In his new book published last fall by the University of Chicago Press, Thomas Cole, '75, offers timely and practical advice for business leaders on making the promise of meritocracy a reality. Cole is a retired Sidley Austin partner and chair emeritus of the firm's executive committee, as well as a trustee emeritus of UChicago. He has authored two other books.

You write that meritocracy is “a good theory with flawed execution.” What convinced you that the current debate about meritocracy was missing something essential?

I think that the current public debate is off base in two ways. First, many authors assert that meritocracy is a “trap,” a“tyranny,” a “myth,” and so on. They fail to appreciate it as the most reasonable way to organize society, even though there needs to be improved execution through the adoption of certain reforms. Second, meritocracy is being invoked as an excuse for dismantling DEI programs. When DEI programs diligently avoid the application of a double standard, they actually advance meritocracy by increasing the pool of talent.

The national conversation on meritocracy-related issues shifted quite dramatically during the time you were researching and writing this book. How did this impact your drafting process?

I began writing the book in 2022 and had a pretty complete draft by the time SCOTUS issued its opinion in Students for Fair Admissions. That decision gutted affirmative action in college admissions and led to attacks on affirmative action and DEI more broadly. Because one of the reforms I advocate is the need for greater inclusion in both education and business, the SFFA decision led to a significant revision of my draft. Then came the 2024 presidential election, with the resulting executive orders and other federal actions. So, I was dealing with a moving target.

Your book distinguishes between character and credentials as foundations of merit. What personal experiences shaped your conviction that character must be restored to the center of meritocracy?

Character—which has many components—must be included as a foundational element of merit. Credentials are at best an inadequate shorthand, and at worst can be a misleading, indicator of merit. Without getting into specifics, I have observed examples of highly credentialed individuals who have displayed questionable character and who should be disqualified from being put into positions of power and authority.

From your perspective, what tools or approaches can help organizations assess character in a rigorous way?

I have been a believer in 360-degree evaluations and asking individuals, in the course of annual evaluations, who among their peers was most helpful to them. Conversely, I think it is important for leaders to be wary of individuals who lack humility or who seek to take credit for the accomplishments of others or of a team. However, some folks think these tools are too subjective and potentially subject to bias. Importantly, make sure everyone in the organization is reminded—early and often—that anyone violating a code of conduct or otherwise failing to embody good character in a material way will be held to account.

You emphasize traits like humility, integrity, empathy, and “selfless ambition.” How do you define “selfless ambition,” and why is it so crucial for leadership today?

Selfless ambition involves being interested in the success of an organization and one’s colleagues, and not just personal success. It tempers internal competition and contributes to collaboration and collegiality, thereby strengthening the organization. A selflessly ambitious leader will attain greater “followership.”

You draw a clear line against double standards, even for high performers. Why is it dangerous when organizations look past lapses of character for rainmakers or star employees?

Applying a lower, double standard when assessing the character of high performers sends the wrong message about values to the rest of the organization. It can be noticed by important constituencies outside of the organization as well, damaging its reputation. Moreover, when an individual lacking in good character is promoted into top leadership, he or she may be prone to cutting corners in time of stress, may take advantage of a position of power in interactions with subordinates, and will not be an effective conveyor of the all-important “tone at the top.”

You’ve worked closely with CEOs and boards. What distinguishes leaders who create genuinely meritocratic organizations from those who only invoke the word? 

Leaders who create meritocratic organizations pick their teams based on merit. They don’t populate their teams based largely upon who will be loyal to them. (On occasion, business leaders will show excessive loyalty toward long-standing colleagues who haven’t kept up with the demands of the position they hold.) Leaders also emphasize integrity and encourage members of their teams to speak up when they disagree with a position being taken by the leader. They encourage collaboration.

You say that a lack of humility among elites is a major barrier. What practical steps can leaders take to cultivate humility at the top of an organization? 

The best way for a leader to cultivate humility is to lead by example. Among other things, a humble leader will expressly state “I don’t have all of the answers,” will acknowledge the role that luck (“right place, right time”) has played in his or her personal success, and will credit others for ideas, innovations, and good results, when that is appropriate. And a leader will appropriately coach and mentor a team member who tends toward a lack of humility or condescension.