The purpose of this research was to examine the consequences of being perceived as having benefited from a family connection during the hiring process. One hundred and ninety-seven upper-level undergraduate students reviewed materials describing three candidates for a managerial position. Selection method (merit vs. nepotism) and gender of the person who received the position were manipulated in the materials. Results revealed that not only was nepotism perceived as being less fair than merit-based hiring, but individuals believed to have benefited from a family connection during the hiring process were viewed less favorably than individuals believed to have been hired based on merit.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ford, R. & McLaughlin, F. (1986). Nepotism: Boon or Bane . Personnel Administrator, 31, 79-89.
2.
Hall, F.S. and Hall, D.T. (1978). Dual careers: How do couples and companies cope with the problems?Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 57-77.
3.
Harvard Business Review (1965). Is nepotism so bad? Harvard Business Review, 43(1), 22-30, 39-40, 156-159.
4.
Heilman, M.E., Block, C.J. & Lucas, J.A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536-544.
5.
Heilman, M.E. & Herlihy, J.M. (1984). Affirmative action, negative reaction? Some moderating conditions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 33, 204-213.
6.
Heilman, M.E., Lucas, J.A. & Kaplow, S.R. (1990). Self-derogating consequences of sex-based preferential selection: The moderating role of initial self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 202-216.
7.
Heilman, M.E., Rivero, J.C. & Brett, J.F. (1991). Skirting the competence issue: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on task choices of women and men. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 99-105.
8.
Heilman, M.E., Simon, M.C. & Repper, D.P. (1987). Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self— perceptions and self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 62-68.
9.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7(l), 81-84.
10.
Kets deVries, M.F. (1993). The dynamics of family controlled firms: The good and the bad news. Organizational Dynamics, 21 (3), 59-71.
11.
Matthews, C.H. (1997) cited in Slack, C. (2001). Breeding Success. MBA Jungle, September, 82-88.
12.
Newgren, K.E., Kellogg, C.E. & Gardner, W. (1988). Corporate responses to dual-career couples: a decade of transformation. Akron Business & Economic Review , 19, 85-96.
13.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
14.
Padgett, M.Y. and Morris, K.A. (2000). The impact of sex-based preferential selection on subordinate perceptions of a new supervisor. Paper presented at the 2000 Administrative Sciences Association of Canada conference in Montreal, Quebec.
15.
Pingree, S., Butler, M., Paisley, W. and Hawkins, R. (1978). Anti-nepotism's ghost: Attitudes of administrators toward hiring professional couples. Psychology of Women Quarterley , 3(1), 22-29.
16.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
17.
Redding, S.G. (1982). Cultural effects on the marketing process in Southeast Asia. Journal of the Market Research Society, 24(2), 98-114.
18.
Sears, D.O. & Funk, C.L. (1995). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 1-91.
19.
Slack, C. (2001). Breeding Success. MBA Jungle, September, 82-88.
20.
Werbal, J.D. and Hames, D.S. (1996). Anti-nepotism reconsidered. Group and Organization Management, 21 (3), 365-379
