WHEN LOYALTY BECOMES INJUSTICE

If I had the opportunity I would certainly be helping my own family. The question is: when does supporting someone you love obstructs helping someone else?

I believe that family would be the number one priority for most people.

Of course, if I had a business and a qualified sibling was looking for a position, I'd provide them with one. If I had contacts that would open up opportunities for a good friend I would introduce him/her to them, I think that's basic human nature.... We watch out for those we care for.

That's not where nepotism becomes problematic, though.
The issue starts when you're helping somebody you know when it comes to the detriment of somebody else who deserves it.
That's where loyalty turns to injustice.

I don't think that all this nepotism should be illegal.
So if I make an investment in a family business, and I think that my kid may eventually take over the business, it's my choice. There's nothing wrong with my recommending a qualified cousin for a position if I do so. Recommendations occur on a daily basis in a professional environment.

It's not the relationship that is the problem.
The question remains if competency is still relevant.
Suppose that two candidates are vying for the same job. One has experience, proper qualifications and has worked hard to get the opportunity. The latter is related to the manager.
But if the less qualified one wins because of family connection we've gone past the helping of the loved one.
We've rendered merit to be immaterial.

Unfortunately, this is something which many societies find themselves having to cope with.
Character of people's trust in Institutions is diminishing as they're convinced that success is much more dependent on who they know than on their talents.
If that happens, student motivation is hindered.

What's the point in working hard if someone else's surname will do the job?
This is more than just a personal impact.
It weakens organizations.

A business with a group of employees selected by family will face the cost of substandard decisions, minimal productivity, and loss of trust.
As is the case with governments.

If public offices are given to relatives rather than to capable persons, citizens will ultimately suffer the consequences.

This is why I think there is an important difference that we don't always recognize.
You can't create an opportunity by influencing others necessarily; influencing can only pave the way for an opportunity.

It's OK to open a door!
I don't like the idea of excluding everybody.
For my part, if I were aware of a person who was truly competent for a job I would enthusiastically promote him.

However, the selection process, should be done in a fair manner after that.
Their surname should not be more important than other people's years of hard work.

Should nepotism be outlawed?
I don't believe that would be feasible for private enterprises.
While business owners are not free to choose with whom to work if they break the employment law, there must be some degree of choice.
But in the public sector, where tax payers are funding the school, the requirements should be much more stringent.

The opportunity of appointments to public office, public contracts, scholarships and recruitment should not be reserved for the privileged few, but be open and transparent.
Public service demands a level of fairness that increases with the level of public service.
Helping the family is not a wrong thing to do at the end of the day.
As with most of us, that's what I would do.

However, it is not fair to sacrifice fairness for faithfulness.
The best companies and groups do not exclude their loved ones.

These are constructed through providing a fair opportunity for all to win.
Opportunity should not be handed to you on a platter, as in someone's address book.

_{Image Generated with Gemini AI}