Do leaders really care about merit? Should the most talented man or woman always get the job or is it better that key positions be stocked with friends and allies? Is it more important for a leader to surround himself with the best people or with people he feels comfortable with and can trust?
One of the touchiest issues in corporate politics today is the role of favoritism. In a publicly traded company, where thousands of people work, is it right that anyone should get ahead simply because they are related to the boss, have worked closely with him before, or know him well socially? For those who don’t share DNA or country club membership with the leader, it can lead to a familiar emotion. It’s the kind of feeling that we experienced in grade school when we weren’t chosen by the cool kids, or in college when we stood patiently in the rope line at some popular nightclub while the doorman let others slide mysteriously through.
Theoretically, in a capitalist system, we believe that the market place, not genealogy, should determine who gets the opportunities and succeeds. American society – with its founding myth as a home for immigrants, self-starters and high achievers – is predicated on the idea that “getting ahead” is all about effort, determination and success, not heredity. But we also believe in the value of connections. Any parent who has worked hard all their life understands the lure of wanting to pass on some help to their children. It’s only natural. Indeed, there’s a sense of warranted privilege behind the idea that “my son or daughter” deserves to be able to take advantage of the status, lifestyle or opportunities that “I have obtained.” Nevertheless, although this sentiment gets a wink and a nudge in such traditions of status as legacy acceptances at Ivy League schools, it’s different in the corporate world. Despite the fact that many great companies were built by families over several generations, there’s still a whiff of a bad smell that can be detected whenever the CEO promotes his son or daughter to the head of a division. Critics are bound to think that the no-good, spoiled layabout got their by ordainment not by hard work. They may even be right!
But does this really matter in the end? Is there any “merit” behind the leader’s practice of promoting friends and family? If so, do the pluses outweigh the minuses? If not, why do so many leaders engage in such practices? Because one thing is certain, promoting friends and family is not just a holdover habit of another age; it’s one tradition that continues to thrive, regardless of the pressures for change.
It’s a taboo to promote friends and family, but leaders do it anyway. It’s also a taboo for people to treat the boss’s powerful friend or family member differently, but those who don’t probably have the Darwinian instincts of a Dodo bird. In fact, the entire issue puts everyone involved into a double or triple bind and may even hamper the effectiveness of the organization as a result.
So why the hell doesn’t anyone ever talk openly about the fact that favoritism and even nepotism are rife in corporations and determine the best course of action accordingly?
Oh, right, I forgot. It’s a taboo!
Anthony Smith is Co-Founder and a Managing Director of Leadership Research Institute and author of ESPN: The Company (Jossey-Bass, September 2009). He is also the author The Taboos of Leadership: 10 Secrets No One Will Tell You about Leaders and What They Really Think (Jossey-Bass, May 2007). This article originally appeared in different form in his book, The Taboos of Leadership.
