Let’s talk about nepotism: putting your friends in positions, placing people from the same political party into jobs, or hiring people who may not be qualified simply because you believe they’ll do what you want them to do. You can find any example you think fits here and many people who have experience have seen this happen from time to time.
This can occur in any organization, government, or group of people.
The best organizations are built around people who are capable of doing their jobs at the highest level of competence and integrity. They’ve earned their positions, they’re willing to serve, and they understand the mission of the organization. But the minute you start putting people into positions primarily because they benefit you (or group), rather than because they’re the best people for the job, it begins to have a warping effect.
It affects the workplace. It affects organizational performance. And eventually, it affects the employees themselves.
You can produce study after study showing the consequences, but that may not matter much when the people making the decisions are viewing the world and their responsibilities to others from a particular vantage point. That’s why checks and balances matter. Hiring committees, human resources, transparent selection processes, and objective qualifications can help prevent one person from simply surrounding themselves with people who are loyal to them.
The risks to the organization, fulfillment of mission, and stakeholders is apparent and well known.
Think about it from an investor’s perspective. If the people running an organization are primarily taking care of themselves, they’re no longer fully focused on the mission. That sends a message to employees: your performance isn’t necessarily about advancing the organization or serving its mission. It’s about pleasing the insiders.
I saw an example of this a long time ago. There was a boss who clearly should never have been in the position they held. They weren’t qualified, but they knew how to say the right things and get themselves into the position. Then they changed. Once there, they were highly manipulative. They put friends into positions, took credit for other people’s work, and tried to remove anyone who disagreed with them.
They weren’t looking for organizational performance. They were looking for loyalty.
Eventually, the complaints became so numerous that the organization had no choice but to act. There were lawsuits and formal complaints, and ultimately that person was removed. But the damage had already been done. Exceptional people left the organization. Morale suffered. And a lot of problems developed simply because there weren’t enough checks and balances to challenge that person’s behavior. If they did their job the first time that person would not have been hired.
The people who disagreed with them were simply pushed out. And it worked for a long time—until it became a legal problem.
But when you’re dealing with government or large organizations, it shouldn’t have to get to the legal stage. The question shouldn’t be, “Can we get away with this?” The question should be, “Who is best positioned to serve the organization, the public, stakeholders and its mission?”
And the people involved in making those decisions shouldn’t simply fall in line because someone wants a particular person appointed, hired, or promoted. Their stated and official responsibilities are much more than this. They should ask questions. They should challenge assumptions. They should make sure the person is actually the most qualified.
It doesn’t matter what the organization is, what position is being filled, what political party someone belongs to, who their friends are, or what their background is. If you build an organization around the best and brightest—and people know they can advance because of their effort, competence, and integrity—you develop human capital. People engage because they believe in the mission and the other people in the organization.
People have an incentive to perform. They have an incentive to learn. They have an incentive to contribute. And they know that their future isn’t dependent on knowing the right person.
You can look at the research yourself and draw your own conclusions. Apparently, science isn’t always the only consideration when these decisions are made. There are plenty of other factors—personal relationships, loyalty, self-interest, and sometimes just plain politics.
Science is useful. It helps us make better decisions. But every situation is unique, and judgment still matters.
The problem is when someone’s “best judgment” consistently means taking care of oneself.
At that point, it isn’t just a bad hiring decision. It becomes a detriment to everyone else in the organization.
And that’s something worth thinking about. But alas it still happens in organizations and eventually the natural systems catch up. That is why you need leaders in positions that are capable of functioning within that position in both skill and moral concious. Duty is a sacred trust (Keep that trust word in mind because it does impact human capital and performance in the long run.)
The Relationship Between Nepotism and Employee Performance
-
The study concludes that nepotism has a negative relationship with employee performance; employees who perceive favoritism tend to report lower motivation, commitment, and performance.
-
Nepotism reduces perceptions of organizational justice, particularly when promotions, rewards, and hiring decisions appear to be based on family or personal relationships rather than merit.
-
The study identifies lower job satisfaction, reduced organizational commitment, distrust, jealousy, and increased turnover as important consequences associated with nepotistic practices.
-
A quantitative study cited in the review found that the relationship between perceived favoritism and employee performance was negative and significant; organizational justice, trust, and organizational support helped explain or mitigate this relationship.
-
The authors recommend transparent hiring, objective competency criteria, merit-based promotions and rewards, independent HR practices, and leadership training to reduce nepotism and improve employee performance.
Şeker, C., & Karadayı, D. (2024). The relationship between nepotism and employee performance. New Era International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Researches, 9(26), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14552806
- 80% of respondents said nepotism negatively affects the economy, while only 10% viewed it positively and 10% were neutral.
-
90% believed nepotism contributes to the employment of unqualified or unprofessional individuals.
-
80% said nepotism influences the hiring or promotion of relatives in important sectors, while 60% said employment is difficult without outside or political support.
-
90% viewed corruption as a threat to democratic institutions, and 100% said corruption inhibits or undermines economic development.
-
80% believed corruption contributes to the loss of domestic and foreign investors and increases economic uncertainty; 100% said corruption and nepotism negatively affect justice institutions.
Gjinovci, A. (2016). The impact of nepotism and corruption on the economy and HR. Economic and Environmental Studies, 16(3), 421–434.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360889979_THE_IMPACT_OF_NEPOTISM_AND_CORRUPTION_IN_THE_ECONOMY
