Commentary: Harry and Meghan aren’t the only ones leveraging their employer to become superstars

But for better or worse, these institutions are now also associated with the high-profile social-media antics of a few of their reporters who have leveraged their employers’ status to become big stars independently.

You can’t entirely blame the reporters for wanting to elevate their own names and reputations. The media industry doesn’t offer the same security it once did and building your own brand means more job security.

And it’s not just happening in the media. The whole economy has changed. Many industries reward superstars – they get higher salaries, fame and can monetise their own brand while everyone else is left behind. This is seen in industries from academia to public health and even banking and the British royal family.

The once-secretive Goldman Sachs is facing this tension. CEO David Solomon, who moonlights as DJ D-Sol, is making headlines by focusing on his hobbies and supposedly changing the culture to reward more high-profile bankers involved in activities outside the firm rather than the grey-flannel suit types.

It’s always been true that marketing yourself is necessary to get ahead. The difference now is that instead of it happening through internal politics, people are doing it on a wider stage – often beyond their firm and their entire industry.

STARS THAT CO-OPT INSTITUTIONS CAPTURE MORE GAINS FOR THEMSELVES

Our modern economy not only rewards the stars by paying them a bigger premium, it also makes self-promotion easier. Social media has democratised attention and notoriety for those who crave it.

Not surprisingly, this makes co-workers resentful. Not everyone can be a superstar, either because they don’t have the talent or temperament, or they don’t want to spend their days marketing themselves.

Some people would rather just do the work and focus on learning hard skills. People who opt out of self-promotion have always paid a price, but at least in the past the price wasn’t so large since the gains of stardom were smaller and the value of institutional affiliation was more meaningful.