Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T21:20:12.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Bittersweet Silver Spoon: Considering the Mixed and Contextual Effects of Nepotistic Organizational Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2015

Thomas Stephen Calvard  and
Cindy Rajpaul-Baptiste
Thomas Stephen Calvard*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Cindy Rajpaul-Baptiste
Affiliation:
School of Psychology Keynes College Canterbury, University of Kent, Kent, United Kingdom
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thomas Stephen Calvard, University of Edinburgh Business School, 29 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, United KingdomEH8 9JS. E-mail: thomas.calvard@ed.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The focal article by Jones and Stout (2015) has revealed just how much there is for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists to try to unpack in the implications of nepotism for organizations and employees, particularly in relation to selection and development practices. In this brief commentary, we try to make two contributions to this state of affairs. First, we discuss the importance of disentangling different types of nepotistic and social connection preference (SCP) effects in context because these differences may in turn implicate distinct processes and effects that shape employee outcomes. We do this in part by drawing on findings from some of our own data on nepotistic hiring within a Caribbean coast guard organization (Rajpaul-Baptiste & Calvard, 2012). Second, we argue that for nepotism and SCP to be considered more fully and fruitfully as topics for I-O research and practice, these topics need to be integrated and consolidated more thoroughly along with existing work on diversity management, cross-cultural psychology, organizational discourses, organizational contexts, institutional logics, and social network approaches. We believe this is likely to produce more theoretical, methodological, empirical, and practical coherence across emerging I-O research in this area, without leading researchers and practitioners to reinvent the wheel or misguidedly rely on cultural stereotypes about nepotism and cronyism.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 31 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. (2011). Tony Benn: A biography. London, UK: Biteback.Google Scholar
Bellow, A. (2003). In praise of nepotism: A natural history. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Boffey, D. (2014, March 16). Tony Benn's son inherits title his father gave up. The Observer. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/16/tony-benn-title-fatherGoogle Scholar
Bridger, R. S., Kilminster, S., & Slaven, G. (2007). Occupational stress and strain in the naval service: 1999 and 2004. Occupational Medicine, 57, 92–97. doi:10.1093/occmed/kql124Google Scholar
Chen, C. C., Chen, Y.-R., & Xin, K. (2004). Guanxi practices and trust in management: A procedural justice perspective. Organization Science, 15, 200–209. doi:10.1287/orsc.1030.0047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. In Dunnette, M. D. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 223–326). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Cowen, T. (2013). Average is over: Powering America beyond the age of great stagnation. New York, NY: Dutton.Google Scholar
Ewing, D. W. (1965, January–February). Is nepotism so bad? Harvard Business Review, 43 (1), 22–36.Google Scholar
Ferdman, B. M., & Sagiv, L. (2012). Diversity in organizations and cross-cultural work psychology: What if they were more connected? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 323–345. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01455.xGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, D. P. (1978). Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor, UK: NFER.Google Scholar
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. G., & Stout, T. (2015). Policing nepotism and cronyism without losing the value of social connection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 2–12.Google Scholar
Lee, K. S., Lim, G. H., & Lim, W. S. (2003). Family business succession: Appropriation risk and choice of successor. Academy of Management Review, 28, 657–666. doi:10.5465/AMR.2003.10899446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y., Huang, Y., & Wang, S. L. (2012). Guanxi and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Management and Organizational Review, 8, 139–172. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00273.xGoogle Scholar
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–433. doi:10.5465/AMR.1996.9605060217Google Scholar
Pearce, J. L., Branyiczki, I., & Bigley, G. A. (2000). Insufficient bureaucracy: Trust and commitment in particularistic organizations. Organization Science, 11, 148–162. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.2.148.12508Google Scholar
Rajpaul-Baptiste, C., & Calvard, T. S. (2012, June). The bitter-sweet silver spoon: The effects of nepotistic hiring on employee performance and well-being. Paper presented at the Institute of Work Psychology International Conference, Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
Reeves, R. (2003, September 29). Nepotism: Is it back? New Statesman, 22–24.Google Scholar
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163. doi:10.2307/2391486CrossRefGoogle Scholar