3 ms·
Fair enough. I maybe unfairly characterized both "dishonesty" and "nepotism" as a display of lack of integrity (by the Western definition, which tends to bias t
by bumby 4y ago
Fair enough. I maybe unfairly characterized both "dishonesty" and "nepotism" as a display of lack of integrity (by the Western definition, which tends to bias toward meritocratic values). “Dishonest” from the standpoint of deviating from the social contract of unbiased and meritocratic hiring.
- JohnFen 4y agoI don't see nepotism as being dishonest. It may be unseemly or unfair (or not, depending on culture), but it's not dishonest.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bumby 4y agoYeah, I didn't draw the distinction I was making clearly enough. I've edited the post, but it's too late to clearly show the edit. My point being, in the U.S. there is an agreement (implicit or explicit, depending on the context) that hiring will be fair, above board, and based on meritocratic principles. Nepotism undermines this and is, in the distinction I was trying to draw, dishonest from the standpoint that an organization will say one thing ("We hire based on merit") and do another ("We hire based on connections"). Other cultures do not necessarily play this game and make it quite well known that you will be hired based on your network above most else.