Collin A. A. Greenland | Nepotism in Jamaica

Included among the matters of concern in the current Petrojam scandal is the vexing issue of nepotism. The greater tragedy, however, is that this monster permeates organisations worldwide, both in public and private entities, and Jamaica is no exception.

In the workplace, nepotism can be regarded as employees (or individuals) showing favouritism to their family members and friends by providing them with jobs or giving them promotions based on their relationships, not competence. Legal scholars have debated on whether this is illegal since an employer may favour a family or friend employee who is genuinely intelligent and capable. What is usually not in question is the ethicality of this kind of behaviour.

Internationally, is difficult to secure statistics on nepotism since most employment or census bureaux lack the incisive segregation required to ferret out this information. However, a survey was done on ‘Nepotism throughout the World’ by the World Economic Forum, an independent international organisation committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas.

Interestingly, a snapshot of this research reveals that whereas countries like Finland are perceived as having little or no influence of nepotism on employment, some of our larger trading partners like the United States (US) and China are indicated as exceeding Jamaica in terms of nepotism influencing our workplaces.

The study ranks countries on their levels of nepotism from seven (no influence) to one (enormous influence). Interestingly, the US, which many in Jamaica often seek to emulate, has a score of 4.2, putting it in 63rd place out of 125 countries evaluated, behind Kazakhstan, Egypt, South Africa, and Jamaica (to give just a few arbitrary examples).

Regrettably, African countries appear to feature negatively, for example, Zambia, which is near towards the end of the “enormous influence” axis.

An informative perspective can also be had by examining an interesting report published by Industry Psychology Consultants on the prevalence of nepotism within Zimbabwean workplaces.

Whereas internal auditors in Jamaica often detect instances of nepotism during the course of their work, at times, it is difficult to substantiate. Family members may not bear the same surnames; friendship/fraternity/associate links may be difficult (or expensive) to verify; career damage/discredit and even bodily harm can happen to the auditors for exposing such links; plus, on too many occasions, even when these are identified and reported, management and boards do not follow up with corrected measures.

The resulting harmful effects of nepotism are well known internationally, and in Jamaica, these dangers manifest themselves far too often but are allowed to persist. Organisations are likely to suffer when nepotism is practised since it results in an unfavourable work atmosphere and the overall morale of the organisation will be lowered as the injustice of the situation will rankle all over the office, festering a bad work culture.

Reduced productivity will be one of the prominent negative effects since employees will not give of their best, leading to lowered efficiency, unsatisfactory results, and a lowered output. The organisation will begin to observe stunted growth due to increased conflicts and low productivity, and, not surprisingly, good employees cease to give of their best or seek to obtain alternative employment.

BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY

Other hazards may include breach of confidentiality, and one of the main contributory factors to fraud – ‘rationalisation’, one of three components of the ‘Fraud Triangle’, a concept postulated by the Association of Fraud Examiners, used to explain why employees engage in fraudulent acts.

In addition to the other two components – opportunity and motive – employees observing nepotism may rationalise in their minds as reasons to commit fraud and instead of following the organisation’s rules, may go against them due to frustration and dissatisfaction.

The person benefitting from the nepotistic action may face extreme criticism from other employees, may lose the respect of his/her subordinates, will lose the collective goodwill of employees in general, may lose everyone’s trust and confidence, and other staff members, most times, will gossip behind his/her back or pass derogatory comments as well.

The legal consequences to the employer can also be substantial if aggrieved employees are successful in litigation, claiming things like discrimination, unfair dismissal, and unfair work practices. The public relations damage, as we are now seeing in the Petrojam scenario, can be enormous, and the stench of corruption placed on stakeholders (management, board of directors, etc) may indelibly stain their reputation indefinitely.

Whenever the specter of nepotism rears its ugly head, both private and public organisations should follow up with forensic-type reviews to validate the claims, and in so doing, arm law enforcement with the requisite evidence that may secure civil or criminal prosecutions to those involved.

If we allow this monster to persist, then there will be more Petrojam types of nepotism claims that will continue to plague this blessed island.

- Collin A. A. Greenland is a forensic consultant. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and cgreeny.collin@gmail.com