The Matthew Effect: Why Your Best Employees Keep Getting Better Opportunities

Two graduates join the same company on the same day with nearly identical interview scores. In month three, one is randomly placed on a project that becomes a leadership priority. She is noticed, mentored, and given the next big project. Five years later, she is a director and he is still a senior associate. Both look like proof that the talent system works.

Where the idea comes from

In 1968, sociologist Robert K. Merton published 'The Matthew Effect in Science', drawing on interviews by Harriet Zuckerman with Nobel laureates. He noticed that famous scientists received disproportionate credit for joint or simultaneous discoveries, while lesser-known colleagues received less. He named it after the Gospel of Matthew: 'For to every one who has will more be given.'

The broader idea, 'cumulative advantage', is that initial differences — sometimes merit, sometimes luck — lead to resources and recognition that increase future performance. DiPrete and Eirich's review (2006) showed this pattern across education, income, and careers.

The best evidence: near misses

The hardest part is separating cumulative advantage from real talent differences. Bol, de Vaan and van de Rijt (2018) solved this elegantly. They studied Dutch early-career research grants and compared applicants just above the funding threshold with those just below. They were nearly identical in quality. Over the following eight years, the narrow winners accumulated more than twice as much research funding as the narrow losers. A tiny initial difference, driven largely by chance, compounded.

Azoulay, Stuart and Wang (2014) found a related effect in citation patterns: when scientists won a prestigious award, citations to their earlier papers rose — but the effect was modest and larger when quality was uncertain. Status matters most when evidence is weak.

The Matthew loop in companies

High-potential programmes can amplify this loop. Being labelled early brings coaching, exposure, and patience with mistakes. Those resources genuinely help people grow — which then confirms the label. People who were never labelled, or labelled late, don't get the same investment, and their slower growth confirms the decision not to invest.

How HR can interrupt the loop

Limits and caveats

• Not all accumulation is unfair: people who perform well should get more opportunities.
• Much of the strongest evidence comes from science and grants; the logic in companies is similar but less directly measured.
• Randomising opportunities needs care — only among qualified candidates, and with transparency.

From science to the workplace

Robert K. Merton named the Matthew effect in a 1968 article in Science. He observed that well-known scientists received more credit for joint work than lesser-known collaborators, even when the contribution was similar. Advantage attracted more advantage. DiPrete and Eirich (2006) later reviewed 'cumulative advantage' research and showed how small early differences can grow into large gaps over a career.

One of the clearest tests came from Bol, de Vaan and van de Rijt (2018). They studied early-career scientists in the Netherlands who scored just above or just below the cut-off for a major grant. The applicants were almost identical in quality, but those just above the line went on to win substantially more funding over the next eight years. Being slightly lucky early had a lasting effect.

How it works in organisations

The loop is not always unfair. Some people really do grow faster. The problem is that the loop also amplifies early luck: the first manager you had, the first project you joined, or whether a leader happened to see your work. After five years, it is hard to tell talent from accumulated advantage.

Signs the Matthew effect is shaping your talent pipeline

• High-potential lists barely change from year to year.
• People identified early get most development spending.
• Late bloomers rarely enter succession plans.
• The same few names appear on every important project.

Interventions

• Talent pools are refreshed every year.
• Development spending is reviewed for concentration.
• Late-career and late-bloomer promotions are tracked.
• Early-career assignments are allocated deliberately, not by chance.

Worked case: two graduates, one small difference

Two graduates join the same team in the same month. In the first quarter, one is placed with a senior mentor who involves her in client calls. The other is given internal reporting work. By year one, the first has client relationships and is rated higher. By year two, she gets the next big project because she 'has the experience'. By year five, the gap in pay and title is large — and it all started with one placement decision that nobody remembers making.

Merton (1968) described this pattern in science: well-known scientists get more credit for similar work. DiPrete and Eirich (2006) reviewed how cumulative advantage builds inequality over careers. The lesson for HR is that early decisions matter more than they look.

Where to interrupt the loop

Common mistakes

• Assuming a large gap after five years means a large gap in ability at the start.
• Trying to fix the gap only at promotion time, when it is already big.
• Removing all differentiation — the aim is fair chances, not identical outcomes.

What each role can do

• HR: track early-career assignments and check who gets client or leadership exposure.
• Managers: each quarter, give one high-visibility task to someone who has not had one.
• Leaders: look at pay and promotion data by hiring cohort to spot gaps that grew over time.