Consider these scenarios:
Firm A has a strict ban on the hiring of relatives. It asks applicants if they are related to any employee and if they are, regardless of their abilities, they are not hired. Its rationale is it does not want the personnel problems that are sparked by perceptions of favoritism.
Firm B will hire relatives but does not permit relatives to directly supervise their kin.
Firm C not only hires relatives, it encourages workers to refer their relatives to the firm. Although it seeks to hire the best qualified person, its position is that it would be foolish to exclude people who probably share the same values and work ethic and, in reality, it probably gives an edge to relatives of its employees. Like Firm B, however, it does not permit relatives to directly supervise relatives.
Which firm has the best policy?
4 comments:
How large is the firm? The smaller the size, the easier it is to have relatives working for them, and the more likely it is they'll be effective versus the rest of the labor pool. Larger companies have larger talent pools and therefore it is less likely relatives are the most qualified, and this engenders resentment. For the very biggest companies, hiring relatives is almost always due to favortism which reduces productivity.
So, all three cases might be most appropriate, depending on the circumstances.
I believe the last one, no matter the size of the firm. When you trust your hirers and they don't interview their relatives, I don't see a problem. Of course not no direct reports among relatives either.
On the plus side of that approach the company looks more familiar and it creates stronger bond with people, which is important (as far as the company cares anyway).
For private firms of any size the last one is ideal. I think that publicly traded firms would have difficulty doing that and would need to follow number two. I work for government and number three would never be allowed (there is enough corruption, overt and accidental, in government already). Number two describes our policy although some managers misinterpret it into number one.
I think direct reports of relatives is possible as well. I still work for my Dad occasionally when I visit. Why is it not possible he could get his money's worth out of me when he owns the business, but not when we both work for the same someone else?
Thanks for all of your comments. I have no problem with the third option so long as merit is not tossed overboard in the selection process (i.e., select the best qualified person) and there is not direct supervision of relatives. A problem that I have with strict nepotism rules is they are an attempt to solve the problem of favoritism indirectly by using a broad brush instead of dealing directly with any specific problem. To argue against my "no relative supervising another" advocacy, however, is this scenario: Supervisor and subordinate live together and are ignored but the minute they get married, one is immediately transferred.
Post a Comment