The value of diversity or, more precisely, equal opportunity for all employees, was recognized almost 150 years ago in the aftermath of the American Civil War. This does not mean hiring on the basis of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) protected characteristics, the legality of which is open to serious question. It means selection for merit and job fit regardless of EEOC protected characteristics, and even where (or if) somebody went to college. This article contends that diversity is the effect, rather than the cause, of superior organizational performance. When the organization selects for performance rather than EEOC protected characteristics—or somebody’s alma mater or social class—it will by necessity get a diverse workforce and diverse leadership.

The famous Prussian field marshal, Helmuth von Moltke, pointed out 150 years ago that limitation of the field of selection limits talent. The quote is from an interview in 1876 as depicted in the Sydney Morning Herald. Emphasis is mine. 

Our friend writes:-“I brought up the subject, and the old hero expressed himself very frankly. He said-‘ I was asked why neither side in the civil war in America produced a very distinguished general. Even their respective partisans hardly claim any tender of transcendent genius. In so long a war, and where so many men fought, does it not imply a lack of military talent in Americans? I answer, No. The true reason was because their field of selection was so limited, no officer could hope to attain the supreme command of their armies unless he had been a student at their military academy, called West Point, on the Hudson River, in the State of New York. The number of these students, deserving as they might be, was and is, extremely limited. The Southerners adopted the pernicious system of exclusiveness, as many of these West Point officers had joined their side and their President had also been at the academy. It was, perhaps, fortunate for the North that the South did not seek for talent among the mass of the people. It is evident that the chance of obtaining a distinguished general increases as the field of selection widens, and diminishes as it contracts. In our army every soldier may aspire to the supreme command, but in the American armies the line of demarcation was drawn as deeply as between the former slaves and their masters. The volunteer, who represented the great bulk and strength of the people, might, indeed, obtain distinction in a subordinate position, but the highest place of all was forbidden. In reading the records of the American Civil war it really appears as if the whole contest was between a few officers of West Point and the mighty heart of the nation had never throbbed. The aristocratic system, which the Americans still follow, was formerly the practice in all European armies. In the revolution of 1793, Carnot, the French Minister of War, first abandoned it, and we have followed. For the sake of example, and not binding ourselves to any exactness of figures, except that the one is very small, and its opposite, with which it is compared, very large, let us suppose the number of West Point officers to be 500, and the number of Prussian soldiers 500,000. Evidently, as we have a fund a thousand times larger to draw upon, to render the chances of obtaining a great general equal, each American must possess a thousandfold the talent of a Prussian, which is absurd.”

Although most of the commanders on both sides of the Civil War were indeed graduates of the US Military Academy, this became a weakness not because there was anything wrong with the USMA, but rather because all the commanders had been trained to think the same way. A commander who was a wild card, i.e. without any preconceived ideas or doctrine, might have easily decided the war but none was to be found. This is exactly the kind of diversity organizations need because, as General Patton noted, if everybody is thinking alike then nobody is thinking. Management professionals call this dysfunction groupthink.

The reforms of Carnot were well known by the time of Napoleon, who said that every French private carried a Marshal’s baton in his knapsack. One of the things that made Napoleon’s army so fearsome was that it did indeed promote based on merit, with no regard for a soldier’s former social class, while the aristocratic British looked down on any officer who came from the ranks. In Bernard Cornwell’s Sharpe series, the protagonist Richard Sharpe, portrayed in the movie by Sean Bean, is commissioned as an officer after saving the life of Sir Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington in India (or Spain, as depicted in the movie series). The officers who come from wealthy land-owning families resent him and discriminate against him by calling him a “Johnny jump-up,” “not one of us,” and even “not a gentleman,” the latter being ample cause for a duel if directed as a member of the gentry. This is despite the fact that Sharpe, who actually knows his job, often has to save the day for them.

Only in 1871 did Britain end the practice of allowing wealthy members of the gentry to purchase commissions in their Army. The problem with the purchase system was exemplified by, for example, Lord Cardigan’s purchase of a Lieutenant Colonelcy for about 4.1 million pounds in the money of 2023. He went on to lead the disastrous Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava, although others shared the responsibility for directing cavalry against an artillery emplacement.

The “Right College” Limits the Field of Selection

The same attitude persists in some corporations today, where those in charge want to know if you went to college, and even to which college. The musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying takes this to an extreme where, if you went to Old Ivy and are a Groundhog, you go right to the top at World Wide Wickets. If however you went to Northern State and are a Chipmunk, you get fired. While this is over the top comedy, less extreme preferences still prevail in some organizations. This is not to say that a degree is not mandatory for some occupations, especially licensed or certified ones like accounting, engineering, law, and medicine. Henry Ford, on the other hand, did not even finish high school and there is no evidence that his production chief, Charles Sorensen, had post-secondary education either.  They nonetheless created an entity, and a business system, that made the United States the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth. I found Ford’s books far more useful, in terms of actionable knowledge the reader can take to a workplace, than one written by GM’s Alfred Sloan, who graduated from MIT.

It is also to be noted that, with regard to diversity as a result of meritocracy and not the other way around, Ford hired people without regard to ethnicity or race. He collaborated with agricultural chemist George Washington Carver in an era in which racial discrimination was legally and socially acceptable. Those who discriminated against Carver lost out on the benefits of his knowledge; Ford gained those benefits.

“Buggins’s Turn” versus Merit

Another problem involves promotion solely on the basis of seniority, a practice cited by Admiral Sir John Fisher (1841-1920), the architect of the Dreadnought battleship program. “Going by seniority saves so much trouble. ‘Buggins’s turn’ has been our ruin and will be disastrous hereafter!” This problem was exemplified in Gilbert and Sullivan’s musical HMS Pinafore, in which Admiral Sir Joseph Porter describes a career very reminiscent of how J. Pierrepont Finch, the protagonist of How to Succeed in Business, advances quickly from the mail room to Chairman of the Board. 

I grew so rich that I was sent

By a pocket borough into Parliament.

I always voted at my party’s call,

And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.

I thought so little, they rewarded me

By making me the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee!

While HMS Pinafore is an over-the-top comedy, it did reflect the actual conditions in the Royal Navy whose reputation from Trafalgar (1805) rather than its actual fighting capability deterred Britain’s rivals for more than a century. These conditions cost the British the Battle of Coronel (1914) and, had they not been remedied in time for the Battle of Jutland (1916), could have handed the war at sea to Germany’s High Seas Fleet. H. A. De Weerd (1930) explains,

“After Trafalgar the British Navy enjoyed a half century of inactivity. The fighting school of admirals was replaced by a social school. The appearance of a ship came to be considered more important than her fighting power, and endless time and energy was spent in painting ships and holy-stoning decks.”

Germany meanwhile emphasized gunnery and technology, with the result that its battleships (prior to Jutland) could elevate their guns to higher angles than those of the British, and thus engage at greater range. The British concentrated on how their ships looked, and the Germans focused on hitting their targets.

 The Royal Navy’s lack of diversity in perspectives, aka groupthink, might have even proven fatal had a mercurial and outspoken admiral like Fisher not challenged the deeply ingrained paradigms and biases. These included failure to recognize the effectiveness of torpedoes, the menace of submarines, the virtues of steam turbines over reciprocating engines, the value of wireless communications, and the likely role of aircraft in naval combat. In Goldratt’s and Cox’s The Goal, the protagonist must similarly overturn long-standing misconceptions to the effect that inventory is an asset (except on paper), but rather a symptom of variation in production and material transfer times.

Summary

Organizations that maximize their fields of selection, and don’t discriminate for or against anybody’s EEOC protected characteristics or, for that matter, social class or academic affiliation, will achieve commensurate results. It is also important to match the right people with the right jobs. Maybe the Groundhog isn’t the best fit for Job A at World Wide Wickets while the Chipmunk is, but the Groundhog might excel in Job B instead. Miyamoto Musashi’s Book of Five Rings, which many Japanese business leaders look to for guidance, talks similarly about the need to match people and assets to jobs for which they are most suitable. Maximization of the field of selection, and willingness to listen to all perspectives, also reduces the risk of dysfunctional groupthink. Workplace diversity will then result, by necessity, from meritocracy and openness to a variety of informed opinions.

References:

De Weerd, H.A. 1930. “Admiral Sir Percy Scott and Gunnery of the British Navy.” Proceedings of the US Naval Academy.

Sydney Morning Herald, 1876. “Von Moltke on American Generals,” Tuesday, Jan. 11, 1876.

Author Bio: William A. Levinson, P.E., CPIM is the principal of Levinson Productivity Systems, P.C. He is the author of Reshore Production Now: How to Rebuild Manufacturing and Restore High Wages, High Profits, and National Prosperity in the USA and other books on quality, productivity, and management.