Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

For all your Nepotism discussion needs.

[EuchreJack]

Definition of Nepotism, as I understand it:
Nepotism is where a person hires another person that is related to them in some way so as to increase their family unit's net wealth.

Example1: I hire my brother for a job so I don't have to support his coke habit any longer.
Example2: I hire my wife so that our combined income increases.
Example3: I hire my sister so that she can take care of our mother for a while.

The goal of the hiring is important.  Ideally, the person doing the hiring should not be related to any of the candidates, to the point that some other person should do the hiring if there is likely to be a conflict.  Since nepotism is an inherently selfish action, it's difficult to eliminate.

Since the goal is to unfairly increase a person's personal wealth, it doesn't actually count so much when that person is the sole owner of a company, since they're just distributing their own wealth in whatever way they see fit.  It IS a problem when a person is a joint owner and fills an open position with a relative, as this boosts their assets at the expense of the other partners/shareholders.

BUT: Special skills/talents can be an exception.  If there are a shortage of qualified candidates, then maybe the only one willing to take the crappy job at the crappy salary is related to someone.  Then you thank God someone competent is willing to do the work and move on with your life.

Season One of the Ukranian TV show, Servant of the People, staring now President Zelenskyy as...well President of Ukraine...showed a "good" form of Nepotism.

[MorleyDev]

By literal definition, nepotism is "the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs."

So if the person is the one chosing to hire their relative, or influencing it so that their relative receives preferential treatment in the hiring process, then it's nepotism. Now, if I own a business but force my relative to go through the usual hiring process where they're interviewed and selected by someone other than me and I don't influence that process then it's not nepotism, but it does still leave open the door for future nepotism post-hire. All the interaction needs to go through an impartial 'third-party', which can be tricky to manage in practice (if you're in charge of that third-party then you wield influence over them them thus can influence them to still give the relative preferential treatment). Small things like allowing them to arrive late to work without consequences, when you would deliver such consequences on a non-friend or non-family member are still nepotistic afterall.

In small business, some nepotism is inevitable due to the available resources. Nobody is going to object when someone hires a friend or their brother to help run a town bakery afterall, but a local bakery wields rather little influence on a political scale.

But when you hit a certain level of scale in a business (which translates to the weildable power and influence of that business and it's owners/internal power-holders) or start operating at a significant political levels (again, power/influence), there's a matching level of risk management that has to be applied to keep that power in-check that means extra checks and balances to have to be put in place that must be followed regardless of 'intent'. Preventing nepotistic practices becomes necessary regardless of 'good' or 'bad' intentions, to prevent corrupt practices, as well as the formation of pseudo-fiefdoms.

[Grim Portent]

Humans being what we are nepotism is a natural instinctive thing for us to do, the problem is when it's used to justify giving someone a job they are wildly bad at out of a sense of familial or friendly obligation, much as giving someone a position they're unqualified because of their social standing is bad. If it's something small, like a family owned store, then it's stupid and unfair to the other employees but not really harmful beyond that so we only care if the person at fault is supposed to be better. If it's something big, like say a construction project given to a politician's cousin's third rate firm with no experience in that kind of project then it's bad. Really bad.


Broadly speaking I'd compare nepotism to embezzlement or misapropriation of funds. See the UK expenses scandal from a while back for example, where some MPs hired their spouse as a secretary and claimed the money as expenses, essentially increasing their wages at taxpayers expense at the cost of their spouse taking on some minimal busywork. Even if they had them doing the actual job of a secretary it raises a whole lot of questions about the ethics involved in setting their pay and working hours and so on.

Employing family and friends is usually not a good idea anyway, as business responsibilities do not mix well with emotional relationships, so its generally assumed that it's being done for selfish (though not necessarily financial) reasons. Which is often a safe assumption to be blunt.

[feelotraveller]

"It's who you know, not what you know."

[EuchreJack]

This might be relevant:
https://apnews.com/article/kristi-noem-south-dakota-sd-state-wire-1c5fb7828aba13ad4f6467b76554c022

[Loud Whispers]

Nepotism even in its most innocent forms is dangerous in just how corrosive it can get. In the Rashiddun caliphate for example they were incredibly cautious about appointing anyone who was related to the Caliph to important posts, even when they were the best person for the job, because of the likelihood it would accidentally create a dynasty. Which is what happened. Meritocracies can die in other ways too, but I really wish nepotism was limited to useless posts, instead of nepotism leading to the most important decision making posts being led by people who have no idea what the hell they are doing