Nepotism

Definition of nepotism

Nepotism (المحاباة) is favouring a person in hiring, in promotion or in the allocation of opportunities because of a family tie or a friendship, and not because of that person’s competence or performance.

The definition names three kinds of decision: hiring, promotion, and the allocation of opportunities. In each of them one person is preferred over others. What makes the preference nepotism is the ground on which it rests. That ground is a relationship with the person preferred, and the relationship can be one of kinship or one of friendship. The ground the definition sets against it is the person’s competence or performance.

The definition therefore turns on the reason for a decision, and not on the decision taken alone. A hire, a promotion or an assignment is nepotism when the relationship, rather than competence or performance, is the reason it went to the person who received it.

Where nepotism appears

Nepotism can appear in hiring, in promotion, in the allocation of opportunities, and in leniency towards a shortcoming.

• Hiring. It takes the form of appointing a relative without advertising the job, or without any competition for it. When the job is not advertised, no one else learns that it is open and no one else can apply for it. When there is no competition, the relative is not compared with any other candidate, so there is no one against whom the choice can be weighed.
• Promotion. A person who has a relationship with the decision maker is moved ahead of a person who is more competent. The promotion goes to the one who is close to the decision maker, and the more competent candidate is passed over.
• Allocation of opportunities. Prominent projects, training, or attendance at important meetings are assigned on the basis of closeness. Each of these opportunities goes to one person rather than another, and under nepotism it is closeness to whoever allocates them that decides who receives them.
• Leniency. It is the overlooking of a shortcoming that would not be overlooked in anyone else. The same shortfall is passed over for the person with the relationship and is not passed over for other employees. Leniency can damage standards while drawing little attention.

Leniency differs from hiring, promotion and the allocation of opportunities in what the person with the relationship receives. In those three, the person receives something that others can see: a job, a higher post, a project, a place in training or a seat at a meeting. In leniency, what the person receives is a shortcoming that goes unremarked, and there is no appointment or assignment for anyone to notice. The effect falls on the standard: a standard that is applied to some employees and not to others no longer applies equally to everyone.

The real cost of nepotism

The real cost of nepotism does not lie in a single appointment. It lies in the message that the appointment sends to the people who see it.

When a team sees that advancement comes through closeness and not through results, performance stops being a route to advancement. In the eyes of that team, results no longer move a person forward; closeness does. A relationship of kinship or friendship is not something that better results can earn, so the route that performance offered is no longer open to those who lack the relationship.

The message is the same for every member of the team, but the ability to respond to it by leaving is not. An employee who has alternatives in the labour market is better placed to leave than an employee who has none.

The effect of nepotism can show in the staff turnover rate, but it does not show there as soon as the nepotism occurs. The appointment happens at one point in time, while the departures that follow from the message it sent can come later. A turnover figure taken at the time of the appointment may therefore not yet reflect it.

Procedural measures that reduce nepotism

Nepotism can be reduced through procedure. The measures below act on the decision: on who takes part in it, on the criteria against which it is made, and on the record that is kept of it.

• Disclosure of the family tie. It means declaring the kinship before any decision that concerns the other party. The declaration comes before the decision, so that the people involved know of the tie while the decision is still open.
• Recusal. It requires that the person with the tie takes no part in appraising their relative or in the decision on that relative’s promotion. The tie remains, but the person who holds it steps out of the appraisal and out of the promotion decision.
• Criteria written in advance for hiring and for promotion. They are needed because a criterion that is written after the person has been chosen is tailored to that person. Written beforehand, the criterion describes what the job or the promotion requires; written afterwards, it describes the person who has already been selected.
• A recorded reason for the decision. It is needed because a decision whose reason is not written down cannot be reviewed later. Whoever reviews the decision afterwards needs to know why it was taken, and without a written reason there is nothing for the review to examine.

Disclosure and recusal are also examined under conflict of interest. The need for a decision to carry its reasons comes up as well under procedural justice.

How nepotism differs from implicit bias

Implicit bias (التحيز الضمني) is unintended, and the person who holds it would reject it if it were put to them openly. Nepotism is a conscious decision to favour a relationship over competence.

The difference lies in intention. A person who holds an implicit bias does not intend it, and if it were set out before them in plain terms, they would reject it. A person who practises nepotism has decided to put a relationship ahead of competence, and takes that decision knowingly.

The response differs as well. Implicit bias is addressed through the design of the procedure. Nepotism is addressed through disclosure and accountability.

This is an explanation of the concept, not legal advice.