The Garrick Club controversy

There has been a lot of controversy about the failure of a famous London club to admit women members.

I wonder whether this is missing a more serious point.

As a teacher of corporate governance, I am continually promoting the importance of diversity on boards of directors. Diversity brings a variety of viewpoints, experiences, and backgrounds to the table, leading to more robust discussions and decision-making processes, as board members with different backgrounds may offer unique insights and approaches to addressing challenges and opportunities.

Does it matter if membership of this relatively small, mostly white, elite club is restricted to the upper echelons of public life?

The Garrick Club’s members list reveals a roll-call of the British establishment. While there are fewer politicians in this club than 20 years ago, the Garrick remains an important centre for the legal establishment and senior members of the Civil Service, and a quiet networking venue for leading figures in the arts.

Too much senior establishment power is concentrated in a space that remains closed to women and which is just as unwelcoming to other groups underrepresented in the top layers of power, because of race and class background. It's not just a matter of fairness or social justice; it's about creating a society that values and celebrates the contributions of all its members.

When decision-makers come from homogeneous backgrounds, there is a tendency to prioritise the interests of their own group over the broader population. Exclusive clubs can amplify this issue by creating insular networks where accountability is lacking, and decisions are made without sufficient consideration for the needs of society at large. This undermines the principles of democracy and fairness.

While exclusive clubs can provide a relaxed and private atmosphere conducive to networking and relationship-building, they can create fertile ground for nepotism and cronyism. Close personal connections formed in these settings can influence hiring decisions, contract awards, and other forms of preferential treatment, leading to unfair advantages for those with insider connections and undermining meritocracy.

Further, they may foster a sense of complacency among their members, inhibiting the exchange of new ideas and innovative solutions to societal challenges. When decision-makers come from homogeneous backgrounds, there is a tendency to prioritise the interests of their own group over the broader population. Without exposure to diverse perspectives and experiences, members may be less inclined to think creatively or challenge the status quo, resulting in stagnation rather than progress.

At board level I warn against ‘group think’. On the London club scene, the greater danger is of ‘establishment think’ limiting the dynamism essential to the nation’s progress.

A different model

Contrast this culture with that of the London coffee houses of the late 17th century.

In the time of Samuel Pepys (1633-1703), London coffee houses emerged as vibrant social hubs where people from various backgrounds would gather in an egalitarian environment to engage in lively discussions, exchange ideas, and conduct business. These establishments played a significant role in shaping the intellectual and cultural landscape of the city.

London coffee houses served as social centres where individuals from different walks of life could come together. They attracted scholars, writers, politicians, merchants, and other intellectuals, fostering an environment conducive to intellectual exchange and debate, and helping shape public opinion and influence decision-making in various spheres of society.

Unlike traditional social spaces such as taverns, which were associated with alcohol and rowdiness, coffee houses offered a more refined atmosphere conducive to intellectual discourse. They served as information hubs where news, gossip, and current affairs were disseminated. Patrons would gather to read newspapers, pamphlets, and broadsides, sharing and discussing the latest developments in politics, science, literature, and commerce.

The regular meetings and discussions held in London coffee houses served as a catalyst for innovation and creativity. Ideas were shared, challenged, and refined, leading to advancements in various fields such as science, literature, philosophy, and politics. Many influential thinkers and writers of the time, including Samuel Pepys himself, frequented these establishments and were inspired by the intellectual atmosphere they fostered.

Overall, London coffee houses in the time of Pepys played a crucial role in promoting social interaction, intellectual exchange, and commercial activity. They provided a forum where individuals from diverse backgrounds could come together to discuss ideas, share information, and forge connections, contributing to the vibrant cultural and intellectual life of the city. The value of people meeting regularly in these establishments cannot be overstated, as they served as incubators of innovation and centres of social and intellectual discourse during this period of history.

Conclusion

Diversity isn't just a matter of optics; it's about ensuring that all voices are heard, ?represented and engaged. When decision-makers lack diversity, they risk ignoring the perspectives and needs of significant portions of society. This limits their ability to address complex challenges effectively and stifles innovation and progress. In contrast, embracing diversity at all levels of public life encourages collaboration and fosters a more dynamic and inclusive society. By embracing diversity, we can achieve a more inclusive environment where a wide range of experiences and viewpoints are considered, leading to greater fairness and more innovation.

By restricting membership to a select few, exclusive clubs miss out on the opportunity to engage with a diverse range of voices and perspectives. They may once have been symbols of prestige and privilege but, in today's world, they are relics of a bygone era. It's time for them to dismantle their barriers and embrace business, science and technology in a context of greater social diversity as a driving force for positive change. By doing so, they can support a more equitable, inclusive, and prosperous society and, maybe, survive for generations to come.

?

Richard Winfield is the author of The New Directors Handbook, creator of The Essential Directorship and Strategic Company Secretary masterclasses and curator of the CPD 2.0 Professional programme, which provides a stream of governance alerts and management insights. He teaches corporate governance internationally to directors, boards and corporate secretaries and provides personal career coaching and assistance in preparing effective job applications, supported by comprehensive online assessments.

Clients approach Richard to help bring structure and clarity to their lives.

?

?#GarrickClub #DiversityMatters #InclusiveLeadership #CorporateGovernance #SocialJustice #Fairness #Equality #Democracy #Innovation #Progress #LondonCoffeeHouses #IntellectualExchange #Egalitarianism #Collaboration #Inclusivity #DynamicSociety #ExclusiveClubs #Prestige #Privilege #BusinessEthics #SocialDiversity #PositiveChange

?