Success Is Not a Zero-Sum Game
Throughout my career, I've encountered people in power who have looked at it as a destination, holding on to it tightly because it symbolizes success. Often, they know intellectually that it is beneficial to be seen as someone who supports people earlier in their careers. However, when actually making decisions that benefit others, these leaders fall short.
Before I go further, I will add a caveat: I come to this discussion from a place of privilege. I have a college education, a PhD I chose because I found the subject interesting, and I have never had to struggle financially in the way that shapes a person's entire worldview. My insecurities have been the relatively comfortable kind: wanting to be seen as smart, to prove myself intellectually. I mention this as context for what I'm about to describe.
Often, the gap between what these leaders say and what they do comes from a scarcity mindset. This could stem from career experiences, their education, or even their upbringing — environments where they had to fight for resources and leaving them feeling a sense of unfairness around helping others who are further behind. This idea, that others need to suffer for your own suffering to be meaningful, is something I fundamentally disagree with.
As a young professional, I have often heard people of my generation described as having a sense of entitlement. Older generations insisted that younger people should just keep their heads down and do the work instead of looking for recognition, often unaware that they themselves exhibited the same behavior. These same people often disregarded the privileges they had: a stronger economy, less rigorous entry requirements for college, and lower tuition. Because of their scarcity mindsets, they only acknowledged the hardship they themselves experienced. Now I see millennials saying the same things about Gen Z, a generation that navigated a pandemic and now has to compete with AI for entry-level roles. Every generation perceives the next as entitled while being blind to its own advantages.
As a scientist, I know that knowledge not shared is functionally useless. Organizational knowledge, subject matter expertise, and interpersonal maturity should all be shared. Society and technology do not thrive when knowledge is hoarded.
Those who hoard knowledge and want others to struggle out of a sense of fairness or insecurity are detrimental to morale, teams, and productivity—I've seen this firsthand. Others can see through the facade of supportiveness because actions speak louder than words. Insincere leaders cannot fake it until they make it because those at their mercy will know and remember. Biotech / pharma is a small community and reputations spread. These leaders are sabotaging themselves without realizing it, damaging their own credibility and relationships, by holding on to a mirage of competency and leadership.
I observed this dynamic for years before coming across an article on LinkedIn about the Queen Bee phenomenon. While I've seen it more often in women, I don't believe it is gender-specific. It seems to emerge when someone has fought for limited resources and cannot stop fighting even after those resources are secured, because of an inherent fear that those resources will be taken away. There is an underpinning belief that it success is a zero-sum game. Research confirms this is a response to discrimination rather than an intrinsic characteristic.
Many of these leaders progressed as individual contributors, or as leaders with a high level of systemic support. They either do not know how to share work and credit, or they are accustomed to taking credit for the work of others. Marshall Goldsmith talks about this in "What Got You Here Won't Get You There" — the transition from individual contributor to genuine leader requires an entirely different set of skills, and many people never make it. Adam Grant's research in "Give and Take" reinforces this: givers, people who share their knowledge, time, and energy without keeping score, outperform takers over the long run. Only about 8% of people describe themselves as givers at work. I find that both surprising and not surprising at all.
Observing these dynamics, I struggle with not wanting this type of leader to succeed. It goes against my default disposition, as I generally want everyone to do well. I struggle with that tension more than I would like to admit. To counteract this type of behavior, I proactively provide new team members with everything I think they need to succeed: organizational and project context, the history of decisions, and the unwritten rules of the org. It is my quiet protest. Knowledge that isn't shared dies, and I would rather be part of something that grows. I want to cultivate generosity and reciprocity on my team, because those are the values I want to be known for.
People who operate from scarcity aren't happy, and likely will never be satisfied. The hoarding and gatekeeping never fills the hole of insecurity that it is employed to mask. These queen bees are looking for external validation to solve an internal problem, and that search will never end. The antidote is that success is not a zero-sum game. We can all win, and together we win bigger.