The Challenge of Equity: Balancing Fairness, Effort, and Shared Responsibility

Last week, I shared a pull-quote on Facebook from my previous article (The Paradox of Labels: Do Identity Categories Unite or Divide?) that garnered insightful commentary. Here’s the quote:

Parity is a balancing act. Human rights and equity are like a teeter-totter that rocks up and down, dependent upon the weight of each person playing on opposite sides. It is the willingness of each side to joyfully and respectfully seek balance, knowing full well that at any moment, balance is ephemeral.

The way forward is not a simplistic notion of equality; that’s an illusion. The only viable path is the realization that equity—not equality—is the only constant. But equity isn’t automatic; it must be consciously cultivated and deliberately maintained.

In response, one commenter agreed in principle but raised concerns about equity's practical challenges, i.e., the redistribution of resources. They questioned whether equity inherently requires taking from one group to give to another, and whether that approach fairly accounts for individual effort and risk-taking.

I followed up with some historical examples of how capitalism, taxation, and social welfare have changed over the last 50 years, arguing that equity might be more accepted if it had been an ingrained, long-term practice rather than an after-the-fact correction. The next comment acknowledged the ethical responsibility to support others but expressed concern about government inefficiency and high taxes. The conversation concluded with an open-ended question about how equity could be implemented fairly—ensuring both support for those in need and rewards for individual effort—without reinforcing inequality or penalizing success.

Continuing the conversation, I wrote a longer response, which I have edited for context, below.

Thoughts on Equity versus Equality

I believe that the challenge in addressing the issue of parity and ensuring a fair implementation of equity lies partly in how we define and comprehend the terms equity and equality.

There needs to be a shared and clear understanding of what each term means. But more importantly, I believe there is a philosophical aspect to both terms that is often overlooked because these words are so commonly used in discussions about DEI, human rights, and similar topics.

This is what I mean:

I believe that equality is an illusion, whereas equity is both a philosophical and actionable principle.

If everyone were equal in every way—having the same amount of money (which begs the question of why we would need money), food, housing, self-actualization, and so on—could we truly exist in a system where no one ever had slightly more or less?

The more you think about this, the more improbable this idea seems.

For example, imagine a small and undiscovered Indigenous tribe somewhere in the world. Let’s imagine that they are primarily hunters and gatherers. Because their tribe is small, if everyone works together in different ways to sustain the tribe’s survival, this would be a rare example of a society approaching equality. However, who determines if someone isn’t contributing their fair share—not due to injury, but simply by choice?

How does the tribe find an equitable solution to this problem of inequality?

In the larger world, equity is a philosophical approach to achieving pockets of something like equality across different strata—socioeconomics, well-being, potential, human rights, and so on.

The equity I’m speaking of in my original article is not necessarily the kind associated with DEI principles or applications. Instead, I’m interested in equity as a way for humanity to take care of itself and the planet. That is a tall order, but one that seeks to create the fairest possible foundation for a good life for everyone.

Another aspect of this challenge is how we think about capitalism—specifically, the dominant form of capitalism today.

When we rely on dogmatic ideas like “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” (often used to shame so-called low achievers and reinforce the myth of equal opportunity) or view meritocracy as a noble ideal, we become trapped in a singular ideological framework.

We currently live under a form of capitalism that prioritizes profit over people—a system that laid the foundation for neoliberalism, often attributed to Milton Friedman. He was a key figure in promoting the idea that the sole social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits.

“Friedman’s free-market ideology heavily influenced the neoliberal policies of leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, leading to deregulation, privatization, and corporate-friendly policies that prioritized shareholder value over workers, communities, and broader social well-being.

While Friedman was not the sole architect of neoliberal capitalism, his ideas provided the intellectual framework that justified corporate power expansion, deregulation, and policies that blurred the line between corporate and individual rights—such as the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling, which granted corporations broad political speech rights.” (1)

For example, one of the comments on the Facebook post was in response to concerns about having one’s income or profits forcibly taken away.

“Ignoring the investments of time, effort, energy, and money that people have put into taking a risk on building whatever constitutes their dream lives doesn't strike me as fair.”

While I understand the human instinct to resist something being forcibly taken from us (whether physically or through taxation), how much of that response is shaped by the prevailing neoliberal capitalist ideology, which prioritizes business and profits over people? This is a serious challenge as inequities persist across all aspects of life.

Just because we live under neoliberal capitalism in the so-called Western world doesn’t mean it’s the only form of capitalism. There are other economic systems that prioritize people over profits while still allowing individuals to excel, work hard (because they enjoy a challenge), and benefit or profit from their effort and ingenuity. However, that’s not the system we are working under at the moment.

Equity also extends beyond financial gain or profit.

It plays a crucial role in fostering conditions where people can thrive in ways that contribute to society beyond monetary success.

Imagine a great artist who creates works so moving that people are brought to tears when they see them. Eventually, they might profit financially from the recognition and value of their art. But all the years of work leading up to that moment might never have been possible without patrons, tax breaks, or living in a society that provides something like universal basic income—allowing them to refine their craft until they are in a position to give back for what they have received.

Similarly, there are countless individuals with brilliant entrepreneurial ideas, but they lack the time and cognitive energy to develop them because they are stuck in minimum-wage jobs or burdened by other obligations. Their potential remains unrealized—not because they lack talent or work ethic, but because the system they live in doesn’t provide the conditions for them to thrive.

At the heart of this conundrum, the practice of equity seeks to create the conditions for everyone to flourish.

For that to happen, we need new ways of thinking. We require a new way for people to collaborate independently and together that benefits everyone equitably. At the same time, we must restrict the possibility of a few individuals having an inordinate excess of wealth, control, and power at the expense of others.

What do you believe?

As a leader, your words, and actions are an expression of your ethics that shape the world around you. But how do you know if what you’re saying and doing is aligned with the impact you want to make? If you are constantly coming up against resistance, something isn’t working for you.

Self-mastery is the ability to find true north on your leadership compass. Without a clear, ethical, and intentional direction, you will lose your way and the trust of those who matter most.

How do you achieve the self-mastery required to lead with clarity of purpose, confidence, and integrity?

Let’s meet for a conversation to re-orient your compass and direction based on practical leadership principles. Click the button below to request a call with me and share your details and the biggest leadership challenge you’re currently facing.

Footnotes

(1) Quotation and references generated with ChatGPT:

• Milton Friedman – The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits (1970). Published in The New York Times Magazine, this essay is one of the most cited works justifying profit-driven corporate behaviour.
• David Harvey – A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2005). Explains the rise of neoliberalism and its economic and political consequences, including the role of Friedman, Hayek, and others in shaping modern capitalism.
• Nancy MacLean – Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America (2017). Examines James Buchanan’s role in shaping neoliberal policies and corporate influence over government.
• Friedrich Hayek – The Road to Serfdom (1944). While earlier than Friedman, Hayek’s work was foundational to neoliberal thought, arguing against government intervention in markets.
• Supreme Court Case: Citizens United v. FEC (2010). This case solidified corporate personhood in U.S. law by granting corporations broad political speech rights.