By Prof. Samuel Lartey
Long before talent has a chance to speak, circumstance often speaks first. Some people begin life surrounded by books, mentors, assets and influential networks.
Others begin with overcrowded classrooms, unstable incomes, and limited exposure to professional opportunities. These unequal starting points do not merely shape personal stories. They shape who gets hired, who gets promoted, who leads and ultimately who accumulates wealth.
In emerging economies such as Ghana, the workplace has become one of the most powerful engines for social mobility. Yet it is also one of the places where inherited advantage quietly reproduces itself.
Building a better future of work demands courage and intentional disruption of these invisible advantages. In today’s economy, neutrality is not harmless. Neutrality preserves inequality.
Inherited wealth and inherited disadvantage
Inherited wealth is not only money. It also encompasses land and property, family businesses, quality education, professional etiquette, confidence, financial literacy, and access to influential networks.
Global wealth research indicates that most extreme wealth is inherited rather than created from nothing. Large intergenerational transfers of assets are expected over the coming decades as ageing wealthy populations hand down estates to their heirs.
Inherited disadvantage is the mirror image. It includes under-resourced schools, limited access to healthcare, low household savings, limited professional role models, and exposure to economic shocks. Mobility studies consistently find that children born into the poorest households face very low odds of reaching the highest income levels as adults. Talent exists everywhere, but opportunity does not.
The result is a compounding cycle. Advantage multiplies through access to better education, better jobs and better investments. Disadvantages multiply through low wages, high vulnerability and little room to take risks.
Leadership as a moral and economic choice
Leadership is revealed in choices rather than slogans. It is easy for organisations to celebrate diversity in speeches while leaving recruitment pipelines and promotion criteria unchanged. Real leadership questions how systems quietly favour those who already fit the dominant profile.
In this view, inclusion is not charity. It is stewardship. Leaders who recognise their inherited advantages can widen the door for others through transparent hiring, structured development, and fair reward systems. That choice is both ethical and economically rational.
A growing body of corporate performance research shows that organisations with more diverse leadership teams tend to outperform less diverse peers on profitability and innovation. Diversity broadens problem-solving, reduces groupthink and improves understanding of varied customer markets. Inclusion, therefore, strengthens both fairness and financial performance.
Inequality in the Ghanaian workplace
Despite progress, representation gaps remain wide across many sectors.
- Women occupy less than one-third of senior leadership roles globally.
- High-paying industries such as finance, technology and professional services are disproportionately staffed by graduates of elite institutions and urban backgrounds.
- Informal networks and personal referrals still dominate access to opportunity in many economies.
Ghana reflects these global patterns in locally specific ways.
Small and micro enterprises, which form the backbone of Ghana’s economy, often rely on family labour, trust networks and apprenticeship traditions. These systems foster loyalty and resilience but can also confine ownership and advancement to narrow social circles.
Medium-sized firms frequently occupy a position between informality and corporate structure. Recruitment and promotion may depend heavily on recommendations, alumni ties or familiarity. Capable candidates without the right connections can be overlooked.
Large domestic corporations and multinationals tend to use more formal recruitment processes. However, leadership pipelines still often favour candidates from elite secondary schools, top private universities and affluent urban families.
The common dividing line is access. Access to finance, mentors, internships, professional networks and the confidence that comes from early exposure to opportunity.
How inequality shows up in organisations
| Dimension | How does an inherited advantage appears | How does inherited disadvantage appears |
| Education | Elite schools, international exposure, strong English and soft skills | Under-resourced schools, limited career guidance |
| Networks | Family and social connections to employers and investors | Few professional contacts or role models |
| Finance | Ability to take unpaid internships or start businesses | Need for immediate income limits choices |
| Confidence | Familiarity with corporate culture and leadership norms | Self doubt in elite or formal environments |
| Risk capacity | Family safety nets enable experimentation | Fear of failure due to lack of fallback support |
Unless organisations deliberately intervene, these differences quietly determine who advances.
Positive disruption in Ghana
Over the past decade, several initiatives in Ghana have begun to challenge inherited patterns.
Entrepreneurial hubs in Accra, Kumasi and Takoradi have introduced merit-based incubator programmes that admit participants through open competition rather than personal networks. By providing seed capital, coaching and market linkages, they enable talented founders from modest backgrounds to build scalable businesses.
Since the late 2010s, many banks, telecom firms, and professional services companies have expanded structured graduate trainee programmes. These programmes recruit nationally from public universities and technical institutions, offer rotational training over 12 to 24 months and create transparent pathways into management. This has broadened the socioeconomic mix of future leaders while improving succession planning.
Digital platforms have also lowered some barriers. Mobile money and fintech services have expanded access to savings and small-scale credit, enabling micro-entrepreneurs to invest in inventory and tools without traditional collateral.
The financial case for inclusion
Inclusion requires investment, but the returns can be substantial.
| Inclusion action | Typical cost implication | Potential financial return |
| Paid internships for low-income students | Stipends and training costs | Stronger early talent pipeline, reduced later recruitment costs |
| Structured mentorship and sponsorship | Management time and programme design | Higher retention and faster productivity of high-potential staff |
| Pay equity audits and adjustments | Short-term payroll increases | Lower turnover, reduced legal and reputational risk |
| Education and certification support | Tuition reimbursement budgets | Higher skill levels and internal promotion rather than expensive external hires |
| Health and emergency savings benefits | Benefit plan expansion | Reduced absenteeism and financial stress-driven productivity losses |
Studies of employee turnover regularly show that replacing a skilled employee can cost several months to over a year of that employee’s salary, when recruitment, onboarding, and lost productivity are considered. Inclusive cultures that improve retention, therefore, have clear bottom-line value.
Practical strategies for organisations
- Broaden the recruitment net
Partner with public and private universities, technical institutes and regional campuses. Fund outreach and career fairs beyond traditional elite institutions. - Remove hidden barriers
Replace informal referrals with transparent, criteria-based selection. Use structured interviews and skills assessments. - Invest in potential, not just polish
Provide bridging and leadership development programmes for high-potential staff who may lack early corporate exposure. - Audit and correct pay gaps
Regularly review compensation by role, gender and background to eliminate unjustified disparities. - Link inclusion to leadership accountability
Make diversity and talent development outcomes part of executive performance evaluation.
From neutrality to intentionality
If organisations simply operate as they always have, inherited advantage will continue to determine who leads. If they act intentionally, the workplace can become the most powerful equaliser in society.
This shift is not about lowering standards. It is about removing barriers unrelated to ability. When recruitment extends further, when training enhances potential, and when pay is fair, merit has room to breathe.
Conclusion
No one chooses where they are born, but leaders choose what their organisations reward. Inherited wealth and inherited disadvantage will continue to shape starting lines, yet they need not dictate finish lines.
Courageous leadership recognises that inclusion is both a moral duty and a strategic investment. By widening access to opportunity, organisations strengthen performance, stability, and social cohesion simultaneously.
In an unequal world, the real measure of leadership is not how comfortably we protect inherited advantage, but how deliberately we convert it into shared opportunity.
Post Views: 21
Discover more from The Business & Financial Times
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
