Not every society struggles/struggled so poignantly with the contradiction between those things as we now do, but we do, and that's where the modern criticism of nepotism originates.
Teaching your children your trade by inviting them into your workshop or boardroom is sensible, but it inevitably means that there's less room in that workshop or boardroom for the scrappy, bright outsider whose supposed to have a fair chance.
There's not really one right answer under that kind of tension, so there's no surprise when criticism is levied in either direction.
If doing what is "right" means I have to hamstring my kid's chances, then I'm going to pass on "right" (or, more likely, re-orient my thinking to make it not "right") and help my kid.
Most societies do demand that workers for important roles be selected on merit or based on other criteria known to all participants, and not based on some individual's wish to care for their family or friends.
This is without anyone thinking of such a wish as illegitimate. However , acting on it is still nepotism and societies impose this prohibition on its members because it benefits all. In this sense, "parents providing for their children" is "losing out" in certain important domains all around the world.
Most societies become pretty practical after a while, and strive for people to be reliable and adequate for the roles they're appointed to play and celebrate the occasional master of some craft or pursuit. Being groomed for an opportunity from childhood, under the attention of one's family, often delivers on those and so a lot of societies don't worry about it except when it's obvious that somebody completely incompetent has ended up responsible for some influential or essential role.
It's actually a very peculiar modern experiment to expect every role to somehow be filled by the most capable person and for every person to be appointed a role that they're personally passionate about. Maybe it'll give us some amazing Star Trek utopia someday, but you don't see that idea expressed very much in history and so we don't really have reason to know what will happen if we try to make it so.
Nowadays I would also guess that the majority of people across the globe live in societies where nepotism is conceived of as bad. There might still be various amounts of it but people generally tend to discourage or punish nepotism when they can.
But there are a bunch of services helping "teach the test" for kids going to college/grad school, and in very, very many ways, middle class (or better off) parents do strive to give their kids tons of advantages that other kids do not have. Is it fair that my kid had access to their own computer and all the books they wanted to read, etc., when others didn't? No, but parents are still going to help their kids.
If we had something resembling a really fair system, kids and adults of any age would be able to take classes and learn whatever, with as much help as they needed. It would be expensive, but fair. That isn't what we have.
But yes, I would argue nepotism is prevalent in nearly all societies.
You can teach them your trade. You can show them that education is important, modelling and rewarding behaviours like reading. You can make sure you've got time to be there for them. You can introduce them to your friends in other lines of work. You can check their homework and help them when they struggle, within reason. You can make sure they never need a part-time job to get by while in school. You can get them tutors whenever they're having trouble. You can get them extra tuition outside school. You can pay for them to go to a great college. You can cover their living expenses when they're working an unpaid internship. You can invest in their startup. You can assure you that even if their startup crashes and burns, you'll make sure they always have a roof over their head and food in their belly. You can buy them a house, pay their bills, gift them millions of dollars.
And you can hire them to work for you - as long as you make a point to clearly not favour them in the workplace, by insisting they work hard every day, don't use your name, and that they start at the bottom and work their way up on their own merits.
And you can overlap these things! In your role as CEO give them an unpaid internship in the mailroom of your company, and in your role as a parent give them a $10,000/month allowance? Technically not nepotism.
The only things you can't do is give them undeserved promotions, or hire them directly into a senior job.
[0] "Harm" doesn't need to be catastrophic. Misuse of company funds is a kind of theft, and paying someone a salary who is basically on perpetual holiday is unjust, for example.
I've yet to work at a family owned company where the children were anywhere near as competent as their parents, and I've worked at multigenerational companies, so imagine that.
The one I spent the most time with was a publisher whose founders were Tulane educated intellectuals who walked the walk and talked the talk. The next generation sounded like they fell off an alligator tour air boat with the intellect to match. Their children are the dumbest group of human beings I've ever seen graduate from high school. Utterly and completely useless for anything other than getting hammered on the weekends and keeping random desk chairs from rolling away. Yet they were guaranteed jobs, even as the company's numbers continued to dwindle and they continued to use far more resources than they contributed. No Christmas bonus? That's because they needed to pay these morons enough to live in the same neighborhood as their father, meaning that they needed to make about 80% more than anyone else in their roles.
Ownership is not leadership. Leadership takes a set of skills that many people don't possess, and it's less common with the children of the well-off.
Not saying it is better, but in some cases it probably is. Certainly could be in some cases
According to Cambridge Dictionary, nepotism is "the act of using your power or influence to get good jobs or unfair advantages for members of your own family." As soon as you favored your kid, it's nepotism, and it's bad. It undermines meritocracy and contributes to an unjust society. It's pretty straightforward to understand.
One of the things that modern life has messed up is the idea that you should always be happy. No, sometimes you just have to accept that what you are doing sucks, that you will have to power through it, and that's life.
More broadly, the issue of "unfair advantages" and the demonization of those who have them is explored rather poignantly in the short story Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut [1]. The story takes place in a dystopian future where beautiful people are forced to wear masks to make their faces look ugly, those with beautiful voices have to use devices to make their voices sound awful, and anyone with above-average intelligence has to wear a radio headset which constantly plays annoying and distracting noises to prevent them from thinking too deeply. The title character is forced to endure multiple of these "handicaps", including heavy weights to slow him down and tire him out so that he cannot make use of his athletic gifts.
- fridgescaping
- Fanum tax
- Quit-Tok
- runglasses
- boomerocracy
- appification
And that does include adding definitions to existing words. "Literally" can also be defined by its antonym.
Teaching your skills and strengths to your kid and eventually giving them or helping them (within the bounds of what's acceptable and ethical) get a job they're qualified for is good. This is basically how every mutli generational family business works.
Giving an unqualified kid a no-show job or a real job they f-up is nepotism and bad.
Indeed. If some people are claiming that somehow giving your own child, uh, what shall I say, priority (?) and your full attention, teaching them skills and transmitting wisdom, and getting them opportunities is somehow bad, then sorry, but that's shockingly stupid, evil, and misanthropic. Doing these things basically describes what is more or less a core duty of parenthood. A parent has the obligation to prioritize his own children. The idea that such generational advantage is nepotism screams of envy. Inequality of opportunity is not unfair or wrong. Indeed, one of the purposes of meritocracy is to become better off so that you can give your own kids a better start than you had. It's wonderful to be able to give your kids opportunities that you have access to.
I think people are failing to distinguish two things, namely, prioritizing your own kin on the one hand, and on the other, prioritizing kinship favors at the gross expense of the common good. (At least that's the most charitable interpretation. The less charitable one is that the have-nots are just envious and feel entitled. There is no point in discussing anything with such twisted people.)
If a baker wants to hire his son, that's perfectly fine and completely his business. He doesn't have to open up the pool to check off some ridiculous meritocracy checkbox. It's his bakery. Of course, if he puts his son in a position of authority that he is grossly unsuited for, well, then he imperils his own business. Oh, well.
In a larger organization that's private, there is nothing wrong with hiring your own kid, either. Putting him in a position that he is completely unsuited for threatens the company, of course, and in that sense is simply stupid. It can also be argued that the company is harming the common good of the company. Private ownership doesn't mean you don't have certain moral obligations toward your employees. Good leadership is one such obligation, and putting an incompetent child in a position that harms the company is a failure of leadership.
That difference is only on paper, purely academical. In reality, almost all the time, this quickly morphs into pushing your kin into positions of power where they make a mess but you still tolerate them because supposedly they are at least somewhat predictable and you don't want to invest the time and effort to build trust with a stranger.
(Or whatever their actual motivation is -- to me it remains mostly a mystery.)
If sons and nephews are bad managers and a business suffers... that's nepotism. If they're good managers and the business succeeds, that's a family business. if the local authorities hire family... that's nepotism, because we have an expectation that it should be done differently.
A lot of words are like this. Positive and negative words with positive or negative associations that we use to describe the same thing... depending on the association we want to emphasize.
But once homo retcom has words... we think in those words. So, we think of nepotism (for example) as this distinct thing, and expect this nuanced definition to account for the negative or positive aspects.
This paper is basically a formalization of that process.
In large public companies or institutions that have shareholders or state owners then it's unfair for an executive or senior administrator to carve out a job for a family member. He's giving them something he doesn't own, unlike in the family business example.
100% ? 50% ? Something in the middle?
It's not as correct decision-making influence-wise. The power balance of "family vs remaining shareholders" is different from what would be assumed purely based on those numbers.
It can be said that Samsung C&T is the actual head subsidiary/control vehicle through which the other subsidiaries are run at the top level, and the family is easily the biggest shareholder in C&T.
The KOSPI, which is what the subsidiaries are listed on (the "group" is not listed), is seen as a bit of a joke by both foreign and domestic investors for that reason. Besides its obvious downsides, it does have upsides as well - the "sacrifice everything for the short-term stock price" that is the norm in the US is less common in Korea for this reason. Corporations work differently.
That doesn’t sound distasteful to me at all. Is that bad?
Can we make a distinction between parents raising their kids and giving them great opportunities, and “nepotism” where people are put in no-show jobs or are wholly incompetent?
It seems like the system of “nepotism” the paper describes is not bad at all, but instead is working well since the paper observes that when passing occupation from father to son would be inefficient/lead to bad social outcomes, it happens far less