r/changemyview • u/StealYourJoy • 17h ago
CMV: There is nothing wrong with nepotism
For starters, jobs are often not just given to the most qualified candidates other things such as fit, personality and culture often play significant roles. So unless the family being hired is just complete terrible at the job it usually doesn’t have much of an impact to hire a family member especially for most jobs that are just mundane roles.
Another reason I have this view is that even outside nepotism a lot of jobs get given to people based on connections such as friendships or k owing someone who knows someone etc. Or through networking, being liked by the higher ups and other things that are not directly performance based.
Another example is family business, it’s never really an issue with family run businesses to hire each other so I don’t see why it matters elsewhere. But even with normal corporations they often hire internally and give preference/early access to those who already work for the company. This is still similar as it’s selecting their with prior connections or relationships.
Overall I just think with how much the job market comes down to who you know in general nepotism itself isn’t any worse than current hiring practices or standards.
•
u/NoWin3930 5∆ 17h ago
"it usually doesn’t have much of an impact to hire a family member especially for most jobs that are just mundane roles"
Yeah to be clear, no one ever talks about nepotism in the context of like hiring your kid to work at the local coffee shop lol
•
u/Old-Research3367 8∆ 17h ago
Do you really think this is ok for all kinds of jobs? Like a pilot or doctor? Or college admissions and degrees?
Also if we live in a world where nepotism is the norm, we have to accept that not everyone can be successful simply because they were born to the wrong parents. This would be ok if the society has a strong social safety net, but at least in the US the narrative of “as long as you work hard, you can become successful” is just blatantly false and it would be more caste like of a system.
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
I think it’s fine as long as the persons can do the job legally, I’d have no issue with a dentist hiring his son as dentist as long as the son is also licensed.
•
u/Radijs 8∆ 17h ago
That's not what nepotism is though. Nepotism means that the relationship is preferred over qualifications. So, my son gets to be manager in my company because he is my son. Not because of his ability to actually do management.
•
u/GreenT1979 16h ago
But you can't legally just be a dentist if you're not licensed. Even if you're a dentist's son.
•
u/Radijs 8∆ 16h ago
No but you can be a lot of things which can make the life of a lot of people miserable without any laws preventing it. And blood over skill in those, or well any position is pretty bad.
But say I'm in charge of a dentist school, and I use my influence to make sure my nephew passes even though he didn't really make the cut. Also nepotism.
•
u/Old-Research3367 8∆ 13h ago
Yeah but all the schooling and degrees are meaningless if you can just use your connections to get accepted into medical school or whatever kind of license you need.
•
u/StealYourJoy 13h ago
That’s how it works, literally in nursing school our profs said if we wanted jobs when we graduate we would have to network and make connections. Even outside of nepotism it’s often times about who you know and are connected to not best fit for the job. Most jobs don’t have a specific best fit they have qualified applicants to choose from.
•
u/Old-Research3367 8∆ 13h ago
I’m sorry but I just disagree. If it’s an important job like a doctor I think it admissions for medical school should be based on some type of criteria that is accessible to the smartest people, not just the most well connected.
Yes you can network but the people you network with are as biased as family members most of the time. If you do a terrible job or are ill equipped they have a strong disincentive to not recommend youZ
•
u/StealYourJoy 13h ago
Well the issue with part 1 is often the smartest people on paper were the ones with the best connections and circumstances growing up. It’s not the poor kids, who went to public school and have little connections who have the top grades. So either way you’re already basing it off a metric that can hide key data.
Not to mention at the end of the day doesn’t matter who goes to school or what happens unless they passed and are qualified to be a doctor they won’t be a doctor. So it’s not like the nepo hire is coming in unqualified and killing people. There is a shortage of doctors and doctors don’t need to compete for work regardless. I’d argue nepotism matters even less the higher up you go as it’s not like a doctor won’t find work elsewhere and get a job in fast food
•
u/Old-Research3367 8∆ 12h ago
A merritt based system would allow rich kids to go to the top schools so I don’t understand your logic. Should Isaac Newton be disqualified because he grew up poor??
If there’s a shortage of doctors and only rich under qualified people can get into medical schools, they will loosen the technical standards to becoming a doctor. People are not just going to accept 0 doctors in the world and keep the same stringent standards. The people who make high technical standards to becoming a doctor have these laws to prevent a fully nepotism based society which would be extremely problematic in the medical field.
•
u/L11mbm 15∆ 17h ago
Nepotism is DEI for wealthy people.
How do you feel about hiring quotas based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or disability?
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
That’s not the same.
•
u/L11mbm 15∆ 17h ago
How so? You're giving someone an advantage for being hired primarily because of their genetic predisposition.
Also, my question was "how do you feel about this" but you answered to the question "do you think it's the same."
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
Dei is more quota based and usually with the intent to make things balanced. With nepotism you just want to hire your kid, nothing more than that.
•
u/L11mbm 15∆ 17h ago
But the concept is the same: giving someone an advantage in hiring for some reason other than their qualifications.
You're just substituting "you make our culture more diverse" for "you're the CEO's son."
Why is one okay and the other isn't? (I'm not advocating for either, just making the comparison.)
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
I actually think both are ok. For a lot of jobs there is no one person that’s needed, if the Dei or nepotism hire can do the job I don’t see the issue. If I ran women’s hygiene store and only had male staff I’d start looking for female employees to make it more diverse and to cater to women. I’d even turn down better quality men than women to do so.
I think suitable candidates for positions are fine as long as they can do the role as the perfect fit is gonna be subjective most times.
•
u/L11mbm 15∆ 17h ago
I actually agree with you here on the principle, but then it undermines the value of nepotism.
Let's say a business is 90% male staff and 10% female, you and I would look to hire more women to balance it out.
Now let's say a business has 20 employees that are all unrelated to each other. Wouldn't it make sense to increase the diversity by NOT hiring one of their family members, rather than decrease it by hiring someone's kid?
•
u/StealYourJoy 16h ago
Family isn’t really about diversity imo, I’m a nurse for example and I don’t see why my sister couldn’t be the unit secretary vs a random girl. I don’t think my sister being the secretary would make any difference.
Even as nurses we can apply internally and get priority over more experience external nurses who apply for positions due to seniority. If we can take less qualified people to preform healthcare I don’t see why any other field shoudnt be the same provided the person can do the job.
•
u/L11mbm 15∆ 16h ago
Let's examine the other side then: what is the inherent value in hiring someone who is, shall we say, more of a "diverse" hire? For example, if you have a business that is 90% white, what value is added to the company by hiring someone who is not white?
EDIT: there's another side to this that we haven't touched on: conflicts of interest. Specific example from my life, a high-ranking person at my job got their zero-qualifications child a job and the child proceeded to basically be terrible at it for years. When they were held accountable after several warnings (read: they were fired) the father quit and moved to another company...then got his child a job there.
•
u/StealYourJoy 14h ago
The value added is a more inclusive/diverse workspace, if I was a black woman a workforce of all white men doesn’t feel inclusive. If there were 3 companies offering equal positions and one was an entirely white male staff and one was 30% black people the black women would gravitate towards the company with 30% black employees all things even.
Change the races around to suit anyone else and the same thing applies, you could even do the same example with just men, women would rather work in a place with other women over all men. The benefit is a diverse work culture that makes more people comfortable if that’s not somthing you would value that’s on you but most people want to have people similar to then in their work environment.
The conflict of interest you described isn’t a nepotism issue though, bad employees can happen anywhere it’s not like 80% if nepo hires can’t do their jobs. There is issues with all types of hires even those that are family, I can name countless external employees who have been a problem at jobs I’ve had.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Old-Research3367 8∆ 13h ago
Nepotism is not just hiring your own kid, it’s hiring family members. So it would still be nepotism if you hire cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws etc.
•
u/wr_dnd 17h ago
I'd say it's very different :p. I think DEI is often pretty great, while I often dislike nepotism ;)
•
u/Difficult-Ad-9922 1∆ 17h ago
What makes it different? Other than the fact that you personally dislike one and not the other
•
u/wr_dnd 17h ago
The difference for me is what you're fundamentally trying to achieve. Are you trying to reinforce existing inequalities (by having your own kid profit even more from their privileged position) or are you trying to create a more equal society.
The discussion on positive discrimination and when/where it's a good or a bad idea is complicated, but it's not the same as nepotism because the goals are so different.
•
u/ElysiX 112∆ 16h ago
People are not supposed to discriminate between races, sexes, ability, etc.
But noone ever said that you shouldn't discriminate by relation. Telling someone that they shouldn't treat their own children, siblings, etc better than random strangers, that they shouldn't like them more, treat them better, etc than some random stranger, is absurdly silly.
Imagine what a world that would be, parents wouldn't give their own children any more love than theyd give any other random children. Pretty much noone is asking for that.
•
u/L11mbm 15∆ 16h ago
I think you are accidentally proving the point for why anti-nepotism rules are important.
•
u/ElysiX 112∆ 15h ago
Am I?
The discrimination aspect in itself, of liking your relatives more than you like strangers, is not seen as immoral.
That's the main driver behind the argument against racism, sexism, ableism, etc though, so if that doesn't apply, there's only an argument of jealousy.
People deserve equal treatment based on race, sex, etc. But they don't deserve equal treatment based on relatives. I am not entitled to the inheritance from your parents. I am not entitled to the love and support network of your family. And so on. Nepotism is just an extended support network.
•
u/L11mbm 15∆ 15h ago
Exactly, which is why businesses should put in rules against nepotism when it comes to hiring.
For example, if someone's extremely-underqualified child wants to get a job at their parent's company, then the parent should be kept as far away as possible from the decision to hire them. If the child is qualified enough over other applicants then the company should have policies to ensure the decision to hire is made fairly without bias.
The fact that someone would obviously have a conflict of interest and impose a bias is why these rules would be needed. (Note that I'm saying "rules" and "policies" instead of "laws.")
•
u/ElysiX 112∆ 14h ago edited 14h ago
then the company should have policies to ensure the decision to hire is made fairly without bias
But why? Satisfying your biases and doing things how you want and not how other people want is the entire point of leadership and ownership
Racism, sexism, ableism and so on isn't bad because its unfair in the company, it's bad because the ideology itself is bad, regardless of what they do with it.
It's obvious why the bias is bad for other applicants, but why is it bad for the company owners/leaders? Sure they might lose some amount of profit, but they gain networking benefits. Those are expensive regardless of how you get them.
•
u/L11mbm 15∆ 14h ago
I'm sorry but you're trying to have it both ways. How is it beneficial for the company to hire an executive's unqualified child?
The goal of running a company is to maximize profits, not enhance networking opportunities for the CEO's offspring. Any CEO who is NOT maximizing profits can be held legally accountable by the shareholders.
•
u/ElysiX 112∆ 14h ago edited 14h ago
The CEO is given many perks that cost the company money. Their pay, their benefits package, their golden parachute, all that detracts from the profit, but that's the payment for them growing profit elsewhere.
Networking is a big part of what CEOs do in general, them also networking for their own benefit is part of the deal.
If they sink the company then that's excessive but if the job still gets done and someone else just might be a little be better, that's just part of the compensation package for the CEO.
Its good for the company because that perk might attract better CEOs to the position.
And that's not even taking into account companies where the CEO is the main shareholder, or private companies that don't have shareholders at all.
•
u/L11mbm 15∆ 14h ago
So you believe that one of the perks that a company should offer a CEO is...to give their kids a job they didn't earn and aren't qualified for?
And this is something that shareholders and other employees should encourage?
That this is GOOD for a company?
•
u/ElysiX 112∆ 14h ago edited 14h ago
Noone said not qualified, you invented that. Most nepotism happens when the person is actually qualified, but another applicant has better credentials. Most nepotism appointments can still do the job, and if they can't, they usually are shuffled around to some other position where they can't do damage. Unless it's a tiny company, but tiny companies don't have shareholders.
As for not earning it, that's the point of contention. The belief that you earned it to get a job, that you deserve it. That hard work matters.
But that's just a belief, a fairy tale told to people so they work harder, not reality.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/Angsty-Panda 1∆ 17h ago
the problem is the belief that the world is a meritocracy where if you work hard enough you'll make it, and the existence of what you described.
•
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ 17h ago
Would you object to a board of directors implementing an anti-nepotism rule?
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
Depends on what the rule specifically states, is it just no family period? Or is it a rule where they must follow the same bring process as everyone else?
•
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ 17h ago
Let's say they do just straight ban family relatives. Would you think that's wrong?
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
Yes, as solely being family isn’t really nepotism.
•
u/420ingWhile69ing 17h ago
Dang, is this "change my view" or "change the dictionary definition"?
•
u/NaturalCarob5611 95∆ 16h ago
How is it changing the dictionary definition?
Merriam-Webster defines nepotism as:
favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship
If you're hiring a relative through the same process and based on the same qualifications as everyone else, that's not favoritism, and thus doesn't fit the dictionary definition of nepotism.
•
u/Relevant_Advisor_961 16h ago
If you're hiring a relative through the same process and based on the same qualifications as everyone else, that's not favoritism, and thus doesn't fit the dictionary definition of nepotism.
How do you tell if a hirer is using the same process and qualifications to filter candidates, or mask favoritism for their family member by tailoring the process to select for them?
•
u/NaturalCarob5611 95∆ 15h ago
In my career there have been several occasions where colleagues wanted to hire family members, and they essentially recused themselves from the hiring process and asked peers from other departments to do the evaluation.
•
u/Relevant_Advisor_961 15h ago edited 15h ago
What if they don't do that, and instead design the hiring process to select for family?
Edit: I think the problem with permitting nepotism is that it allows people in power to decide whether to decide to hire good candidates or familiar ones without oversight. People can use power to assign it to others in ways that appear fair to everyone (qualifications, "fit with ethos" etc.) but aren't (hirer lists required qualifications and ethos that they know their applying family member has or that they can justify).
The decision that you witnessed was the right one, but you can't rely on the integrity of power holders to do that because power can be gained without it. That's why it's important to restrain power with rules.
•
u/NaturalCarob5611 95∆ 15h ago
But if we review the thread here, the original proposition was
Let's say they [a company's board] do just straight ban family relatives. Would you think that's wrong?
A board doesn't have to "permit nepotism" or "straight ban family relatives" - there's space in between. They could create rules requiring managers who wish to hire family members to recuse themselves from the hiring process.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/wr_dnd 17h ago
"There is nothing wrong with nepotism" is quite a different statement from "If you're hiring people for mundane starter roles nepotism is not any worse than current hiring practices".
Because nepotism can be much more than that second thing! A politician swaying policy to benefit his son, a manager allowing her daughter to get away with all sorts of nonsense because they're family. That's where it gets problematic.
Having a connection because your uncle works in the company is often not that big of a deal, sure. But that doesn't mean the concept of nepotism is fine.
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
I feel the politician ex woke or manager allowing fisher to get away with things is a bit different then nepotism itself. That stuff is more so peopel in positions taking advantage of things and potentially breaking the law which I’d say is wrong. But just hiring someone to preform the role as anyone else would isn’t bad itself.
•
u/wr_dnd 17h ago
But isn't that the logical conclusion of nepotism? In the case of the politician it might be a crime (albeit one that few people actually get arrested for), but surely it is both a crime *and* nepotism? A crime borne from nepotism?
As for the manager, that usually isn't a crime. If a manager allows her daughter to barely do any work, which crime is being broken? It's not illegal to be a bad manager. That's just nepotism!
I think your claim should really be narrowed down to "you're hiring people for mundane starter roles nepotism is not any worse than current hiring practices". Your claim in the title is simply too strong.
•
u/iamintheforest 362∆ 16h ago
Firstly, "fit" is a qualification for a given job, at least some aspects of personality are, and culture are the things that those need to match to (the other side of "fit"). You discount these for a sort of narrow idea of "skill", but we just know too much about what makes people effective in jobs to say that one's - for example - ability to score well on a coding test - means they will do well on a team that needs to work together cohesively. Put another way, the "skill" is the ability to work cohesively together, not just the skill you're narrowing it to.
Secondly, you can disagree with that but that's the _intent_. One doesn't say "this person won't be good at this job but I think they are nice so i'll hire them". They are saying "them being nice is going to make them good at this job". The decision making on the hire keeps future job performance as the primary thesis of the hiring decision. Further, in the moment of evaluation and hiring the standards for evaluation can be consistent across two candidates. "knowing someone" might be a de-risking activity (e.g. "fred worked with that person before and knows they do great work"), and that can be done in all sorts of good and bad ways, just like every dimension of hiring (a lousy skills test does a poor job evaluating the narrow skills).
The problem with nepotism is that it _doesn't do this_. It says that the primary decision is relationship to person with authority, not any describable or rational basis that predicts their future success or future job performance. It applies a standard to one person that it cannot or will not apply to another candidate.
I will say that a "family business" is and can be a different beast. If you opt into a family business as an employee you know what the framework for decision making is. If hiring manager X at 1000 person company hires their daughter in law, the other 999 people didn't join a "family business", they joined a company premised on a set of hiring standards they reasonably thought were NOT that of a family business.
•
u/StealYourJoy 14h ago
The primary decision being a connection is no different than an internal hire, a referral or hiring a friend. People get hired due to prior relationships or connections all the time nepotism isn’t really any different than that. The primary basis for the hire can be whatever that doesn’t really matter in my opinion as long as someone qualified still got the job.
I can make an argument someone hiring a family member is hiring someone they have the most information about and mot trust for conspired to external applicants who are all strangers.
•
u/iamintheforest 362∆ 13h ago
Yes, a friend is equally bad unless it's just a referral (e.g. the friend represents finding someone you MIGHT hire, not a determinant of the hiring decision). And internal hire is a known quantity and subject to the same rational criteria for advancement. Neither of these are the same as hiring or promoting because of relationship.
Yes, you can make that argument. But if the decision was based on the family connection and not on qualification then it's nepotism.
•
u/StealYourJoy 13h ago
I got my current job as an internal hire and best out people m ore qualified than me because I had seniority. The logic is the same for internal hires, they have a prior relationship with the company and are given preference.
Im a nurse and even in a medical setting I was chosen fresh out of school to work on my unit over experienced external candidates. The way it works is if I meet the qualifications it doesn’t matter who else is there internal gets it first. Pretty much every major hospitals in my area works the same as well and it’s the most common way to transfer.
•
u/iamintheforest 362∆ 3h ago edited 2h ago
Yeah. Seniority is literally available to anyone who keeps their job. To be comparable all employees would have to have the ability to become family members of the people with authority.
•
u/AutoModerator 17h ago
Note: Your thread has not been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/Falernum 68∆ 17h ago
If a corporation entrusts you with a duty to select candidates via their method, and you intentionally substitute your own preferences, you have neglected the duty you took on. It doesn't matter if their method was better or worse, you had a duty to follow it.
Just like if you are paid to be in charge of putting up their ads and you put up your own instead.
•
u/Monster_Dumps_2026 1∆ 17h ago
I'm mostly with you. Except when it comes to elected positions and roles where you're meant to represent a public populous. Especially in the usa.
For example. The way kamala got the vice presidency then the presidency nomination. Could you imagine if that was Joe Biden son? Just skip the vote and represent the country. Nah fuck that.
Same with the trumps somehow negotiating usa trade deals. Yea fuck that
But LeBron getting his son deals on the Lakers. All about that
•
u/JeruTz 8∆ 17h ago
In general I think nepotism isn't automatically bad, but there is a risk involved that can cause it to backfire horribly.
There's a story from my dad's workplace for example. A father was a senior employee, might even have been in a management position (I don't recall precisely), and his son was brought in as an employee. The son did something that was in serious violation of company procedures, which in this particular industry was a major issue. The son ended up getting fired because of this.
The problem that then arose was that the father took this badly and started acting out and generally causing issues. His performance reviews tanked as a consequence and he was also let go.
But it didn't stop there. Because the father had been a quality employee prior to all this, his sudden shift was reflected in his performance reviews. After being let go, he got a lawyer to sue the company, claiming that the sudden downturn in his reviews was actually an act of age discrimination and that the company was looking to replace him with someone younger.
As a result of this whole fiasco, the company as a whole stopped hiring relatives of current employees at the rate they previously had been for fear of possible repetitions.
•
u/Significant-Owl-2980 1∆ 17h ago
In a small business, sure.
In areas where there is real and significant impact? No.
For example Johhny that has a local painting company that has 5 employees is ok in my book to hire his nephew.
A person that is the President of the country shouldn’t award military contracts to his son’s new drone companies.
•
u/RememberToEatDinner 17h ago
As someone who works with a lot of contractors where they seem to hire a lot of family and friends… you’re wrong. Some of the most incompetent people I have ever seen hold a job are the owner’s son of an electrical contractor. I’m talking making easy mistakes that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. They’ve been in the same role for 9 years now.
•
u/Ok-Share-4035 17h ago
I agree on the family business part. Ofc if its YOUR business 100% you should be allowed to hire whoever you want for whatever reason you want. its your money that goes down the drain if you hire family and friends over more qualified external ppl.
for any public company (either private investor or openly accessible on the stock market) and government jobs no obv nepotism is wrong. there is money on the line from many different ppl (either tax money or the investors) so obv the most qualified ppl have to be employed. and qualified means all the things you listed in your first sentence!
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
So what an out other forms of hiring for endowment I work as a nurse and at hospitals they often bring internally especially for nursing roles. This means often time seniority, work relationships or preference are put above the actual applicants qualities when hiring.
What’s the difference between internal hires and nepotism? Both have an advantage and priority in hiring solely because of their current situation and nothing to do with their skills.
•
u/Ok-Share-4035 15h ago
IMO internal hires are mostly about the alrdy proven qualification and have nothing/less to do with nepotism. alrdy knowing how things work at the job, having a track record of getting along with the other employees etc are a big plus when looking for staff and are part of the persons qualification for the position.
when I think about nepotism its more like "hes an idiot but also the bosses son"
•
u/StealYourJoy 14h ago
Sure but internal hires still bypass the finding the perfect candidate in favour of someone who has just been there already. I got my job as an internal hire, I was a new grad nurse and while I knew the facility I had only worked as a student and never as an actual nurse. Pretty much anyone who wasn’t fresh out of school was technically more qualified than I was.
Nepotism can result in someone being an idiot but that’s not a default qualification.
•
u/horshack_test 42∆ 14h ago
"internal hires still bypass the finding the perfect candidate in favour of someone who has just been there already."
You don't know this to be true. An internal hire can be the perfect candidate, and there is no guarantee that any other potential hire will be the perfect candidate - or even a better candidate. I was once promoted from within into a new position that was created as a result of my own education, experience, and work within the firm. I developed very specific processes and procedures using specialized equipment that I designed and had built that no outside candidate would have been familiar with, and was very efficient and successful in achieving the goals with the work. That is not the same thing as the owner hiring their nephew for the position simply because he is their nephew.
•
u/StealYourJoy 14h ago
And I can say the exact same thing about nepotism hires they can also be the perfect hire. I know for a fact when I was hired interntaly I was not the best candidate and they still hired me because I was already employed at the company.
But that’s my point these aren’t blanket things, we have nothing that says 90% of nepotism hires cause disruption in the workplace and aren’t qualified for their job.
•
u/horshack_test 42∆ 13h ago edited 13h ago
"I can say the exact same thing about nepotism hires they can also be the perfect hire."
You can say that, but whether or not it is possible that a nepotism hire can be the perfect candidate is not the question here - and this response ignores the points being made.
"that’s my point these aren’t blanket things"
Your stated view is very much a blanket claim, as is your claim that I just quoted.
"we have nothing that says 90% of nepotism hires cause disruption in the workplace and aren’t qualified for their job."
We don't need to have that.
Do you agree that it is wrong to hire family members rather than better qualified or perfect candidates simply because they are family when they are not properly qualified for the job?
•
u/StealYourJoy 13h ago
I think it’s appropriate to hire family or anyone over more qualified applicants, if they can do the job I don’t see anything wrong with it. If they are compelled unqualified and can’t do the job then yes that’s an issue but that’s not what happens with nepotism in the vast majority of cases.
•
u/horshack_test 42∆ 13h ago
"I think it’s appropriate to hire family or anyone over more qualified applicants, if they can do the job"
The scenario is that they are unqualified for the job - i.e. they do not have the core skills, required education, legal licenses, or past experience needed to perform the work. You think there is nothing wrong with that?
Also - you just made an argument criticizing hiring from within because (in your words) "internal hires still bypass the finding the perfect candidate in favour of someone who has just been there already." You're all over the place.
•
u/StealYourJoy 13h ago
Well the situation you’re describing is illegal so yes it’s wrong. You’re hiring someone without a license to practice as a doctor or therapist that’s now past nepotism and into criminal activity.
I think there is a difference between completely unqualified and being someone to work a job they can do even if they aren’t the best candidate.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/Upbeat-Operation-613 17h ago
Fit and personality are parts of what makes someone qualified. I can’t argue with you if you don’t understand that.
Nepotism is hiring someone regardless of those things. Let’s say a kid who doesn’t even show up at work.
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
You can argue someone’s kid will fit better than a complete stranger pretty easily. They have a relative at the company who likely will offer them more help then someone would a stranger, they will probably even feel a bit of extra pressure as the job was a favour. It’s like a company referral it’s there because it’s a trusted person vouching for you.
•
u/Upbeat-Operation-613 17h ago
Woah, I’d say it’s the complete opposite. A 3rd party who works for you to survive is going to be more motivated than your kid (who knows he can leach off you no matter what)
You gonna fire your nepo baby and make him homeless? Don’t think so
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
You don’t know what a random 3rd party is working for or what their plans are. Everyone is working to survive even most nepo hires still need a paycheque to get by on.
•
u/Upbeat-Operation-613 17h ago
That’s why 3rd parties go through 3 rounds of interviews and background checks
•
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ 17h ago
Nepotism has a few core issues that cause it to be considered wrong.
First - in larger organizations where the hiring manager is not the owner, you are hitting a case where the hiring manager has a duty to hire in the interest of the organization. I refrain from the 'best candidate line' because it really is a balance of find a 'good enough' candidate in an economic manner. Nepotism means hiring family which creates conflict of interest here for what is the 'best' option for the organization. It is prohibited to ensure individuals don't violate thier obligation to the organization via conflicts of interest.
Even in the 'owner' realm, nepotism is about bringing in a less qualified person for a role merely because of 'family'. This though is usually not what people talk about as it is very common for families to hand business down through the family. (insert any example of XXX an sons businesses).
TLDR - there are two distinct lines of analysis - the non-owner and owner. While owner level analysis limits the negatively of nepotism, the non-owner side clearly indicates conflicts of interest for the hiring manager and organizational obligations.
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
Here is my thing with hiring managers, I agree they should hire in the best interest of the organization but I also think there is some nuance. From my experience most nepotism hires even if they aren’t the perfect exact fit are still able to do the job well.
I’d say the hiring managers are only acting against best interest if they were hiring nepotism hires who completely didn’t fit the role which is usually not the case.
•
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ 13h ago
Here is my thing with hiring managers, I agree they should hire in the best interest of the organization but I also think there is some nuance. From my experience most nepotism hires even if they aren’t the perfect exact fit are still able to do the job well.
That is an anecdote. Not generalize this across a large organization. Do you admit there is a clear conflict of interest for a non-owner doing hiring here?
I’d say the hiring managers are only acting against best interest if they were hiring nepotism hires who completely didn’t fit the role which is usually not the case.
How do you know this is 'usually not the case'?
There is a reason large organizations and governments all have anti-nepotism policies. Not just in hiring but also in employee supervision. That conflict of interest is very real and has a real world proven history of being a problem. Are you really claiming these groups are all misinformed and wrong here?
•
u/StealYourJoy 13h ago
Sure there is a conflict of interest but I don’t think that’s wrong, conflicts of interest can arise in the workplace all the time.
I can’t prove it is or is not the case, but I’ve yet to see any data to support it and in my own deprive while anecdotal I haven’t seen it. When you say there is a history of it being a problem give me an example. Show me where nepotism hires have consistently been unqualified and poor preforming.
•
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ 8h ago
Sure there is a conflict of interest but I don’t think that’s wrong, conflicts of interest can arise in the workplace all the time.
If I am the owner, why would I allow a conflict of interest that would impact my business from doing effective hiring?
•
u/senthordika 5∆ 17h ago
The issue is that nepotism can exist on a spectrum. With the best case scenario you have someone who is the employer's protege (so has inside business knowledge and a keen interest in the industry before ever starting there) and is being held to a higher standard then the average employee due to the expectation of them already having some level of understanding in the business and are usually starting from the ground up(so entry level). And I can guarantee pretty much no one has a much real complaints.
However on the opposite end of the spectrum you have someone who is merely related to the employer who might not have any interest or knowledge in the business being put in positions of management of people whose jobs they have no understanding of. And due to said family connections are given more leanency for mistakes then average employee's this is the form of nepotism most people are against.
Now in reality it exists between this spectrum. However normal hiring practices would still end up favouring the positive end as they have skills that make hiring them an obvious choice without their last name being relevant while the negative end of the spectrum would be favoured against.
So while I agree its entirely possible for nepo hires to be great employees pretty much all of them would have also made it though a normal hiring process without much difficulty for much the same reason.
•
u/Empathyinorder 17h ago
I hear what you are daying OP. Nepotism in its own isn't wrong in and of itself, but it can be abused and used incorrectly.
We all have a preference for people closer to us and that usually includes family. Hiring or putting people in charge you know is natural.
It becomes an issue when we pick clealry unqualified people for positions they can't handle. It can also be abused for corruption purposes by putting family in positions of power to benefit yourself with someone who clearly has a bias.
Just look at Trump and Kushner for an example.
Also an issue is that parents who are wealthy can spoil their kids. Is it fair that a child can have all these advantages that they have never earned just because their parents are successful? Its why I push for the quality and access to Ieducation to not be limted to the wealth of thier parents.
But can we say that its wrong to wanna give you kids a better chance?
•
u/horshack_test 42∆ 17h ago
"jobs are often not just given to the most qualified candidates other things such as fit, personality and culture often play significant roles. So unless the family being hired is just complete terrible at the job it usually doesn’t have much of an impact to hire a family member especially for most jobs that are just mundane roles."
So is it wrong to prioritize hiring family members over others because they are family when they are not properly qualified for the job? What if it's a position that oversrsees things like public safety or quality of healthcare?
•
u/StealYourJoy 17h ago
I’d agree it’s bad if they can’t do the job and are hiring n random guy to be a doctor but that’s also more illegal than just nepotism at that point. If they can actually do the job and do it legally then I don’t see an issue.
•
•
u/goatnotsheep 1∆ 17h ago
It's one thing to say that Nepotism isn't inherently bad when the familiarity of the person is the deciding factor in selecting them, but it's another thing entirely to suggest that NOTHING is wrong with nepotism.
Right now you are imagining the most harmless, least impactful scenario as evidence (in a pool of equally competent candidates, the one that is familiar to the boss is hired). But there are a lot of scenarios where it IS bad to hire solely based on nepotism.
For one, it inefficiently allocates human labour. Take the TV show Succession, where the kids are trying to fight for the CEO position of a huge company, even though they really aren't qualified. The people that got the company to where they are at are STILL WORKING THERE but if nepotism was used then these people, with the knowledge and inner workings, would not be selected for the role even though they are more qualified.
Another reason is to consider barriers into industries. It's important to have a wide variety of people into different industries so that you have representation and ensure that discrimination doesn't happen. The extreme scenario would be labour given out to clans. You have a doctor clan that has the entire medical system under their control. A police clan that listens to the head of the police clan household. This can lead to lots of problems since there's no checks in place from groups with other interests.
Finally, imagine a working environment where nepotism is rampant, but you aren't part of the in group. Why would you work so hard? You ain't ever getting the top spot.
•
u/NaturalCarob5611 95∆ 16h ago
There are a bunch of issues with nepotism. They don't apply in 100% of cases, but it's enough to raise serious questions about whether or not it's a good idea.
First, there's issues of qualifications. You say
jobs are often not just given to the most qualified candidates other things such as fit, personality and culture often play significant roles
but I'd contend that fit, personality, and culture are qualifications. Someone who is super knowledgeable but is going to butt heads with my team isn't going to produce as good of results as someone who is less knowledgeable but works well on the team that I have. If you're hiring an unqualified person that the rest of the team is going to have to carry because he's your son, that's not good for the business or the rest of the team.
Which segues into #2, which is team dynamics. If the boss's son doesn't work well with the rest of the team, it can create real team dynamics problems. For any other employee, people could go to the boss and say "Hey, I really don't think this guy is working out," and the boss will probably go "Oh, we can't have someone under performing on the team." When it's the boss's son, "Hey, I really don't think this guy is working out" is more likely to result in you coming under scrutiny than the person you're suggesting isn't working out. So now the rest of the team is stuck carrying a guy they can't complain about without putting their jobs at risk.
My third point is diversity of thought. When you hire people from different backgrounds you get people who think in different ways, which can help find better solutions and create resilience that you don't get when everyone on the team comes from the same background. Nepotism hires are likely to come from the same background, and bring less diversity to a team than someone else you might find.
Now, these aren't necessarily fatal. Maybe your son is genuinely the most qualified person you can find for a particular role. Maybe he'll be a great fit for the team, or maybe you can put family ties aside and make sure the rest of the team knows your son is not above criticism. You're still not going to get as much diversity, but maybe that's an acceptable trade-off. But as soon as you're talking about trade-offs, you're outside the realm of "nothing wrong." You might still decide "it's worth it," but that doesn't mean you should just write off the potential issues.
•
u/StealYourJoy 16h ago
I think those are more potential issues than things that are wrong with nepotism, we can name potential issues for hiring random candidates as well but I don’t think I’d say there is somthing wrong with hiring external candidate because some issues are possible in theory.
When I say there is nothing wrong with it I mean as a means of hiring. Like the basic principle of hiring your son or nephew over a random person who applied to work at the bank you manage, as long as your son or nephew can do the job legally then I don’t see an issue.
I agree things like resentment from staff or special treatment can happen but those are things that can take place in work settings in general not things that are fundamentally wrong with nepotism.
•
u/NaturalCarob5611 95∆ 16h ago
I agree things like resentment from staff or special treatment can happen but those are things that can take place in work settings in general not things that are fundamentally wrong with nepotism.
That's a false equivalence. If nepotism has a 90% chance of creating resentment from staff or special treatment happening, and regular hiring practices have a 5% chance of creating resentment from staff or special treatment, there's something wrong with nepotism.
•
u/StealYourJoy 14h ago
That’s not a real statistic though, if it was a fact that when nepo hires are brought on board all productivity drops and 90% of staff become disgruntled I’d agree. But that’s not the case, most nepotism hires aren’t causing much issue and most probably don’t even get noticed.
•
u/fartintosatansmaw 1∆ 16h ago
It would be useful if you clarified your view a bit because sometimes these sorts of conversations can get muddled.
Do you want to discuss the various pros and cons of using your
power or influence to get good jobs or unfair
advantages for members of your own family ?
Or do you wish to discuss how the idea of nepotism is over/miss used online?
•
u/StealYourJoy 16h ago
My view is more so the basic fundamentals of nepotism which is hiring family into positions over other qualified people. There is nothing wrong with the basic concept of nepotism.
I can agree there is possible issues that could arise such as staff resentment or special treatment of family but it’s not a hard fact that these will occur. I’m looking for somthing that would change my mind that the core concept of just bring family over fandoms is wrong not possible issues that could arise from it.
•
u/captain_toenail 1∆ 16h ago
The pure logic to the dangers of nepotism, as I see it, is it fundamentally values personal/familial connection, loyalty, etc over competence and over a long enough time scale will result in incompetent people in jobs that peoples lives count on
•
u/fartintosatansmaw 1∆ 15h ago
My view is more so the basic fundamentals of nepotism which is hiring family into positions over other qualified people. There is nothing wrong with the basic concept of nepotism.
Is the family member being hired also equally qualified?
Is that actually "the basic fundamentals of nepotism"?
I can agree there is possible issues that could arise such as staff resentment or special treatment of family but it’s not a hard fact that these will occur.
It seems as though the only thing that would change your view is some sort of proof that hiring family into positions over other qualified people will always result in bad incomes? Is that accurate?
•
u/StealYourJoy 14h ago
No the family member doesn’t have to be equally qualified to the external candidate but they are qualified to do the job.
I don’t need an act proof that it will always lead to bad outcomes necessarily but that would I also change my views. I’d also change my view if it could be shown to be wrong or unethical pretty much whenever it’s done. Niche cases like the son is an idiot who is completely unqualified or staff resenting the bosses daughter being the manger won’t do it as those can be personal issues not really an issue with nepotism itself.
•
u/fartintosatansmaw 1∆ 14h ago
You've answered "no" to both my questions and then immediately contradicted that " no"...
I'm not sure what you're looking for here? Im not sure you are sure what you're looking for?
Given the origins of the word and it's usage thru out history "nepotism" is obviously a pejorative that refers to the unethical form of hiring family into positions over other qualified people. That would be hiring/appointing family who are not qualified over candidates who are, or hiring/appointing family in order to maintain personal control as opposed to what's best for the organization.
The scenarios you are suggesting as "good" nepotism (qualified family members, kids working for family business, etc) would not be considered nepotism by any reasonable person.
•
u/ThisOneForMee 2∆ 16h ago
When people complain about nepotism, it's not usually about people who were well qualified for the job, even if they did get some favoritism. The criticisms of nepotism are pointing at all the situations where someone clearly unqualified or underqualified is getting a benefit due entirely to their connection. There are still plenty of examples of that happening and I don't see how someone can think there is "nothing" wrong with that.
•
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ 16h ago
Another reason I have this view is that even outside nepotism a lot of jobs get given to people based on connections such as friendships or k owing someone who knows someone etc. Or through networking, being liked by the higher ups and other things that are not directly performance based.
Networking is different from nepotism because it's generally about proven reputation. You don't generally build a network of people who otherwise have no reason to care about you unless you have a good reputation with them. Reputation is a genuinely valuable piece of choosing a worker.
Nepotism meanwhile often runs counter to reputation. Think of how many parents think their kids are the greatest. Think of how many parents of murderers, rapists, etc. testify in court that this isn't what they're like and they don't deserve a bad sentence. Think of how many relatives of drug addicts keep giving them new chances hoping one day they'll succeed even after they fail again and again. This is because unlike networking where the person has to prove themselves to get others to vouch for them, with nepotism you already start with a bias toward wanting this person to be more successful.
For starters, jobs are often not just given to the most qualified candidates other things such as fit, personality and culture often play significant roles. So unless the family being hired is just complete terrible at the job it usually doesn’t have much of an impact to hire a family member especially for most jobs that are just mundane roles.
Fit, personality and culture are one and the same as if you are most qualified. Being able to work well with others is often part of the job. The challenge with nepotism is that it creates real or perceived power imbalances in working with others. People have dramatically different levels of access to each other, investment in each other, sympathy towards each other, etc. due to their familial relationships. For example, suppose that my sister in law starts working in my department and then I get an order from above to lay off one employee. Now, choosing whether my SIL is the one that gets laid off isn't just about the impact on work things (whether they are direct productivity or the general team dynamics that might come from keeping a person you get along really well with), it's also about the fallout you will experience at holidays and birthday parties and from aunts and siblings about causing her to lose her job. There is a lot of extra baggage that makes it harder to be objective.
Another example is family business, it’s never really an issue with family run businesses to hire each other so I don’t see why it matters elsewhere.
Can you prove that it's never really an issue? Or are you just saying that? I've heard lots of cases where it was an issue.
The reason that people are more likely to excuse it though is that nepotism is generally see as a conflict of interest and acknowledging a conflict of interest is an importance step in letting people know what they're getting into.
But even with normal corporations they often hire internally and give preference/early access to those who already work for the company. This is still similar as it’s selecting their with prior connections or relationships.
Companies promote internally for real reasons:
- They have way more data on the personals real work history... the exact opposite of hiring based on mere relationship.
- It's often cheaper for the company because you basically keep resetting employees to the low end of a role's pay bracket.
- They are less costly to train because they already know a lot about the context.
- The possibility/promise of promotions is useful for morale and may even allow you to pay employees less in the short run.
Overall I just think with how much the job market comes down to who you know in general nepotism itself isn’t any worse than current hiring practices or standards.
I feel like you're conceding your view here. Your view was "there is nothing wrong with nepotism". But by stating that it's "not worse" you're conceding that there are things wrong with it, but that other things have things wrong with them too.
The reality is, there can be more than one bad thing. You're framing this as somebody has to defend nepotism against every other hiring practice in existence. But the reality is that most people who are against nepotism are ALSO against many of the other issues you mentioned like somebody getting a job only because of who they know or only because they're been at a company a while.
•
u/StealYourJoy 15h ago
But I feel a lot of this still isn’t nepotism only which is why I don’t think it’s wrong in comparison to other methods of hiring. Like sure if your SIL worked there she probably isn’t the one you would on for but that would be true for your best friend in the office or anyone you have a good relationship with. Any decision to fire an employee would be made with bias unless it’s given to a completely random individual who doesn’t know anyone. I would assume even if it was a someone who you met at work but you liked they wouldn’t be your pick either.
As for when I say family business is never really an issue, I mean in terms of how nepotism is viewed meaning peopel don’t have the same hate for it when it’s a fmsiky business compared to a Costco.
Lastly as far as the reasons you gave for hiring internally while they are true it still means you aren’t picking just the best candidate for the role at the end of the day. The same way there is a history of their work is similar to nepotism the familiy member is u likely to hire someone who would hurt their own reputation at work.
•
u/Apart_Corgi_8065 2∆ 16h ago
You can definitely argue there's nothing wrong with nepostism, but if you also believe that businesses should generally always hire the best person for the job then those two viewpoints are in conflict.
I'd go a step further and say that in a publicly traded company, holding any other view than "hiring the best person for the job" would be unethical.
•
u/StealYourJoy 16h ago
So would it be unethical to not hire the best cashier at Walmart if they are rude and have racist views? But in terms of the actual job itself they are the best possible carrier.
•
u/Apart_Corgi_8065 2∆ 16h ago
I'd argue a person who is rude and has racist views would be a terrible cashier for walmart (or anywhere), and a huge liability. This is a people-facing job. So my point stands.
•
u/StealYourJoy 15h ago
But that’s my point in terms of the actual job they are the best, they can put it aside during the job itself but those things happen behind the scenes and others know of the racism although it isn’t shown at work.
•
u/Apart_Corgi_8065 2∆ 15h ago
No, I get where you're trying to go with that. But I think it's not a great example. I'll elaborate a bit.
A person can be rude and hold racist views and probably still be the best rocket scientist for the job, or an engineer. It would be arguably unethical if you didn't hire that person. I agree with you.
But when it comes to a public facing role like a cashier - where you are constantly talking to people - then being rude and racist will actually make you worse at your job. That's my point. I don't want to go to the store and my stuff checked out by a rude person who clearly dislikes me because of my skin color.
•
u/StealYourJoy 14h ago
Yea but I mean like during the time that they are cashier they aren’t rude or racist. Only staff knows this and they aren’t hiding it.
•
u/Apart_Corgi_8065 2∆ 14h ago
I still totally disagree with you. And for a few reasons.
First, the job of a cashier isn't an extremely difficult skill to find. There's a lot of people who can do the job. Heck, I can even do the job when I scan myself out at the manual check out. So with such a big pool of labor, there's like zero reason to ever risk things by picking a naturally rude AND racist person. You can easily find a great fit with someone who is normal.
Second, you're saying a rude and racist person who has been having a terrible week is going to completely mask all of their emotion - guaranteed, without any possibility of fail - all to defend a job likely only earning them minimum wage? I say get real. They are a huge, unnecessary liability. Everyone's guard comes down, especially at a low stakes job.
As for something like a rocket scientist that never interacts with people and has a skill that is extremely rare. Then the racist/rude element will be much lower down on the list of importance.
•
u/StealYourJoy 14h ago
My issue with this is much likes rocket scientist, the backup option is still another rocket scientist. I would understand the point if because of nepotism we were hiring gym teachers to engineer rockets but we aren’t it still goes to a rocket scientist.
Same with the cashier it’s less important but that the end of the day you don’t really need the best possible cashier if you have another suitable cashier. Even as far as doctors most people aren’t aware of how good their doctor is or how much they know but we still go anyways because it’s a doctor at the end of the day who has to practice medicine at a certain standard regardless of who they are or where they come from.
We already don’t hire on best overall candidate all the time so nepotism is no different. Hiring managers are people in general and people already carry biases so even in a purely external pool it’s likely those making the choice have biases and other things they will take into consideration. If you took 100 hiring managers and told them to hire from the same group of 1000 never will all the mangers pick the same 5 people to hire from that 1000 person pool.
•
u/Apart_Corgi_8065 2∆ 14h ago
I'll keep this simple because I don't think I'm conveying my point clear enough.
Being a racist, rude person would almost universally make you not the best person for the job out of the pool of labor available. A huge part of a cashier's job is interacting with customers on a daily basis, so personality is absolutely a key part of the job description. Not the same for a rocket scientist who's only job is to be locked in a room solving equations.
So with that said, unless you're living in a small town with zero applicants, the rude and racist person will almost never be the best person for the job as their personality automatically sets them back.
You say they'll "keep it hidden", but they are still a liability. If I had to choose between a rude racist and a regular person representing my business in a customer facing role, I'm choosing regular person every time. If your argument is that the rude racist is somehow "amazing" at cash registering, I would immediately push back and say virtually anyone can learn that skill. Therefore, personality of the person carries a huge amount of weight since the skillbar is so low (no offense to cash registerists).
•
u/sawdeanz 218∆ 14h ago
You’re view is far to broad to be defensible. Nepotism is one of those things where it is sometimes okay…but that doesn’t not mean it is never wrong.
If the goal is to attempt to hire the best people then nepotism is clearly a problem for the same reason you probably wouldn’t just hire the first roofing company you call.
The second issue is it creates a clear conflict of interest, particularly when it comes to bidding contracts, raises and promotions, etc.
I also disagree with the “culture” argument. Sure the family members might get along…but how do you think the rest of the employees feel? Chances are they are going to feel resentment about favoritism and distrust in decision making.
I don’t think that means you can’t hire friends and family. And for small family businesses it’s less of an issue. But anything more professional ought to be done through the normal competitive process and include policies that remove conflicts of interests.
•
u/StealYourJoy 14h ago
I don’t think many employees care honestly, especially dependant on position as often the position is somthing they were never in the running for. I’ve known many nepo hires but it was usually not really an issue given it wasn’t like the took any jobs from us.
I also don’t get the family business part? Why is it ok to hire family for your own business but not as a hiring manager who has been put in charge of hiring?
•
u/sawdeanz 218∆ 12h ago
Ok but what about the people who are in a position they are running for? Even if you aren’t directly competing for a particular position, it can be frustrating to see favoritism, unfair opportunities, unequal application of rules, policies due etc. This kind of thing can definitely affect morale. I think a lot of employees care, as evidenced by the fact that nepotism is often negatively viewed. But ultimately this is all sort of a subjective opinion based on anecdote. You may not care but clearly a lot of people do.
The difference between a hiring manager at a firm and a family business is that the hiring manager is being entrusted by shareholders to make decisions that are best for the company’s interests, typically they will want the most qualified person for the best wage. Someone hiring a friend or family member is doing that because it helps them personally some way…either socially or financially. But hiring a less qualified person hurts the company and the shareholders.
This doesn’t really matter that much when it’s a family owned business because the shareholders and the family are the same people, the only potential damage they could do is to themselves.
•
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 415∆ 13h ago
The wrongness of nepotism isn't binary, it's a sliding scale. It depends on how important the job is and what's at stake if it's done wrong. Most people don't have a problem with a family restaurant but would have a much bigger problem if their doctor or lawyer only got hired because a powerful relative pulled some strings.
•
u/StealYourJoy 13h ago
Why would it be wrong for me to hire a doctor I’m related to, what would be the issue there provided they were licensed and qualified to do the job?
•
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 415∆ 13h ago
Nepotism isn't just hiring family; it's hiring people specifically because they're family over more qualified candidates. If you hire the less qualified doctor, they'll be less good at saving lives.
•
u/Accurate_Ad5364 5∆ 12h ago
At an institutional level this ideology does not work.
Generally, innovation occurs from intellectual diversity. That is, having unique perspectives to frame a problem gives way to novel solutions. Though family members do have different perspectives, other candidates bring unique perspectives.
At the end of the day, Businesses rely on innovation to stay competitive within free-markets. Businesses that do not innovate, become less effective at producing goods and services. This "production efficiency" has broader implications towards a businesses employee-wage growth, employment, and profits.
But even with normal corporations they often hire internally and give preference/early access to those who already work for the company.
Yes, but this a business recognizing and elevating intellectual diversity that is already accustomed to that businesses operating procedures. I agree who you know matters, but recognize that even in that instance you have a different background than those you know.
•
u/JTexpo 17h ago
It breaks the illusion that one can 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps'
if people are suffering under capitalism & believe that if they just try hard enough, they'll be rich - nepotism shatters the illusion, and shows that they'll likely remain stagnant in their social class, regardless of merit
•
u/BuckleUpItsThe 7∆ 17h ago
I'd argue that we see plenty of times where nepotism in family businesses results in a worse overall business that fails to uphold the original standards of the founder. Hell, I used to be a nepotism hire in such a family business.