe they simply communicate in a style that feels familiar in the room.

Another team member, equally capable, stays on steady execution work. They keep things moving. They deliver. They are dependable.

A few months later, one person is described as showing leadership potential.

The other is described as strong, but not quite ready.

Nothing openly unfair may have happened in that moment. No policy had to be broken. No one had to say anything discriminatory.

But the outcome is still not neutral.

The people who get the biggest opportunities early are usually the ones the company later calls naturally ready.

Who benefits, and who gets left behind

This system tends to reward people who are already closer to power.

That can mean people with easier access to senior leaders. It can mean people who are more comfortable speaking in high-status settings. It can mean those who can mirror the pace, style, or availability patterns of the people already in charge.

It can also quietly disadvantage people with caregiving responsibilities, people who are newer to influential networks, and people whose strengths show up more in depth than self-promotion.

Women and other overlooked talent often feel this gap without always being able to name it.

They are told to speak up more, be more visible, or act more strategically. But what they often need is not better advice. They need fairer access to the work that creates visibility in the first place.

That is why culture cannot be reduced to tone or sentiment.

Culture decides who gets the proving ground.

Why this becomes a growth problem

Some leaders still treat this as a fairness issue alone.

It is a fairness issue. But it is also a growth issue.

When people see that advancement depends more on informal access than clear opportunity, they stop trusting the system. Some disengage. Others leave. The strongest often leave quietly, after they realise the ceiling is lower than the company admits.

That weakens retention.

It also narrows the leadership pipeline. Companies keep selecting from the same profiles, then wonder why their bench feels thin.

The cost shows up elsewhere, too. Teams lose morale when effort and opportunity drift apart. Hiring gets harder when internal stories about advancement start circulating outside the company. Product and growth decisions become narrower when the same lived experiences keep getting rewarded and elevated.

Once the same people keep getting the proving ground, the company starts calling the result merit.

That is when a cultural problem becomes self-defending.

Also Read: Data-driven or gut-led? Why the best startups do both

One structural shift that matters

Startups do not need perfect systems to improve this.

But they do need to stop treating opportunity as invisible.

One useful shift is to make stretch assignments visible and review who gets them.

That does not mean removing manager judgment from every decision. It means paying attention to patterns that are usually left unexamined.

• Who is getting cross-functional projects?
• Who is getting exposure to senior leadership?
• Who is repeatedly trusted with strategic work?
• Who is staying essential but unseen?

When leaders track opportunity flow, they can spot whether growth is being distributed fairly or simply recycled through familiarity.

That is a better place to start than waiting for performance review season and trying to correct an outcome that was shaped months earlier.

If a company wants fairer promotion outcomes, it has to look at the path to readiness, not just the final score.

What founders should sit with

Most startups do not set out to build uneven leadership pipelines.

They do it more quietly. They confuse familiarity with readiness. They confuse availability with commitment. They confuse informal trust with objective judgment.

Then, over time, careers, pay, and authority begin stacking on top of those early choices. At that point, the system feels harder to question because so much already depends on defending it.

That is why workplace culture matters more than companies often admit.

It does not just shape how people feel at work. It shapes who gets built into the future of the business.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The post Why merit in startups is often decided before performance reviews begin appeared first on e27.