Sameness Isn't Fairness
Why treating everyone "the same" can be the wrong answer
This week, I had the chance to work behind the scenes with two incredible groups helping to shape the future of the Army:
The Executive Innovation Corps—recently direct-commissioned senior technologists from industry, wearing brand new LTC rank without the progression of rank that usually comes with it, but bringing in tons of commercial innovation experience.
Our Army Creative Reserve—a collection of Soldier content creators meeting our current and future Soldiers where they are—digitally—and teaching us new ways of sharing the Army message.
Both groups are pushing boundaries. And both groups sparked a lot of energy—excitement, curiosity, and quite a few raised eyebrows.
The questions came quickly:
“Why do they get access to that person/event/rank?”
“Why don’t they have to go to all the same courses I did?”
“Why aren’t they being made to prove themselves the way we were?”
I get it. Those questions often come from a place of commitment to standards, to shared hardship, to fairness.
But they also reveal something deeper: a persistent belief that fairness equals sameness. That there is one single “way” that is right for everyone.
And that belief—while well-intentioned—can quietly kill innovation.
Let’s decode it. 🚀
When Treating People “the Same” is Unfair
Designing for difference in a talent-driven force
Why We Default to Sameness
Most bureaucracies are built on repeatability and standardization. The systems work because everyone goes through the same gates, the same milestones, the same rituals. This isn’t about treating everyone equally, which I fundamentally believe in—this is about believing that treating everyone equally is one standard for all.
The military takes this further. We wear the same uniforms. Use the same language. Go through the same courses. The logic is: if everyone meets the same standards, the organization can trust in the outcome. Fairness is built through consistency.
But here’s the thing: people aren’t consistent. Talent isn’t linear. And potential doesn’t scale by checklist.
When we insist on treating everyone the same, as in same career pathways, same training, same everything—regardless of their background, skills, experience, or potential—we don’t create fairness. We create friction. We create bottlenecks. We create resentment from high-potential individuals who are capable of doing more—but are held back by rules that were never designed for them.
Sameness is often just a stand-in for comfort. It helps us feel in control. But it’s not what moves us forward.
Equality ≠ Sameness
I first heard this at a mentorship session with RADM Norton at USINDOPACOM: “Equality is not sameness. For us to be equal, we don’t have to be shoved into the same mold.” It stuck with me.
In talent management, we often say we want meritocracy. We want to value what people bring to the table.
But valuing someone’s talent means acknowledging how they’re different. Their path. Their experience. Their ability to contribute in ways others can’t.
If we truly believe in talent as an advantage, we have to design systems that reflect that.
It means:
Giving someone with deep tech expertise access to the systems they’re here to improve—without sending them through years of legacy training irrelevant to their skillset.
Letting creatives solve problems outside traditional chains of command—because their impact often isn’t rank-based.
Understanding that someone who built a billion-dollar product in the private sector may not need to go to an Army leadership course to prove their worth.
We have to tailor the experience and development to the person, because what’s relevant to some is not relevant to all.
When “Fairness” Becomes a Barrier
Let’s be honest: not every Soldier, leader, or civil servant needs to go through the exact same series of courses or check the same legacy boxes. What they need is the tools, access, and context required to do the job they were brought in to do.
And that might mean:
Putting a newly commissioned CTO in charge of advising major modernization projects immediately—not after years of paperwork.
Letting a designer or filmmaker in the Creative Reserve bypass traditional staff training—not because it isn’t valuable, but because it isn’t relevant to their role.
Rethinking what “credibility” means in a world where deep expertise might not come with military credentials, but still drives mission impact.
Too often, sameness is weaponized to maintain the status quo: “I had to suffer through this, so you should too.”
One standard, people say. But one size does not, in fact, fit all.
Designing for Talent, Not Tradition
Talent-based organizations think differently. They don’t assume fairness means identical treatment. They assume fairness means everyone has what they need to succeed.
That requires us to:
Build on-ramps that accommodate different levels of experience and expertise.
Create pathways that allow for lateral movement, accelerated progression, or nontraditional roles.
Empower leaders to differentiate—not based on favoritism or pedigree, but on aligned capabilities and outcomes.
The Army—and probably your organization, too—doesn’t need cookie-cutter leaders. It needs purpose-built teams.
That means loosening our grip on rigid systems in favor of principled flexibility. It means recognizing that the reason someone doesn’t fit the mold might be exactly why we need them.
So why do we still default to one-size-fits-all career paths in the government and military?
If you want to bring in top talent from tech, design, science, or industry—and keep them—you have to build systems that allow them to make an impact without erasing what makes them different.
That’s not lowering the bar. That’s redefining what excellence looks like in a modern force.
Leading Through the Discomfort
This shift can be uncomfortable. It challenges long-held beliefs about fairness, loyalty, and what it means to “earn your place.” But the discomfort is worth it—if we use it to grow.
If you’re a leader feeling this tension or answering questions like the ones I’ve listed throughout this article, consider:
Explaining the why. Transparency reduces friction. Explain what makes these individuals valuable, what the mission needs from them, and how their path aligns with outcomes.
Focusing on contribution, not conformity. Does the person add value? Are they solving problems? That should matter more than whether they attended the same briefings as everyone else.
Creating space for structured exceptions. Build systems that allow for differentiated talent tracks. Then measure and iterate—not to defend the status quo, but to improve the model.
In the end, equity is about access and opportunity, not ritual.
Fairness is about impact and alignment, not uniformity.
If we want to win the future—whether in the Army, government, or any complex organization—we can’t build one-size-fits-all talent systems.
We have to design for difference.
That means building flexibility and promoting impact. It means moving away from seniority and toward merit. It means learning to tell the difference between people who desire and deserve the same and people who need something different to thrive.
Sameness feels safe, and it’s an easy answer.
Aligning talent to need and incentivizing it with what people need, no matter how different from the practiced norms that might be?
That’s talent management.
