Is it moral to benefit from nepotism

[dwatson]

I have the oportunity to benefit from nepotism and would like some advice.

I am a newly certified teacher, a profession in which it is very difficult to find a job, at least in my state. Yet I have been offered and must decide between two jobs. One is in a poor district which has many difficulties finding teachers who are willing to work there. The other is in a wealthy district in which I would be paid nearly twice as much, receive better benefits, a better working environment, etc. The problem is, the seemingly better offer from the wealthy district is due entirely to the fact that I happen to be related to the principal. I am sure I would have no chance at a job in that district because, not only is it very difficult to get hired there, but the principal also has no awareness of my teaching abilities. But we're related, so he wants to help me out.

The other job offer in the poor district, however, is a genuine offer based on my prior work in the school. They have been very impressed with my work, recognize my value and greatly desire to hire me based upon my ability. But in this district I would find no end of difficulties, both professional and financial.

While I think I know the answer in advance (take the job which I have earned through my abilities and value, not the offer I received through nepotism), I am having a hard time acting on my principles. I am new to the forum and would appreciate your advice

[softwareNerd]

Welcome to the board.

The way you paint it, your conclusion sounds right.

However, in order to explore this further: do you think you are qualified for the higher-paying job, and if not, why not?

[dwatson]

The way you paint it, your conclusion sounds right.

However, in order to explore this further: do you think you are qualified for the higher-paying job, and if not, why not?

I certainly feel that I am qualified for the higher paying job, and if I took it I have no doubt of my abilities or my success. So is there a difference, a qualitative/ethical difference, between being qualified for a job and earning a job? All my friends say: "It doesn't matter how you get the job, just what you do with it once you have it." But I can't see Hank Rearden accepting anything he hadn't earned, regardless of whether he deserved it.

Thoughts?

[Seeker]

What, in your view, would constitute *earning* the higher paying job in this context? (I actually think the question of earning and qualifications are the same thing, the difference seems to be that the only way you think you've earned the job is if the *principal* knows you are actually the best qualified and concurs in your judgment that you are -- at this point I'm not in a position to agree or disagree, since this principal seems to be a sort of hack. So let's clarify what you think earning this job entails and why)

[John McVey]

As I understand it, there is good nepotism and bad nepotism, depending on how the incumbent deals with matching the relative's abilities with the job's needs.

In bad nepotism, the focus is group identity and high levels of clan rivalry, as seen in many backwards countries. It is bad because the group membership supercedes ability to get the job done. Someone who is technically inferior for the job than another gets the job because the existing members know that the inferior applicant is from the same clan and thus can be expected to have the clan's interests at heart. Hire someone from another clan and it may well result that the applicant will act deliberately to harm the interests of the clan, which usually means for the sake of some other clan. It is disgustingly collective, hence its existence is indicative of a state of or direction towards backwardness.

In good nepotism, family relations are beneficial for the employer because it has the ability to lower the cost of searching for employees and testing them, saving the employer time, effort, and money. Over and above ordinary ability checks, an existing employee may vouch for a family member's ability and ethics, providing extra information that is of legitimate value to the employer. The social objection to nepotism in this kind of circumstance is an instance of the filth that is egalitarianism, not one of inferior ability being taken over superior.

So, if you can do the job, and can be trusted to do the job, and the Principal of this better school is advocating for you on the basis of his or her knowing that about you rather than kinship, then by all means use it and there is no question of a breach of ethics. If on the other hand you are using the family connection to get a job you couldn't do properly then that would be unethical. Thus all you need to do to know whether or not it is ethical is answer sNerd's question.

JJM

Edited May 26, 2007 by John McVey

[RationalBiker]

Are the schools in question public schools or private schools?

[softwareNerd]

I certainly feel that I am qualified for the higher paying job, and if I took it I have no doubt of my abilities or my success.

I am sure I would have no chance at a job in that district because, not only is it very difficult to get hired there, but the principal also has no awareness of my teaching abilities. But we're related, so he wants to help me out.

If you weren't hired, wouldn't they be interviewing other candidates whom they do not know? In such an interview process, why would you be any less able to convince them that you're right for the job, compared to the other candidates?

If you'd said that the principal, being a relative, was aware of your abilities, and knew the kind of work you had done elsewhere, and thought you'd do well at his school, it would make sense that he wants to consider you. However, the way you describe it, he hasn't a clue about your abilities and really doesn't care. Being indebted to him for a job seems like another reason NOT to take it.

[Moebius]

As far as the original poster goes, I'd say take the better job. It's a great opportunity. Give yourself a chance to find out if you're good enough to do the job. If you are, great. If not, so be it and find another job. Bottom line is the moral responsibility does not lie with you, and if anything lies with the principal (should you fail to perform up to par).

If Bill Gates just decided to hand you ten million dollars at a whim, would it be immoral for you to accept it? Of course not. Neither is winning the lottery immoral. So why would it be immoral to accept a job that a relative just decided to hand you?

In bad nepotism, the focus is group identity and high levels of clan rivalry, as seen in many backwards countries. It is bad because the group membership supercedes ability to get the job done. Someone who is technically inferior for the job than another gets the job because the existing members know that the inferior applicant is from the same clan and thus can be expected to have the clan's interests at heart.

You think the nepotism doesn't happen in non-backward countries like the US or something?

As far as I can tell, it exists EVERYWHERE in the world.

[Ifat Glassman]

If you'd said that the principal, being a relative, was aware of your abilities, and knew the kind of work you had done elsewhere, and thought you'd do well at his school, it would make sense that he wants to consider you. However, the way you describe it, he hasn't a clue about your abilities and really doesn't care. Being indebted to him for a job seems like another reason NOT to take it.

I think it depends how the debt can be paid back. If the debt can be paid back by good performance at work, or by gratefulness (meaning recognition that the favore had good motivation behind it), then accepting it is good, and will not undermine his principles and damage his self-esteem.

Maybe his relative does care about having a good teacher, but does not review his curriculum for some reason (like not to make him feel uncomfortable).

The solution in this case could be to let the principal know that he greatly appreciates the favor, but he is also concerned about taking a position that a more deserving man could have had, and ask the principal to critically evaluate his abilities, after working at the new place for a while, and decide according to his performance whether he deserves the job or not.

If his relative cares about the quality of teaching at his school, this would be a good way to clarify what kind of benefit or gratefulness the principal may expect from him, and to be more clear about the exchange of values the principal can expect.

There could be good and bad motivations for giving something away, and it is not always best to accept:

For example, I am grateful for my parents for raising me. They raised me for their own selfish pleasure, and I recognize it as good motivation, and try to pay them back in ways I find appropriate.

Another case: my brother once worked at giving away candy bar samples. He decided to be nice to me by giving me a package with ~50 samples. This is a favour I refused, because despite the fact that HE saw it as a gesture of good will, I did not approve of stealing, and I would certainly not want to educate my little brother that stealing is good. I would act the same if a stranger offered me stolen goods.

In this case, the job offer is not stolen goods, IF he is able to do the job well.

Most important thing is not to perform an action that goes against one's principles.

"If you are not sure that what you are doing is morally right, your self-esteem will suffer greatly."

This heavy price has to be kept in mind.

[D'kian]

I was hired for my current job by my brother in law. I've no qualms about it because I can do the job well. Had I thought I couldn't do it, I wouldn't have accepted his offer.

[Spano]

I'd say that one hasn't really earned anything by simply getting hired...the true measure of that is performance at the job itself. If you think you're a good teacher and will be worth the higher salary, i.e. that your service and salary will be a fair trade, then there is absolutely no reason to feel like a cheat. If you think that you're not a good enough teacher and that nepotism is the only way you'd keep the job, then you would be a cheat and shouldn't take it.

I agree that it's important to determine whether the principal would feel you are indebted to him beyond your job performance, since that would compromise your professional (and personal) relationship. If that isn't the case, and there are no other factors involved, I'd suggest that taking a job at half the salary would be pretty clearly irrational. Rational principles are designed to achieve happiness. If you are torn between following your principles and being happy, you are making an error somewhere.

[John McVey]

You think the nepotism doesn't happen in non-backward countries like the US or something?

As far as I can tell, it exists EVERYWHERE in the world.

I never said it didn't, though I was neglecting this. I even recall the bad kind being attacked in Atlas, where Rearden's mother unsuccessfully tries to get him to hire his useless brother. Nevertheless, you'll see far more of the bad kind of nepotism in backwards places than in non-backwards places, as both indicia and cause at levels all the way from the individual business to regions to entire countries. Indeed, tribalism and its manifestations are everywhere... yeuch.

JJM

[D'kian]

I never said it didn't, though I was neglecting this. I even recall the bad kind being attacked in Atlas, where Rearden's mother unsuccessfully tries to get him to hire his useless brother.

Because Hank's brother was useless. Hiring him would mean, as Rearden says at some point, giving him a salary he does not deserve for a job he cannot do. That would be as true had his mother asked him to hire a worthless bum off the street.

Had Rearden's brother been competent then offering him a good position wouldn't be improper, brother or no brother.

Dagny got her job by virtue of being part of the Taggart family. So did Jim. One deserved the job, the other didn't. How they got them doesn't matter much.

[RationalBiker]

Because Hank's brother was useless. Hiring him would mean, as Rearden says at some point, giving him a salary he does not deserve for a job he cannot do. That would be as true had his mother asked him to hire a worthless bum off the street.

I think that's why Mr. McVey referred to is as "the bad kind".

[aequalsa]

Because Hank's brother was useless. Hiring him would mean, as Rearden says at some point, giving him a salary he does not deserve for a job he cannot do. That would be as true had his mother asked him to hire a worthless bum off the street.

I took that scene a little differently. I thought Hank wished to keep his work life honest and pure. He took care of his brother and mother giving them money when they needed it and paying for their expenses. At that point in the novel he was something of a mixed bag where his personal life was a mess and his work life was great. I thought he just didn't want him there in the place that mattered to him.

Regarding nepotism generally, I try to avoid it. It may be a personal thing and not applicable to anyone else, but I'd have trouble deriving pride from my achievements if I thought that they were accomplished by virtue of my birth, appearance, or happenstance. I tend to gravitate to those things for which I have no one to thank. Its a, "I would rather be the head of a fly then the tail of a lion" kind of thing, I suppose.

I won't try to defend my position philosophically, because I don't think you can. It is more of a sense of life sorta thing. But I do recommend considering the possible psychological effects that such a decision might have on you personally.

[The Guru Kid]

I have a similar situation with my summer internship. I think they may have hired me, a physics major with only one year of college, because my father works there. But he does not have any authority to hire me.

Unless you are certainly unqualified for the work, I would leave it up to them to decide. To assume that nepotism has occured and reject a job that you think you are qualified for the job is just ridiculous.

[aequalsa]

Something occurred to me in favor of taking the better job is that, assuming you are in the US, the education industry is not anything close to a meritocracy. It is a government bureaucracy which is run about as well as I you would expect one to be. If you don't take the job, it is far from probable that the best person would otherwise get it. It is also far from probable for that same reason that from excellence and shear ability you will advance in your chosen career.

[RationalBiker]

Something occurred to me in favor of taking the better job is that, assuming you are in the US, the education industry is not anything close to a meritocracy.

This is actually along the lines of why I asked if he was talking about a public school or a private school. However, my thinking is that if it is a public school, I have a problem with nepotism because the market cannot "take care of it." Were it a private school, its future could be at risk for its nepotistic(?) practices and the market would have a chance to work it out. If its a government school, the school and the new employee may well have very secure futures despite any question of competency or ethics. I think in principle that nepotism is wrong in government hiring regardless of whether or not they happen to make a good hire.

[softwareNerd]

I think it depends how the debt can be paid back. If the debt can be paid back by good performance at work, or by gratefulness (meaning recognition that the favore had good motivation behind it), then accepting it is good, and will not undermine his principles and damage his self-esteem.

I've been careful to point out that anything I say is in the context of the picture Watson is painting. Perhaps his relative knows he's a hard worker and so on; perhaps he knows that this job is definitely going to someone's nephew, so why not his own. However, that's not the picture he's painting. So, with that said, given the picture he's painted of his relative, the debt can not be repaid. Could Cheryl repay her debt to Jim for raising her out of a 5-and-dime?

[Ifat Glassman]

I've been careful to point out that anything I say is in the context of the picture Watson is painting. Perhaps his relative knows he's a hard worker and so on; perhaps he knows that this job is definitely going to someone's nephew, so why not his own. However, that's not the picture he's painting. So, with that said, given the picture he's painted of his relative, the debt can not be repaid. Could Cheryl repay her debt to Jim for raising her out of a 5-and-dime?

Yes, she can kick him in the nuts for marrying her under deceit.

As for Watson's relative: it does seem from the way he is describing it that the debt will not be possible to pay back (in a way that would be according to Watson's principles). But what I suggested was to communicate this problem or thoughts to his relative. He might change his mind, or new facts may be revealed, or he may just nod, smile and say whatever he would think Watson is expecting to hear. But in either case from this point on the terms of the exchange of values will be clear to both sides, and Watson can be free to focus on doing his job well, without being ungrateful nor betray his own principles (by acting grateful for an action he does not respect).

However, after thinking about this some more, I see another problem - which is the fact that by taking the job he would be sanctioning nepotism.

If I try to break down the problem to smaller, eseential parts, this is what I see:

If this job was offered to him by a fool or by chance, there would be no doubt that as long as he judges himself able to do it well - he is moral in taking it.

It might feel more pleasant to receive the job after a careful review of his skills, and not due to chance, but it doesn't mean one is immoral by using opportunities that he got by chance (or even mistakes or stupidity).

If an altruist decided to sacrifice his position in a company so that somebody else may have it - I would be perfectly moral in trying to get that position, and I would not be sanctioning alrtruism by doing so. However, if he came and asked me "Should I sacrifice my job so that I can be a better person?" then a positive answer will be a sanction, which is the case here with Watson.

So the way I see it, there are two more factors left in the equation: One is the problem of sanctioning his relative's action, and the second is paying the debt issue.

Paying the debt is more easy to solve. It's the sanction part that I'm not sure of.

[Moebius]

Regarding nepotism generally, I try to avoid it. It may be a personal thing and not applicable to anyone else, but I'd have trouble deriving pride from my achievements if I thought that they were accomplished by virtue of my birth, appearance, or happenstance.

Metaphysically speaking, you cannot possibly avoid situations that are influenced by your birth, appearance, or happenstance. Being an American instead of being born in Darfur. Being tall instead of short. Being beautiful instead of hideous. Being intelligent as opposed to stupid. They all play a part in your achievements.

In my opinion these things are just givens - if it's there, use it. If through some random life circumstances you are offered an opportunity, you should take it.

[aequalsa]

Metaphysically speaking, you cannot possibly avoid situations that are influenced by your birth, appearance, or happenstance. Being an American instead of being born in Darfur. Being tall instead of short. Being beautiful instead of hideous. Being intelligent as opposed to stupid. They all play a part in your achievements.

In my opinion these things are just givens - if it's there, use it. If through some random life circumstances you are offered an opportunity, you should take it.

What I mean to say is that I tend to shy away from things which I profit from by luck because they tend to skew an otherwise proper sense of pride and self-esteem and because it does not fit with what I want for my life. Obviously the metaphysical givens have an impact on other things. If attractive, I do not advocate disfigurement or something of that nature. I apologize if I communicated that notion.

And again, this is just me and my sense of life. I wouldn't recommend it any more then Ayn Rand would recommend her tiddlywink music. I only meant to recommend that he consider what sort of life he plans on living and what sort of impact this would have on his evaluation of that life.

When I evaluate myself, for example, I attempt to do so from a third person point of view. I imagine that I met me or met someone in my circumstance and decide how I would judge their actions, behavior, accomplishments, etc. in terms of my own values as well as morally. Its my way of keeping my integrity intact. A way of making sure that my life is colored the way I wish it to be.

My personal values are strongly in favor of the self-made man. As such I more highly value a man who is fiercely independent then someone who, say, became famous and wealthy by virtue of his well defined cheek bones or did well with the $8 million he inherited. Not to say there is anything wrong philosophically or morally with people in those categories. Just that it does not appeal to me. I prefer Rearden to Francisco, in other words.