ABSTRACT
Management recruiting policies, moreover, seem to be perpetuating this religioethnic homogeneity in the executive suite. Rather than taking young men out of college or business schools on the basis of their drives or talents alone, management too often tends to be guided by other criteria, such as physiognomy, manner of dress, pleasing (conforming) personality, accents and antecedents. There is, of course, good evidence to show, as Chester I . Bernard has emphasized, that "communion" and "social compatibility" or "comfort in social relations" are conducive to producing a successful management team. But a good thing may be carried too far. One has the impression, and it is an impression backed by some recent scientific surveys, that even where educational background, acquired
manners and other desirable and compatible personal traits are possessed by Jews or men of Jewish origins, these men are not se lected because of caste criteria. One of my seniors at the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, educated at private schools, tall and handsome, a good student though not a grind, and possessed of a quiet charm of manner, went to New York for an inter view with a prospective employer. He had previously been selected by the on-campus management recruiter. After his interview in the New York office, he was taken out to lunch by some junior executives. All went well. Then, on the way back from lunch, as he recalled it, one of his hosts casually asked him what fraternity he belonged to. He named his fraternity, which happened to be the leading all-Jewish fraternity on the campus (the fraternity discriminates against the "New York type" as they put it, but my friend was from the South). He still wonders why he did not get the job, for the evasive letter which soon followed his visit to New York gave no clear reason for the company's decision. This is, of course, no isolated case, and, over the years, I find it is often boys from the best homes and with the finest manners and morals who face such problems.2
