John W. Bizzack, PM, Lexington Lodge No. 1, William O. Ware Lodge of Research Fellow and PM, BF, FPS
MARCH 2026
T
he first Constitution of Freemasons in 1723 tells us about the importance of employing the concept of merit in the selection of principle officers—men of proven character and labor, not mere tenure, or connection.[1] Although we can find nodding agreement in the Fraternity today that men of merit are worthy of and deserve advancement to formal leadership positions, our actions often outweigh that agreement.
The Fraternity, like the greater society from which it attracts membership, deviates from the concept of meritocracy and has gradually conflated the concept with proxies like credentials, tenure, networks, and visible outcomes. How else can it be explained that there has and continue to be men advanced into formal leadership positions whose merit is based on how well they might deliver part or parts of ritual, regularly show up to meetings, or simply hold membership in as many appendant bodies as they can join? Worse, how can we say that merit is what advanced many members into formal leadership even though they had no perceptible experience in previous leadership roles in or outside of the Fraternity, or when men with only a few months of membership in the Fraternity are elevated to principal officer positions?
When convenience or fraternal bonds masquerade as wisdom, ability is eclipsed by seniority, or the belief that leadership skills in one domain simply transfer to another, critique of the unworthy is stifled in the name of "harmony" and the concept of merit diluted. When we review common criticisms, we find that it is not the concept of meritocracy that is the problem, but its execution.
When we review common
criticisms, we find that it is not
the concept of meritocracy that is
the problem, but its execution.
We know that people cannot be forced to rethink merit any more than it can about leadership, but their default picture of it can be disrupted by calling attention to experiences, contrasts, and asking questions about it using the world of business, education, political field, and certainly organized Freemasonry. So, what might such recalculation of our thoughts and attitude toward the issue of merit look like?
One path to deeper engagement on the topic of merit is to promote reading worthwhile books and research on the factual history of meritocracy and how it unfolded throughout world history. Opinion pieces might help with perspective too, but they often lack the depth of primary sources and genuine historiography.
A good start is American History professor, Joseph F. Kett’s well-received 2013 book, The History of a Founding Ideal from the American Revolution to the Twenty-First Century. Kett traces how the concept of merit evolved from an 18th-century, aristocratic notion of character into a modern, institutionalized, and quantitative measure of ability that deserves reward. Kett argues that the idea that advancement should depend exclusively on merit, which is among the Founding ideals of the American republic that supported the qualities that actually warrant reward rather than on bloodlines or wire-pulling.[2] Kett takes the question “What is it you've earned and think you deserve but haven’t got?” all the way back to the Founding era, tracing meritocracy and its discontents up to the present.[3] His account of the long factual history of and many paradoxes surrounding the American ideal of merit provide a backdrop through which to understand how and why organized Freemasonry was, and continues to be influenced by the paradoxes.
If you seek rational discussion specifically from Masonic scholars about merit and the Institution of Freemasonry, then Wallace McLeod MacDougall, S. Brent Morris, and Robert G. Davis are also excellent resources.[4] There are other relative references and sources if one is inclined to devote time to explore.[5]
When we begin to explore and examine
the subject of meritocracy, we discover
how easily deviations from it bleed over
into a vivid picture that explains why
society often fails to choose authentic and
qualified leaders to head its businesses,
corporations, political bodies, and yes,
volunteer organizations.
When we begin to explore and examine the subject of meritocracy through Kett’s work, we discover how easily deviations from it bleed over into a vivid picture that also explains why society often fails to choose authentic and qualified leaders to head its businesses, corporations, education centers, political bodies, and yes, volunteer organizations. This "bleed over" explains not only why, but how society often fails to choose authentic and qualified leaders to head those entities.
Another way we might encourage recalculated thinking on the topic of merit is to ask people to explain why a visibly “successful” person deserves what they have as what might be considered “hidden advantages” (family wealth, networks, timing), and ask, “How much of this is merit, and how much is circumstance?”
We can also more closely examine the contrast between polished résumés versus and the résumé of a consistently honest worker and invite people to judge who shows more merit, not who has more status. In Freemasonry, for example, if a member seeking election for a position we consider prominent only offers a résumé that lists all the appendant bodies to which he holds membership as an illustration of his skills as a leader and abilities as the “best candidate” for that position, what do we have to base that on if a candidate does not also highlight what he accomplished with those memberships and any position of leadership he may have held in them?
Another simple way to scrutinize of our mindset about merit is by asking the following question: If two people finish a task alike but one cuts corners, who deserves praise or the distinction of being a man of merit.
At the root of authentic
leadership, we find ordinary
people with extraordinary
determination—those
challenged, not threatened, by
change, and able to foresee what
must be done in the moment or
long term.
A specific blind spot in many organizations that confuse merit with seniority and status, we again find the Fraternity. The notion that meritorious distinction or authentic leadership in one field (other than organized Freemasonry) automatically translates or transfers merit and authentic leadership in one field to the other.[6] But skills like strategic vision or team motivation depend heavily on domain knowledge that does not transfer easily; a brilliant surgeon may flounder managing a hospital budget, as technical expertise outdoes general "leadership traits" in unfamiliar contexts. The same applies to a successful thoroughbred breeder who may produce Derby winners, but that hardly means he can successfully lead organization in another domain. Other examples would be standing on the assumption that a president of a successful international bank has all the skills and ability to led and operate a major university or expecting that a police officer that served with distinction in a full career as a uniformed patrol officer is a sure bet to head a one-thousand-person department.[7] The list goes on.
Cognitive models show leaders excel via specialized problem-solving not universal charisma. The transfer falters without relearning context-specific cues. Research confirms varying competencies by level and industry: tactical skills shine lower down, but strategic acumen requires field-specific experience.[8] Electing leaders based on success and merit in one field is a roll of the dice. They may outperform someone who has never successfully led or managed anything, but it is not a safe bet that they will.
Contributing to that misconception, the organized Fraternity has always liked to associate itself with members are considered famous, which has led many generations to stubbornly confuse the notion that many famous men were also meritorious leaders within the Fraternity. One such “famous Masons is 19th century statesmen, Henry Clay. Valid research continues to struggle to find his contributions to Masonry beyond holding a variety of prominent positions prior to his demit in 1824.[9] Incidental to their achievements in science, the literary field, politics, military, sports, or arts, the overwhelming number of the famous men on Famous Mason Lists stems from their independent accomplishments, with Masonry often a footnote.
Why do we not consistently consider and employ the reality that merit is part of what makes ordinary people authentic leaders? A proven record of excellence through effort, skill, and character—not birthright, fame, title, tenure, connections, or the foolish notion that every man somehow deserves his turn at the helm—outweighs empty claims every time.
Incidental to their achievements in science,
politics, military, or arts, the fame of the
overwhelming number of men on Famous
Mason lists stems from independent
accomplishments, with Masonry often a footnote.
Solutions to the problem are actionable and correctable—if we summon the courage to execute the concept of meritocracy in our organization. But old habits die hard. Old habits rooted in comfort, convenience, and unexamined tradition die hardest of all.
We collectively pledge not to introduce innovations and avoid those things that may tarnish, alter, or change the principled ideals and tenets of the Craft. The argument can be made that deviating from the execution of the 1723 standard that merit is the basis for the selection of leadership is an “innovation.” [10]
But the pledge we take does not extend to safeguarding the structural process through which we can best convey and teach Masonry from generation to generation.
However, there are vast improvements to the structural side of organized Freemasonry that can be made to curtail and eliminate members making of Freemasonry what they will and allowing it to be governed under the influence of popular fads, whims, and fancies of the day. When we hear Masons opposed to changing structural processes say things like, “This is the way the process was originally set up” – better known as “That’s the way we’ve always done it,” we find signs of decay that accompanies convenience has found a home.
Ignoring the vast improvements that can be made contribute to the steady loss of the purpose and personality of Freemasonry. [11] Deviating from the standard of selecting leaders based on anything but merit ensures such improvements to the structural side of organized Masonry remains infrequent.
Always worth repeating is the fact that to protect the idea of Freemasonry from vested interests or whims warping the Craft into something unrecognizable, there is simply no “updating” of its core principles and tenets that is necessary. Instead, more vigilance in the work of selecting good men for admittance is in order along with improving the ways and means through which we teach and convey the understanding of Masonry. That is accomplished by electing and appointing men of merit to formal positions – men who bring with them the extraordinary determination required to be authentic leaders.
- James Anderson, The Constitutions of the Free-Masons: Containing the History, Charges, Addresses, &c. of That Most Ancient and Right Worshipful Fraternity, for the Use of the Lodges. London, William Hunter, 1723. ↑
- Joseph F. Kett, Abstract from: Merit: The History of a Founding Ideal from the American Revolution to the Twenty-First Century, Cornell University Press, 2013. ↑
- Scott A. Sandage, author of Born Losers: A History of Failure in America, Harvard University Press, 2006, review of Kett’s book. ↑
- Wallace McLeod MacDougall, “Leadership Succession in Declining Lodges.” Heredom, vol. 28, Scottish Rite Research Society, S. Brent Morris, “Freemasonry and the American Constitutional Tradition.” Heredom, vol. 12, Scottish Rite Research Society, 2004. Robert G. Davis, Understanding Manhood in America. Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2005. ↑
- i.e.: William Preston, Illustrations of Masonry, London, 1772, George A. Oliver, Dictionary of Symbolical Masonry. London, Richard Spencer, 1853, Albert G. Mackey, An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences. Vol. 1, Masonic History Co., 1873, Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.A., 1871, “Shall Masonic Officers Be Elected from the Floor?” The Builder Magazine, vol. 3, no. 6, June 1917, pp. 161–64, Conrad Hahn, “Past Master Honoris Causa?” Short Talk Bulletin, Vol. XLIV No. 9 — September 1966, The Skirret, mid‑20th century. https://skirret.com/archive/stb/stb1966-09.htmlm, accessed January 2026, Cameron M. Bailey. “Preferment Among Masons.” Emeth, 6 Nov. 2025, emeth.substack.com. Accessed January. 2026. ↑
- Fernand Gobet, “Domain-Specificity of Expertise.” Understanding Expertise: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, Kruger, Justin, and David Dunning. “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 77, no. 6, 1999, Elkanah Siegel, “Avoiding Errors in Reasoning: An Introduction to Logical Fallacies.” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 188, no. 6, 2007, K. Anders Ericsson, and Robert Pool. Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016. ↑
- IBID. ↑
- David V. Day, et al. “An Integrative Theory of Leader Development.” Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 1, 2007, Daniel Markovits, The Meritocracy Trap, Penguin Press, 2019, Ron Chernow, Grant, Penguin Press, 2017, Ronald C. White, American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant, Random House, 2016. ↑
- John W. Bizzack and Dan M. Kemble, “Searching for the Intersecting Masonic and Political World of Henry Clay,” BSF Foundation, Lexington, Kentucky, Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/116943036/Searching_for_the_Intersecting_Masonic_and_Political_World_of_Henry_Clay?sm=a&rhid=37781406544, accessed January 2025. ↑
- Cameron M. Bailey, “Preferment Among Masons.” Emeth, 6 Nov. 2025, emeth.substack.com. Accessed January 2026. ↑
- George H.T. French, Masonology An Anthology, The Texas Lodge of Research, 1988. ↑