The Different Between Favouritism Cronyism And Nepotism Philosophy Essay

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015

The effect of nepotism has been opinion based rather than facts and incidents therefore views on the subject vary from situation to situation. Nepotism at work refers to favouring relatives in employment or economic terms as opposed to them being judged on ability and/or merit in a specific organisation.

This could include a position over somebody else who may be more suitable for the position, whereby you would be paying a relative more money than somebody doing the same job or granting them special favours.

However, nepotism can be viewed in terms of people giving somebody a boost up to allow them to get into an organisation but will be treated in the same manner as everybody else.

Although nepotism is in the sense of the word, refers to relatives, it can also mean to allow friends to be incorporated into an organisation or to be granted simply favour in general.

Smaller, family owned businesses are the organisations this more common occurs and that is perfectly understandable.

In a small business in particular, limited options exist for career advancement.

When employees see that the owner's daughter or son has been promoted to a managerial post, the idea of favouritism and special treatment is impossible to overcome -- especially if the new manager shows signs of been less qualified than the other applicants that applied.

The existence of a nepotism policy ensures that all employees are treated equally and that the owner of the organisation cannot influence the hiring, promotion or discipline of a close relative.

The policy allows for reduction of favouritism by enquiring all employees to disclose relevant conflicts, such as a close personal or business relationship with all current employees, and more importantly it restrict the employee's involvement with employment decisions relating to their relative.

Family owned businesses have always had a tradition of the reins being passed down from generation to generation and their succession totally relies a lot on the emotional ties which bonds a family together.

That being said, if the company also employs staff outside of the family as well, it's important for the companies well-being to maintain a strict working relationship where the family member(s) is treated no more than equal to all of the rest of the staff who may hold a similar position to them in order that the workplace remains peaceful and there are no accusations of special treatment.

In most cases, you will often find that family members have to work ten times harder than the average outsiders to prove themselves worthy of holding specific positions and to avoid such assumptions from arising.

1.2.1. The different between favouritism, cronyism, and nepotism?

As favouritism is the broadest of these three terms, we'll start with its definition.

Favouritism is just what it sounds like; it's favouring a person not because he/she is doing the best job but rather because of some kind of personal relationship either with the manager or the owner of the company that you would be employed in.

Favouritism is currently represented in three different ways hiring, honouring, or awarding contracts. The most common cases are giving public service jobs to those who may have helped you during an election for a person in power.

Favouritism has always been a major problem in government services over the years. In 2010, a survey was done and it was found that only 46% of government workers thought that promotions received in their department were based on merit.

They believed that it is who you are connected to or rather who u know and more importantly the partnerships you made while been in the government departments, and other factors played a major role.

The second term is cronyism which is a more specific form of favouritism that refers partial towards friends and partial towards associates. As the old saying goes, "It's not what you know but who you know," or, rather "It's not what you don't know; it's who your college roommate knows."

Cronyism occurs within a network of insiders who provide favours to one another due to association.

The last phrase is nepotism which is an even narrower form of favouritism.

It originated from the Italian word which means nephew, it covers favouritism to members of the family. Both nepotism and cronyism often occur at offices where political parties recruit candidates for public officials.

1.2.2. The Most Common Reasons for Nepotism in the Workplace

According to the service industries in government departments are subjected to nepotism at various work levels.

The economic and political structures are given as the common reasons for such favouritism in such departments.

What happens in bigger firms and organizations?

Employees are affected by nepotism in one way or another in bigger organizations as well.

This cronyism allows both short term and long term negativities amongst employees and in turn impact the organizational growth as well as the performance levels of that specific organisation.

Let us take a closer look about how nepotism spoils employee morale and workplace culture.

Here are examples of different case studies and decisions

International Case Studies - Nepotism

Case Study #1: 

FACTS:

An employee was hired in May 2010 to work as an assistant sales manager for a waste management company that also supplied portable toilets and provided septic tank services. The employee's job required him to develop and implement businesses amongst existing and new clients.  He could earn a bonus based on his sales input on a monthly basis.

In February 2012, the employee became romantically involved with senior office manager.  They moved in together a month later.  Although their relationship was commonly known in the office, at no time did the employer advice either parties that their employment might be in jeopardy as a result of their relationship.

In October, the first employee was fired due to his common-law relationship with the senior office manager. The employer concluded that because office manager was one of two financial control officers as well and was privy to confidential financial information, that placed her in a conflict of interest with the employee as one of her duties was to input data regarding all sales which were linked to employee bonuses. The employer was of the view that the common law relationship between the employee and the manager was not an acceptable business practice and created an unacceptable business and financial risk to the organisation.

The employee immediately filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of marital status.

The Board of Inquiry resolved that there was definitely a case of discrimination that was made out because:

Although living in a common-law relationship for only a short period of time, the employees in question were living together and this was regarded as the "marital status" in the Human Rights Act;

The employee was treated differently than other employees and terminated as a result of his relationship with the office manager and, as a result, was discriminated against on the basis of marital status

To determine if this form of discrimination was justified, the Board of Inquiry determined that the employer was unable to meet the standard requirements because:

The employer's standard policy requirements stated that the office manager could not enter into a living relationship with an employee due to the confidential nature of her position.  This standard did not necessary connect to the performance of the employees' jobs;

There was no bad faith on the part of the employer in implementing its standard;

The standard was not reasonable and could accomplish the work-related purpose because the employer "overlooked relatively simple checks and balances" that could have been put in place to protect the business.  For example, the employer's General Manager could have been asked to review the input of data relating to bonuses that the employee might have been entitled to.

The Board ordered the employer to compensate the employee an subsequently amount in general damages, also to write the employee a letter of apology and to participate in a well needed training course with the Human Rights Commission on the duty to accommodate.

The employer appealed the decision to the Court as soon as the verdict was concluded.

OUTCOME:

The Court also found that the Board ruled correctly that the employee and office manager were living in a common-law relationship and protected from discrimination on the basis of marital status;

The Court disagreed with the Board's analysis of the first step, ruling that the workplace standard at issues was to limit access to confidential information and to avoid creating a situation where the office manager could possibly be placed in a position of conflict between the interests of their employer and the interests of the employee, who they were in a relationship with.  The purpose of the policy was mainly to identify it as being unacceptable business and financial risks.  The policy was found to be rationally connected to the performance of the office manager's job as their work involved inputting information that formed part of the basis on which the employee's bonus was calculated;

The Court agreed with the Board's overall conclusion that the employer could have accommodated the marital relationship here without incurring undue hardship.  As the General Manager already reviewed the office manager's work, he could simply have reviewed any data that would have affected the employee's bonuses.

The Court upheld the damages award and the requirement of an apology letter but found that ordering the so needed training course was inappropriate.

WHAT TO relevant FROM THEse CASES:

The creation of an anti-nepotism policy should be considered by employers before they are implemented and given their application will always give rise to cases of discrimination.

The fact that two employees are related on any level will not be enough to justify an application of an anti-nepotism policy.  The family member or marital relationship in question must be relevant to the ability of one of the related individuals to perform his or her job duties.

Anti-nepotism policies should be designed to limit the impact on the affected family member.  A policy that only takes into consideration the employer's interests will not stand up to scrutiny.

Employers must be prepared to show that when they applied the policy, they gave considered the circumstances of the affected employee and they accommodated the employee to the point of undue hardship.  Rigid application of an anti-nepotism policy will cause an otherwise justified policy to fail.

I've been in this situation to many times to mention and in prior cases as well, which didn't turn out well.  And more recently, I don't know what the outcome is just yet.

Case Study #2 - Very early in my career, a friend of mine was looking to get into the same industry I was currently employed in. 

I had been employed for a couple years and due to a lot of hard work and some downright luck, I had become what I would consider a master mind and gained a better job title after some time.

I was confined to sharing all my details of the company and had not yet got many contacts in other areas except for the one I was employed in.

A friend asked if I could forward their curriculum vitae to the organisation which I was employed in to see if they could get their foot in the door.

I knew the friend pretty well and thought they'd make a good addition to the organisation and figured "what did I have to lose?

Inside my head, it was another story, there were also some other thoughts going on in the background that I should have paid attention to.

On the positive side, I had thoughts like "he is a great person, he would be cool to work with, I'd love to see him working here", "and he would do it for me in a heartbeat?"

On the negative side, I was thinking, "am I making the biggest mistake hiring him?"

Since I had no contacts in the area that I was employed in, I had to approach an old college contact that I hadn't kept in touch with and ask who the decision-makers of my firm were, I then made contact with a hiring manager, introduce myself and basically sold my friend curriculum vitae and line up an interview.

I highlighted all positive interactions I'd had achieved and some demonstrated leadership examples and past work experience that I was familiar with that seemed valid at the time.

I don't know if my call had anything to do with it, but I understood that my friend got a call back for an interview later in that week.

Well, a few weeks later, I asked how the interview went when we saw my friend and I was horrified to hear that my friend "missed the interview".

They claimed something happened with their calendar or cell phone or something and completely missed the interview.

I felt like I had totally wasted the one opportunity I probably had at helping someone out with that group and now I looked like a fool for recommending someone so unprofessional.

Straight after this event, my friend got an offer from another company.

So, I started to wonder if this was really an honest mistake or they just blew off my company once they got other job proposals, but either way, it left me regretting my decision to help them out in the first place.

I had spent considerable time, effort, and professional capital in trying to make something happen and it was all in vein.

Case Study #3 - A year or two later, I was approached by another friend's relative who was looking to get into my field actually.

They had obtained an engineering degree and wanted to get into a higher paying industry and seemed intelligent, mature and very responsible.

I didn't know them very well, but because they were a relative of a good friend of mine and they genuinely seemed like a good candidate, I figured I would at least pass their curriculum vitae on.

We had hung out a few times and I knew them at least well enough to pass on the curriculum vitae to the right people.

This time though, due to the fact that I was burnt before, I decided to just pass on the curriculum vitae to the right person, but made no further attempts to ensure the person an interview.

I researched a bit into their interests, ability to relocate, etc. and then put the curriculum vitae into the hands of some of the hiring managers.

I was actually a part of the hiring process at the time, but didn't think it would be ethnical to hire that individual myself, nor did they seem like a perfect fit for my particular area that the position was available for.

Strictly on merit the person made it into the next stage and without my knowledge attached my name as a reference.  When questioned I was honest and explained we didn't have any personal relationship.

I had just replied that I met them a couple times and they seemed qualified, but given professionalism and personal history with them, I couldn't really make an endorsement one way or other.

Well, when the friend's relative called one day to check in, they pretty much alluded to the fact that the only reason they wanted to get in was so my company would pay for their further education, which is somewhat common in my field, but was not offered in their current role.

They were basically looking for me to facilitate for them to take advantage of my company.

Again, while I had played a very minor role in just passing an curriculum vitae along, I felt responsible for another bad situation involving nepotism or whatever you want to call it.

I didn't play a major role and was curious how it panned out.

Through whatever means during the interview process, I assume one of the interviewers picked up on the agenda and they opted to not extend an offer to this specific person.

If they had extended an offer, what would I have been required to do, ignore the situation?  Or intervene?  I continued to question myself how and why I also got involved in these situations and was relieved when it ironed itself out through no fault of mine.

After these two specific cases, I'd pretty much had it with the "hook me up" thing.

While hearing similar story from other friends of mine, I can only imagine that the outcome is always a negative one.

For the one case that works out well, where 5 years later, someone looks back and says, "Hey, that college buddy of mine is doing a great job and loves it here after I helped him land an interview", there are probably many more cases where someone got burned.

Situation - This brings me to the most current situation.

We have an acquaintance that was recently laid off and just now started looking for work again.

The other day, they approached me and asked if I'd forward their curriculum vitae around and speak with the hiring managers visible on the external job board.

On one hand, again, with someone with a young child out of work, nice person, responsible, etc…how you can just say, "No, I'm not helping?"

I barely know them on a personal level and had been burned so many times before.

So, I've agreed to pass along the curriculum vitae to someone I actually do know in the particular field whom I asked to review and forward along if they felt appropriate and I also checked around on another upcoming job posting that will go external and I passed that along as well.

But I decided not to contact any hiring managers, as I don't know them, and I barely know the person as well.

If things pan out their way, great - it will be by natural means through the established system, and if not, I was at least honest in my reply that I had passed it along to some individuals I did know who may be looking for someone with similar qualifications - which I did.

But due to my past experiences and my conflicted feelings over the ethical aspect, I'm not going the extra mile in trying to give them a significant advantage over other candidates coming in with no such advantages.

Here are some positive outcomes of nepotism - I think there are some clear pros and cons to having current employees recommending or hiring people they know for jobs.

On the positive side, you already know the person on a personal level and that could be an advantage.

You would like to think this person won't make you look bad and would appreciate the opportunity that you have been awarded them.

Perhaps oneday, they will help you out in a similar situation?  Let's think about the networker themselves - isn't a "go-getter" a sign of someone with initiative - someone who's going to sell your product, advance your agenda, and more importantly get results?  Well, maybe, but that's the going viewpoint.

Here are some negative outcomes of nepotism - Is it right?  Is it ethical?  If you have two candidates - one is rather outgoing, has tons of friends and family and has all the people voting for them for a special role; do they deserve a boost up on this next guy?

Candidate 2 is rather quiet and doesn't really go out of his way to play the popularity card along people.

They just work hard and get their hands dirty and maintain by doing the right thing, they will be granted the right career opportunities which their solely deserve.

All other things being equal, in the real world, the truth is Candidate 1 is more likely going to get the job.

But is that right? Some organisations actually have policies against nepotism and there are nepotism law cases, but the reality that it is quite pervasive in society today, almost expected.

Perhaps you have your job because of nepotism.  Perhaps you were passed over for a job because you didn't know the right people.  Perhaps you don't even know it.

Disclosure: I landed my first job in industry by chance I was qualified and made a good impression and didn't know a single person that worked at my company.

I found flyer advertising for an organisation in one of my campus halls senior year and checked it out and it eventually led to a job.

In hindsight, that was sheer luck that I happened to come across that specific flier which I needed a job the most.

If I hadn't landed a job post-graduation, would I have required someone I knew to "hook me up"?  I don't know, probably.  Wouldn't you?

Case Study #4 -Some years ago I was working with a pleasant, remarkable, young man who had just joined the newspaper from a local rag.

He was inexperienced and finding it hard to adjust to the relentless deadlines, but we were happy to help out and answer his questions all day.

Three months later, we were informed that he had been made our boss. It didn't make any sense at the time. He was still not able to handle the everyday pressure and was the least on the desk, but he had the job.

I found out later that he was related to the editor, which goes a long way to explaining his effortless rise to the top. This was a simple lesson in life. It had nothing to do with my performance or merit and everything to do with the fact that they were related;

I simply could not compete on such a level. Ten years later, he has made it and prospered, and had definitely proven his worth.

The media industry is common known for such nepotism. Most times parents try to secure internships and even teen columns for their student offspring, while husband and wives seek the best joint ventures they can find.

The same incidents can be seen in different circles, organisations, and political lives.

On the other hand, I have been coaxing a board of members that is divided over the appointment of a new director who worked with the CEO before his appointment.

Even though he is clearly the most talented and experienced member of the board, no one believes he got his job on merit.

So is nepotism a good or a bad thing? I take a serious view, believing that we are hard-wired to look after our family and friends.

He believes that nepotism has produced both positive and negative results in everything from ancient Chinese clans to Renaissance papal lineages and American families like the Gores, Kennedys, and Bushes. Practised badly, nepotism is embarrassing to everyone, including the individual, but done well it can benefit society as a whole.

In business, no one seems sure how to talk about nepotism or discuss it openly as it is a very sensitive subject.

But what do you do if you find yourself managing the boss's son? Do you treat them in the same way as everyone else and risk alienating them or annoying your boss? Or do you handle them with kid gloves just in case?

Nepotism conflicts fundamentally with basic American values and merit that some companies have instituted formal anti-nepotism policies.

But even in organisations that claim not to tolerate nepotism, there are often clear, if not many examples of nepotism.

Take Paul Wolfowitz, whose attempts to secure a pay and promotional deal for his partner, Shaha Reza, meant he lost his job at the World Bank.

It's interesting to see the cultural bias at work here, too. Nepotism is considered a good thing in Asian and African companies, which are more likely based on family network.

In the companies in certain Cities they have traditionally recruited from families within Britain's social elite.

On a recent BBC radio programme on nepotism, Dr Gillian Evans of Manchester University explained that social and family networks provide a critical safety net for upper middle classes and children who might have failed their exams or fluffed their first job.

A well-placed contact could smooth over their failure, find them a job, and restore them to their "rightful" place in society.

This can be very frustrating for those of us who don't have the luxury of a security net, who have to struggle through with grit and hard work.

But is there anything we can do besides becoming consumed with envy? Is there anything we could learn for this? I suppose the most positive thing is to start developing a personal network that would work for you. There are three main things to remember.

First and more importantly, network yourself to those in power all the time - tell them who you are and what you can do -- so that if the big job comes up, your name will be on their lips all the time.

Secondly, build a strong connection with all the influential contacts that you acquired, making sure they like you and care for you on a personal level.

Finally, make sure that, if you get the job, you have the skills to make a success of it.

You will have far less margin for error than the boss's son.

How do you feel about nepotism at work? Have you experienced it in a positive or negative way? Or are you experiencing difficulty because you were the one who got a job through someone you knew?

Nepotism and the affects it has on Employee Morale?

Why do people prefer having their relatives or friends at their workplace?

What do they want to achieve, apart from allowing their relatives or friends to work with them?

According to an HR consulting firm, employing relatives or friends saves costs on recruiting and training.

It is also believed to help reduce employee turnover since the relatives are highly committed to organization growing.

However, most of the time, having a relative in the organization spoils the morale of employees.

What are all the reasons?

Read on.

When you give a relative a important position or promotion, u naturally bypass an employee with strong merits, and this spoils employee morale as a whole.

Employees feel used and overlooked merely because they not specifically related to you and therefore they start looking for other opportunities to join another organisation sooner than they intended to.

Employees affected by favouritism see no career opportunities in the organization and in turn lose interest in the company's growth.

The level of been committed is lowed and the loyalty and more importantly the sense of ownership are lower since the employees doesn't feel like they are achieving any personal growth.

The employees who supervisors the relatives of the employer find it difficult to handle them and take corrective action if necessary. This greatly affects team morale which can lead to a high level of employee attrition.

How would you feel if your spouse faced you during an important official meeting?

Well, organizations have different opinions on a husband and wife working together.

In order to avoid conflicts or workplace stress, some organizations have created policies against both spouses working together for them.

A few companies, namely the IT organizations that work with an onshore-offshore model, prefer having both the husband and wife working for them.

This allows the organisation send them together to onsite projects.

It helps the employers to retain their services on long-term onsite project.

Nepotism can cause ill feelings on inequality that employees may react to in one way or another.

The first problem you could face is to undermine the favoured worker's capabilities and attempt to sabotage her projects.

These efforts could result in getting her fired, however, it could result in costly mistakes and loss of time which can then potentially impact customers' relations in organisations.

The second reaction is an attitude of defeat.

If employees assume that promotions and perks will always go to friends of the boss, they will likely less incline to do their best work to show their potential. Resentment and indifferences can lead to the reduction of productivity as well as employee turnover if workers decide that nothing will ever get better.

Nepotism Effects On The Organizational Culture?

Some employers feel that the level of loyalty, morale, trust and commitment of friends or relatives they hire is higher compared to others in the workplace.

Control: Unfortunately, not all family members and relatives come with the right merit to be employed for a particular position or a role.

When the manager is not allowed to control an employee just because she is a relative of an employer, imagine what will happen to the company's discipline.

Nepotism allows rules to be broken and can lead to a hectic situation for business owners.

Ethics: When relatives are involved, the company's ethics can get spoiled and even go into ruins.

Let us take an example of one of the India-based IT giant.

Despite the raise by the board members, its founder went ahead and acquired infrastructure companies owned by his sons.

This led the company to lose its share by more than half and the investors to experience a greater loss.

Not only was the workplace culture affected, but employee morale was also highly affected.

The attrition recorded was very high.

Allowing nepotism at any level creates excess damage to the organizations culture.

Nepotism at the higher management or leadership level will greatly spoil the company image and growth. 

When you start losing the trust of your employees. The biggest problem which you as an employer will be facing with hiring people from your family is the possibility of your employees losing trust in you.

Nepotism becomes a major problem when your employees feel that the relative who was employed isn't qualified for the job, or that someone better was rejected due to the fact that they were not related to the owner of the organisation.

If it comes to this than it will be very hard for you to try and earn back the trust of your employees.

And if you are unable to get your employees to trust you than for me the only solution is to start over again because without trust any business is doomed.

The problem with hiring unfit people for the job. The second most specific problem with nepotism in the workplace is that you may end up with people that don't have any qualification to suit the job specifications.

Don't let your feelings get in the way when it comes to business transactions.

Don't hire someone just because you believe he or she is a part of your family.

Any business is just about simple math.

You need to make sure that the people you hire bring value to your team and they produce a good quality product which you can make a profit of.

So feelings have nothing to do with it. If the person you hired is not bringing extra value fire him or her without any regrets.

How to lower employee morale. Nepotism in the workplace will hurt you in the first few weeks no matter how qualified the person you hired is.

It is inevitable for employee morale to drop when you hire someone from your family.

The employee will immediately make the connection that you are preparing the person you hired for the job you currently holding and so their chances for promotion will be limited.

It will take a very long time for that person to convince the rest of the staff of his or her qualities no matter how good he or she is, because favouritism will always exist in any group.

This will increase chances of lawsuits. Nepotism in the workplace might also bring you a lot of unwanted attention.

You must realize that whenever you are hiring somebody from your own family to work for you, you are opening the door for litigation to all those unsatisfied employees.

This may result in employees undermining the new person. Prejudice can be very impressive in some people and it might even go so far as trying to ruin someone else's values and morals.

If some people of your team feel that the person you hired is unfit for the job they might actively try to bring him or her down by sabotaging his or her work.

Misconceptions. Many people have misconceptions about certain things like nepotism in organisations which you will not be able to change no matter what you do.

And these misconceptions might lead to a very tense working environment.

Some employees might leave. If valuable employees feel that there has been a grave injustice committed by you for hiring a member of your family than you might find yourself with a full blown problem with all of your employees deciding to leave.

Pros and Cons

The support for nepotism generally presents the following points:

It will lower recruiting cost: Nepotism allows firms to identify a pool of candidates for the position which lowers recruitment costs. (i.e. relatives of current employees).

Firms that encourage hiring relatives let their own employees do much of the recruitment for the company.

However, where the objective is to hire the most qualified person for the job limiting your market focus to relatives may not accomplish this objective.

It will lower training costs: Most of the times family members usually know a great deal about the company they are joining, and are more likely to be satisfied with the skills they currently have.

It has become a non-fact that newly hired relatives are more dedicated to learning the job in order to make their relative proud of them.

It will lower employee turnover: It is suggested that family members are often the most dedicated employees.

At several of the large organisations, relatives of current employees are sought out because past experience has shown them to be the most motivated, loyal workers.

These firms have also found that related employees have lower absenteeism due to the fact that they are related to the employer. They consider it a bad reflection on their family.

There are higher level of commitment and a sense of ownership: Working on the same teams with your relatives creates a greater sense of commitment and personal interest in the success of the company.

Employees who know that their family members may be impacted by their actions in the company have an extra motive to want the company to grow and prosper.

There are higher levels of loyalty: Granted the opportunity to work with one's son, daughter or cousin is considered by most employees to be an intangible benefit of working for a company.

However, in this day it would be very rare indeed, that a valued employee would stay with a company that has employed their son or daughter so that they might have an opportunity later to mentor them.

There are higher levels of morale: A family orientated environment can boost the morale of all employees, and positively impact customer relations.

An employee's view to bring another relative to the company as a great endorsement of the business.

However, for this to happen it is crucial those climates exist for all employees at all times, which require strict guidelines.

There are higher trust levels: In organisations with a high degree of family involvement, most time there is a higher level of commitment to working through problem that the company might be experiencing.

As one of the employers stated "at the end of the day they are all family and they have to get along no matter what."

In theory, this may support the case for employment of relatives.

In practices though, there are many problems and difficulties with managing the trust factor so that it is consistent across all employees and the entire organisation and not just reserved for the inner circle.

There can be several benefits and also disadvantages of hiring a close relative.

On the plus side, it can create stability for a company.

The relative is more honest, trustworthy and willing to go the extra mile in their job to prove that they're capable of undertaking the job on merit as well as to prove that they deserve to be in that position.

They will always demonstrate the most loyalty and commitment and be willing to make sacrifices and go the extra mile for the business.

On the downside, they may lack the experience and training to do the job and they may even be totally incompetent and unsuitable.

They might bring family conflicts into work with them which can ruin communication at work and they might be unable to separate work and home life.

In extreme cases, they may use their position to take advantage and also to serve their own interests and to the destruction of the company.

Husband and wife teams, can often find the most difficulty in working together and, unless totally committed on keeping work and personal life totally separate, a constant crossover into both can not only ruin their personal relationship but can destroy the business as well and can cause a decrease in morale amongst the rest of the employees if not carefully managed by the employer.

Issued raised; Nepotism

Favouritism: Nepotism provides opportunities for favouritism in hiring, promoting and salary and bonus decisions.

For this reason, companies with formal policies would allow for family members to make such decisions.

Discipline: Nepotism can create disciplinary problems for managers if they have to deal with a relative of another employee.

Problems involving family members will often lead to a polarization within the workplace, producing economic inefficiencies.

Confidentiality: It is assumed that family members will be more likely to share confidential information with other family members which they might not otherwise do if they were not related to employer.

This would result in suspicion, mistrust, paranoia or resentment and general withdrawal of the other employees in providing key information.

Empowerment: Life as the supervisor's son can be difficult due to the fact that most times employees think that you did not earn the position you currently hold.

Performance expectations are higher, and often nepotism cases have a hard time determining if their success was due to their performance and merit based or only because they are the boss's son.

Personal issues: More importantly, not all family relationships are positive and mutually respectful.

If there are personal issues and difficult relationships at home this could make it difficult to work and interact effectively at work.

Or when workplace differences occur, inappropriate workplace behaviours such as shouting or pouting arise and when such differences enter the home it can put a strain of the marriage and most time on the family relationships as well.

These behaviours are of course unprofessional and inappropriate and almost all the time has a negative effect on the other employees who have to cope with this uncomfortable atmosphere.

Working with your spouse

One of the most challenging problems of the nepotism debate is how to deal with spouses in the workplace.

Most of the large international companies actively recruit married couples to work for the company as they believe it leads to happier marriages, healthier families, and more motivated employees.

But in these cases there are well established and formal policies that are applied equally to all employees and which are often designed to address conflict of interest concerns.

Many more companies discourage spouses from working in the same company due to the fact that they believe it increase the opportunity for workplace tension and inefficiencies.

This would be particularly so if the home relationship is under stress.

Most intermediate and large organisations have a written nepotism policy designed to avoid husbands and wives from supervising one another or being in a line of influence or in the same chain of command.

If employees choose to marry, one of the two is more likely encouraged to transfer to a new department and out of the chain of command.

While it is illegal to terminate or discriminate on the basis of marital status, in the best interests of all concerned parties, most organisations draft their policies around an effort to avoid conflict of interest.

Procedure

Such appointments should not occur in circumstances where one member of a family would exercise any form of supervision or immediate influence over a relative.

For the purpose of this policy to be fully functional, a relative is defined as spouse, common law spouse, same sex partner, child, stepchild, sibling, parent, sister/brother in law, mother/father in law, grandparent and grandchild.

This policy should also be applied in circumstances involving family or intimate personal relationships.

Examples of conflicts of interest related to the employment of relatives include:

Hiring decisions

Promotions

Renewal of contracts

Performance evaluation

Disciplinary procedures

Salary considerations

Respect for confidentiality

In the event that this situation does occur, the supervisor in the relationship will not be the sole decision making authority.

What is appropriate?

As dual career couples become a larger part of the workforce, an increasing number of organisations are forced to consider what should be an appropriate nepotism policy.

If a policy is not in place, and enforced uniformly, legal issues, low morale and productivity and loss of staff can result.

The degree to which nepotism is an acceptable practice is based largely on what boundaries or guidelines are defined and applied across the entire organisation and includes all employees.

The three golden rules regarding nepotism within an organisation:

The first and most important when hiring or promoting must be finding the most qualified person for the job regardless of their relationship to members of the company.

Secondly, every effort should be made to avoid potential conflict of interest situations.

This is usually done by ensuring that there is not direct line of influence or same chain of command of one relative over the other in any organisation.

BP in their policy stated, Employment of relatives of employees in salary grades 17 and above is prohibited and is applicable to all categories of employment, including summer hiring.

Third and last golden rule is, policies and practices must be applied consistently and equally across the entire organisation and be applicable to all employees whether related or otherwise.

Our current research and survey of a variety of companies (beyond family owned business) suggest that almost of them all have a policy or a least a practice that include these three golden principles.

A family owned and operated business is nepotistic by nature, but even here owner managers will testify to the difficulties of managing nepotism.

However when the firm grows beyond the family or is held by multiple shareholders nepotism can lead to difficulties where the atmosphere is highly charged, suspicion and mistrust abound.

It is extremely difficult to hold the talent required for a growing enterprise when by default a climate of second guessing, mistrust and concern for competence emerges.

Policies and practices around nepotism usually grow out of experience and the fact that most of the top corporations have policies regarding nepotism would suggest that each must at some time have consumed a significant amount of management time to deal with issues of nepotism.

So much so, that they found it necessary to have a policy to guide and pro-actively prevent nepotistic practices and potential conflict of interest situations.

NEPOTISM POLICY

It is the policy that employees will not use their authority or influence of his/her position to secure the authorization of employment or benefit for a person closely related by blood, marriage, or other significant relationship, including business associates.

This includes, but is not limited to, the following circumstances:

A. HIRING

No employee serving as a Director, Managing Director, or any person of the same rank shall have in the employ of the same department any person closely related by blood, marriage, or other specific relationship, including business association.

No human resource administrator, chief of human resources or person of equivalent rank shall have in the employ of that person's department any person closely related by blood, marriage or other significant relationship including business association.

No employee in the personnel area shall process any personnel actions or use the authority of influence of that employee's position to secure the employment of a person closely related by blood, marriage or other significant relationship, including business association.

B. SUPERVISION

No employee shall supervise, any person closely related by blood, marriage, or other significant relationship, including business association.

Should a supervisory conflict arise, the organisation shall work to relocate or transfer one of the individuals to immediately eliminate the conflict to the extent permitted by law and/or collective bargaining agreement. This relocation or transfer should be to a comparable position with very little inconvenience for the transferring employee.

No employee in the personnel area shall review or be involved in any disciplinary actions of a person closely related by blood, marriage or other significant relationship, including business association.

C. EXCEPTIONS

This shall not apply to those circumstances in which:

A marital or other significant relationship develops subsequent to both the public employee's employment with the organisation. (In this instance, the organisation should make reasonable attempts to avoid a supervisory conflict).

The employee is employed by the organisation prior to the appointment of a person closely related by blood, marriage or significant relationship to the position of Director, Managing Director, or personnel employee (e.g., a husband is employed at the agency and his wife is offered the appointment of Managing Director. Neither the husband nor the wife must leave the agency. Although the organisation should make reasonable attempts to assure that the wife does not directly supervise her husband).

A person closely related by blood, marriage or significant relationship obtains employment with the same organisation as the result of displacement, recall or some other non-discretionary personnel action.

The employee served in a capacity other than Director, Managing Director, or personnel employee at the time the person closely related by blood, marriage or significant relationship was hired by the organisation (e.g., a sister and brother are both employed by an organisation and the sister achieves a promotion to the personnel area of the organisation. A conflict does not exist provided the sister does not process any personnel actions for her brother).

The employee is employed in the personnel section of a division or office, and a person closely related by blood or marriage is hired by the personnel section of another division or office.

A person closely related by blood or marriage or has other significant relationship including business association with the assistant director, deputy director or any person of equivalent rank other than the human resource administrator is not prohibited from working in the same organisation as long as the assistant director, deputy director or any person of equivalent rank does not participate in the hiring of the employee and has no direct line of supervision.

D. DEFINITIONS

"Employee" means any person who is elected or appointed to an office or is an employee of any public agency under the jurisdiction and control of the Governor or his appointees. Employee includes part-time interns, paid student help, temporary, intermittent and seasonal employees.

"Closely related by blood or marriage" is defined to include, but is not limited to a spouse, children, parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, in-laws, step-children, step-parents, step-grandparents, step-siblings, step-aunts, step-uncles, and other persons related by blood or marriage who reside in the same household.

"Significant relationship" means person's living together as a spousal or family unit when not legally married or related where the nature of the relationship may impair the objectivity or independence of judgment of one individual working with the other.

"Business associates" are defined as parties who are joined together in a relationship for business purposes or acting together to pursue a common business purpose or enterprise.

"Supervision" means the ability or power to effectively recommend the hire, transfer, suspension, layoff, recall, promotion, discharge, assignment, reward, discipline or settlement of disciplinary grievances/appeals of other public employees, including the authority of a board or committee to order personnel actions affecting the job.

 

PROCEDURES

The Office of Human Resources is responsible for requesting nepotism information and documenting any information received by the applicant employee. The checklist should always include nepotism information, as well as other information which must be valid to every new hire or transfer.

Every personnel action form for a new hire, promotion or transfer posted must include a representation that all items contained in the pre-hire review form were verified by either checking the box immediately above the appointing authority's signature on the forms or typing in a statement in the Remarks Section. Administrative Services will not process any personnel action for a new hire, promotion or transfer which does not include this representation.

 

ENFORCEMENT

The Office of Human Resources is responsible for ensuring that it is in adherence with the Nepotism Policy.

Any violations of the criminal or ethics laws should be reported to the immediate supervisor.

Any violations of the Ethics laws may also be reported to the Ethics Commission.

Anti-Nepotism 

Although an anti-nepotism policy never discriminates against an applicant based on the condition of being married or unmarried, it may exclude a person because of the particular identity of his or her spouse.

Whether spousal identity - as opposed to marital status - is a prohibited basis for discrimination is an unanswered question under many discrimination laws.

An unwritten law of many anti-nepotism policies maintains that relatives are not to be hired within the same office.

The problem with this is that even if relatives work at the same level they still would not be allowed to work together.

Anti-nepotism policies seem to imply that relatives and/or spousal partners have a major effect on productivity when placed in the same office.

Although there is no basis for this fact, many public and private agencies adopt anti-nepotism policies to guard against non-performance. 

Anti-Nepotism Case Study # 1

After they were married, the couple filed charges with the Human Rights Department based upon marital status.

The court found that the Police's anti-nepotism policy did not discriminate against the officer based upon their current marital status.

The male officer was not reassigned because he was married but because his spouse worked in the same unit.

Many anti-nepotism policies define marital partnership as those employees who live together.

It is said that individuals living in the same residence creates one household.

In turn, there is a conflict of interest because one household would be paid two salaries from the same organization.

This double-salary per household standard is unfair for those employees who wish to live together without being married. 

Strangely, anti-nepotism policies do not pertain to domestic partnership of the same sex.

Anti-Nepotism Case Study # 2

For example, two male employees living together would not be punished for violating anti-nepotism policies.

In contrast, employers always seem to have a problem when two employees of the opposite sex live together, and work in the same office but don't have that same problem with two people of the same sex working in the same office and living together.

This aspect of an anti-nepotism policy can be construed as anti-heterosexual. 

Another problem with anti-nepotism policies is that they apply to the private affairs of employees.

As a matter of fact, employees are not penalized for engaging with those who work in the same office.

A Circuit Court decided that an employee's intention to marry a co-worker was not the exercise of a statutory right.

Privacy 

What is privacy?

While the Constitution contains no expressed privacy provision, decisions of the Supreme Court beginning with its opinion have recognized the existence of an implied right of privacy.

Employees have the right to be protected from unreasonable intrusions into their private affairs.

The question here is what is unreasonable and what is private?

The meaning of "unreasonable" is up for grabs, because it means whatever the employee's expectation of privacy is. The Supreme Court recognized that public employees may have a legitimate expectation of privacy at their place of employment and that they do not lose their fourth amendment rights merely because they work for the government

What is Common Law invasion of privacy?

Aside from the Constitution, both public and private employers may be subject to liability under state judgement law (i.e., the "common law"). There are many different forms of invasion of privacy, few of which are relevant to the employment context. 

The unreasonable disclosure of personal facts is a form of invasion of privacy.

This form allows for the unnecessary disclosure, and circulation, of those matters concerning the private life of another to the public - that of which is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Under this premise, it is irrelevant that the facts disclosed may be true, and is based on the personal nature of the facts disclosed by employees.

Taking this into consideration, I take that the responsibilities of anti-nepotism policies requires that employees give up their right against unreasonable disclosure of facts.

Many anti-nepotism policies while management has an obligation to address nepotism when it occurs in the workplace, management may also not be aware of specific family or domestic relationships - which may create situations where nepotism occurs.

Therefore, the responsibility for identifying and addressing conflict of interest issues rests with public employees and supervisor, managers, or appointing authorities.

This responsibility for self-identification of possible conflict of interests begs the question of whether nepotism-issues invade the zone of personal privacy when it comes to the workplace.

Having to disclose your personal relationships constitutes a waiver of the privilege to keep your personal affairs to yourself. 

The unreasonable intrusion into the private affairs of another is a form of invasion of privacy.

An employer may be held liable if he/she intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another on private affairs or concerns.

It is not necessary that the employer learn anything embarrassing or private about the employees. 

Overall, there is a pattern of the judiciary demonstrating that there is almost no privacy in the workplace.

At least, when it comes to personal time vs. company time, anti-nepotism policies have upheld that while employees are clocked in, they have minimal to no rights to privacy.

For example, a law generally prohibits an employer from listening to a employees' phone calls. However, the Act may allow an employer to use an extension phone to monitor employee phone calls under some circumstances. 

Conclusion 

Seemingly, every workplace has confronted the issue of interpersonal or family relationships among its employees and the perception of unfairness that may result from such relationships.

With growing concerns about justice in the workplace, many employers have enabled anti-nepotism policies to prohibit employment actions based upon unfair favouritism rather than on legitimate employment qualifications. 

Although establishing an anti-nepotism policy may appear to be a quick and easy way to deal with interpersonal and family relationships in the workplace, employers should take heed of potential problems with such policies.

First, the policy should be applied so that it does not have a discriminatory effect on any protected class of employees.

Second, a broader policy may unnecessarily interfere with or intrude upon an employee's personal privacy rights. In an effort to avoid these problems, some anti-nepotism policies only prohibit employees who are related from supervising each other.

Even such drawn anti-nepotism policies, however, may violate state civil rights laws prohibiting marital status discrimination. 

If an employer decides to establish an anti-nepotism policy that affects spouses, the policy should be based upon reasonable and identifiable factors for preventing unfair favouritism and conflicts in the workplace.

The policy should provide adequate options for addressing favouritism concerns while balancing the concerns of the spouses.

Also, the policy should not be limited to spouses but should include any relationship (within personal privacy) that would create unfair favouritism or nepotism in the workplace. 

Anti-Nepotism Policy

Decisions concerning the employment, evaluation, promotion and compensation of academic personnel should be based in every instance on considerations of individual merit, and

 

Not on, favouritism or based on family or personal relationships between employees from the merit principle of employment, and

 

How, the risk of occurrence of such favouritism can be avoided by the advance establishment of general restrictions against the creation of situations where such favouritism could be operative; and

 

A common policy concerning the employment of related persons, applicable to personnel practices at all constituent institutions, is desirable,

 

Therefore, the organisation adopts the following Policy concerning the concurrent employment of related people:

 

Basic Principles

Consistent with the principle that organisation employees and prospective employees shall be evaluated on the basis of individual merit, without reference to considerations of race, sex, religion or national origin, or any other factors not involving personal professional qualifications and performance, the following restrictions, designed to avoid the possibility of favouritism based on family or personal relationship, shall be observed with respect to institutional personnel who are not subject to the State Personnel Act:

Related persons shall not serve concurrently within the organisation in any case where one such related person would occupy a position having responsibility for the direct supervision of the other related person.

With respect to proposed employment decisions which would result in the concurrent service of related persons within the same organisation, a person related to an incumbent employee may not be employed if the professional qualifications of other candidates for the available position are superior to those of the related person.

With respect to the concurrent service of related persons within the same organisation, neither related person shall be permitted, either individually or as a member of a faculty or as a member of a committee of a faculty, to participate in the evaluation of the other related person.

Definition of "Related Persons"

The following relationships are immediately invoked the prohibitions against concurrent service of related persons:

Parent or child

Brothers and sisters

Grandparent and grandchild

Aunt and/or uncle and niece and/or nephew

First cousins

Stepparent and stepchild

Stepbrothers and stepsisters

Husband and wife

Parents-in-law and children-in-law

Brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law

Guardian and ward

Persons engaged in numerous relationships; a numerous relationship exists when, without the benefit of marriage, two persons voluntarily have a sexual union or are engaged in a romantic courtship (e.g., dating or engaged to be married) that may or may not have been consummated sexually.

Effective Date

The provisions of this policy shall be applicable prospectively only, with reference to appointments made after the adoption date of the policy.

Employees Subject to the State Personnel Act

With respect to organisation employees who are subject to the State Personnel Act, applicable restrictions concerning the concurrent service of related persons shall be those adopted by the State Personnel Board.

Each employee shall report annually to the Board of Trustees, at the regular meeting falling closest to the date of commencement, concerning all specific cases during the preceding year in which the terms of this policy were applied.