One of the Most Typical Descriptions of Corruption - Essay Example

?The Career Corruption Essay Outline Introduction Fairness is one of the most integral principles in any organization, and cronyism, which defies that principle, is thus one of the worst violations. Employers are extremely concerned about being just, and their employees are all the more concerned. As stated by Carl Phillips, Marshall Singer, Patricia Digh, and Robert Rosen, “Fairness is a national pastime, and whole industries are built around protecting the underdog” (Storti, 2004, 56). Fairness obliges one to be totally objective and unbiased, exercising guidelines and policies fairly, and evaluating or appraising everybody by the same criteria. Almost nothing weakens employee motivation and confidence more rapidly than cronyism. The field of ethics mainly encourages people to be just or fair. As proposed by Aristotle: “Equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally” (Gertrude, 1987, 256). But the widespread practice of cronyism hinders equality and fairness because it awards too much advantage to a person who does not truly deserve this benefit. Cronyism, whether practiced in the public or private sector, effectively weaken organizations. When a person is hired or promoted because of connections instead of experience, skill, or expertise, the contribution that person provides to the organization could be substandard. Moreover, according to Reilly and colleagues (2012), because cronyism is usually hidden, this practice damages the transparency that is ought to be practiced in the process of hiring and contracting. The Qur’an is clear in its position regarding cronyism, or concerning the enduring conflict between justice or fairness and self-interest (Baig, 2013, para 5): “Be just, even if it is against your narrowly defined self-interest or of those very close to you. Ignorant people think they are protecting their self-interest by being unjust to others. Their decision to be just or unjust may be based on a cold calculation of self-interest. But real faith in Allah elevates one beyond that narrow-mindedness.” This statement shows that the justice or fairness upheld by the Islamic law allows no cronyism or favoritism in general. Whether cronyism is practiced in the form of giving advantages or favors for certain individuals or conferring preferential treatment, cronyism definitely implies that some individuals are in some way more equal than others. Preventing even the indication of cronyism is particularly vital in hiring someone or in awarding a promotion. While the person carrying out the selection process may have a personal favorite, s/he will be cautious to base the hiring process on objective standards as professional history, expertise, and experience, building what is at times called “a level playing field” (Storti, 2004, 56). In several organizations, especially those in the public sector, the names of job candidates are erased from the application during the preliminary assessment phase to facilitate a supposedly ‘blind’ assessment of each candidate’s qualifications (Cascarino, 2012). The ethics of fairness goes beyond employees to accept how people generally are to be handled or approached, such as contractors or clients. The central premise here is that organizations must treat everybody they interact with equally, implementing policies and guidelines objectively, irrespective of an individual’s ‘connections’, social standing, personal affiliation with the employer, or any other conditions that may be considered biased, discriminatory, or subjective. According to Langan-Fox and colleagues (2007), people, who attempt to take advantage of their social status, expecting preferential treatment because of their ‘rank’, are lowly regarded, and employees who yield to such demands will usually not be recognized. Definition of Cronyism in Career Corruption One of the most typical descriptions of corruption is the exploitation of public position for personal interests. In almost all societies, scholars have observed that the public sector is identified by their special privileges and obligations, and activities most vulnerable to corruption are law enforcement, the elective and policymaking procedures, tax evaluation and collection, the use of public resources, public contracts, and the provision of public services subjected to political misuse (Burke & Cooper, 2009). Corruption is defined in the Webster’s Dictionary as “bribery or similar dishonest dealings” (Wells & Hymes, 2012, xi). Corruption violates social values and hence is dishonorable and immoral. It entails a temporary, mutual, and open transaction. Larmour and Grabosky (2001) emphasize that, even though there is an absence of shared agreement about the crookedness or dishonesty of different types of transactions, the contexts of direct monetary gain and misconduct are definitely corrupt. Cronyism is a kind of corruption where in employers and politicians exhibit favoritism when hiring or delegating individuals and granting contracts or promotions. Friends who gain from the practice of cronyism are often granted a position of power irrespective of their skill, knowledge, or credentials, which implies that greater opportunities may be given to unqualified individuals (Wells & Hymes, 2012). Nepotism, a similar idea, refers to the act of showing favoritism to family members or relatives (Reilly et al., 2012). The origin of the concept ‘cronyism’ may be traced back to the 1600s. Originally, the concept signifies something positive, but by the nineteenth century, it had obtained more unpleasant implications, with a crony implying more of an accomplice in crime than a real friend. In the twentieth century, ‘cronyism’ finally became related to political corruption (Khatri et al., 2013). Cronyism is generally related to corruption but has its own attributes and mechanism. The basic difference between corruption and cronyism is that the latter is rooted in an affiliation, connection, or relationship between individuals and entails mutual, indeterminate, and unspoken exchanges or dealings with no specification of when favors should be given back. Not like corrupt transactions, cronyistic dealings, typically, are founded on friendship, allegiance, loyalty, and trust (Kerley, 2002). Much of the literature on corruption demonstrates that practically all of the allegedly ‘corrupt’ activities or transactions are in fact activities or transactions of cronyism. This takes place because corrupt activities or transactions usually have collaborators (Cascarino, 2012). When these collaborators engaged in corrupt activities regularly confer with one another and take part in frequent transactions, they may develop a sense of loyalty and camaraderie. In essence, if friends are granted unjustifiable and too much advantage in the process of hiring and/or promotion it is considered cronyism. Other scholars consider cronyism as a form of organizational politics (Wells & Hymes, 2012). When preferential treatment is given by a superior to his/her subordinate based on their affiliation rather than his/her work performance or contribution to the organization, it is an act of cronyism. If cronyism is practiced in an organization it would have a greater tendency to hire unqualified or incompetent applicants. Moreover, according to Jennex (2007), cronyism negatively influences employee morale and job satisfaction, resulting in poor work performance. Causes of Cronyism and Career Corruption Individuals practice cronyism for different reasons. Several political officials merely prefer being surrounded by people loyal to them because they suppose that their government may function more efficiently and successfully. Some may simply feel obliged to recognize, reward, or return a favor to a friend, especially those who took part in the campaign for a position of power, or individuals who contributed to the success of a business (Larmour & Grabosky, 2001). Individuals in inferior or subordinate positions may turn to cronyism to enclose themselves with faithful followers who will not destabilize their positions, making sure that they remain powerful even though they are not deserving of it (Wells & Hymes, 2012). Jack Welch, former CEO and chairman of General Electric, had already emphasized the valuable role of trust and loyalty (Jennex, 2007, 104): Trust is enormously powerful in a corporation. People won’t do their best unless they believe they’ll be treated fairly—that there’s no cronyism and everybody has a real shot. The only way I know to create that kind of trust is by laying out your values and then walking the talk. You’ve got to do what you say you’ll do, consistent and over time. Every appointment that is allegedly based on favoritism or cronyism are questionable. The appointed individual may opt to either overlook it or contain unrest, depending on the degree of individual liberty and freedom of expression in a society (Gertrude, 1987). In its nastiest form, cronyism can become plain corruption, where any semblance of a fair market is eliminated. Inducements or bribes to public authorities or politicians are regarded ‘normal’ or ‘commonplace’ and tax avoidance is general rule. This is at times referred to as kleptocracy—rule by theft—or plutocracy—rule by wealth (Kerley, 2002). Examples of Cronyism Many consider cronyism as a form of career corruption as damaging and adverse. It opposes the concept of ‘meritocracy’, a process where in individuals are awarded with opportunities and power based on their skills and experience. Cronyism usually leads to a situation where the individuals in powerful positions are incompetent, and other types of corruption may become prevalent as a consequence (Langan-Fox et al., 2007). Cronyism does not have to be merely in the form of appointing friends to corporate or political positions. It may also be used when public agencies and business organizations have to give contracts for different occupations. In such instances, cronyism can use up taxpayer funds or investors’ capital, as a contract could be given to a person who overbids (Reilly et al., 2012). According to Kerley (2002), when such forms of cronyism are discovered, it can be legally prosecuted, unless there is evidence to show that the contract was given honestly and impartially. Cronyism in the workplace is an act of granting preferential treatment to employees. Such preferential treatment may be deliberate; for instance, an employer may delegate the most preferred tasks to the most senior employee or arrogant apprentice by justifying that his/her skills deserve the best recognition and reward (Burke & Cooper, 2009). Preferential treatment may also be unintentional or instinctive (Khatri et al., 2013); for instance, employees may observe that a senior male director seems to approach young female employees amiably while unintentionally disregarding male employees. Consequences of Career Corruption The organizational environment among the workers can be evaluated by the level of cronyism, internal politics, and teamwork in the organization. A work environment that is characterized by too much politics will wear down cooperation and weaken efficiency. If left unbridled and unresolved, it will sooner or later hamper productivity, smother innovation and creativity, and tear down the organization (Burke & Cooper, 2009). The continued existence of any organization will rely on whether or not it regulates or discourages cronyism and internal politics. An organization that does not base compensation and performance on skills, experience, and knowledge will slide into inadequacy and mediocrity and perhaps confront total failure in the global or local marketplace (Khatri et al., 2013). Merit should be recognized; cronyism should be avoided. The social and economic consequences of cronyism are shouldered by society. Such consequences include reduction of economic efficiency or productivity, decreased motivation in involved organizations, unproductive investment activities, reduced economic performance, unstable prices of consumer products and/or services, decreased competition in the marketplace, and less employment or business opportunities for most people (Wells & Hymes, 2012). A practical consequence of cronyism is evident in the poor design and implementation of private and public community projects. Cronyism reproduces, thus perpetuates, itself. Cronyism leads to a culture of cronyism. This can merely be punished by a wide-ranging, effectual, and obligatory legal standards, and active public and private agencies who can initiate prosecutions (Wells & Hymes, 2012). Cronyism raise ethical issues because one’s personal connection or relationship can pressure or push him/her to give favors or grant benefits to his/her friends and relatives even though they do not deserve it or to disregrard problems because s/he does not want to deal with them. For instance, two current studies on the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) reported that MMS workers who were tasked to monitor oil firms had frequently been acquainted with officials from the oil firms (Cascarino, 2012). Such personal connections were perhaps a major aspect in the regular transactions, exchanges, and socializations that occur between oil firm workers and federal employees (Cascarino, 2012). When incentives are given to personal connections rather than to those who really deserve them, company officials risk impairing employee motivation and the organization’s ethical culture. The Punishment System In some organizations, cronyism or nepotism is almost impossible to rule out. For instance, geographical seclusion may guarantee that a single organization is the leading employer in the area and employees are recruited from that particular area. Unavoidably, several members of a family or a social network are hired in the same company. This state of affairs can, indeed, be very efficiently managed or controlled by persuading the family or social network to espouse an organizational culture of loyalty to the superior, and internal connections hold people responsible for incompetence and failures (Khatri et al., 2013). Even in competently managed companies, dilemmas may arise should the company has to end the contract of a friend or a relative. From a legal point of view, cronyism can run counter to antidiscriminatory policies. Where preferential treatment has been granted to friends or relatives, outsiders may file a complaint under discrimination laws in several nations (Kerley, 2002). In the same way, individuals who develop an intimate relationship with colleages may find themselves in a situation where one or another has to resign or relocate to another division. In several nations, the law may regard this as unjust removal from office or constructive dismissal, where the employment terms and conditions of the worker have changed and the organization has made his/her working situation intolerable (Kerley, 2002). Hence it can be assumed that the company created a condition where the worker had no choice but to leave his/her job. In these instances, some companies make sure that if anybody should leave his/her job, it will be the female spouse. However, yet again, this could be in violation of laws prohibiting discrimination against female employees (Kerley, 2002). However, the big question is, is cronyism illegal? According to the literature, not all the time. It depends on the reason workers are given preferential treatment. No law prohibits organizations from having incompetent superiors. However, if cronyism is based on retribution, harassment, or discrimination it transcends the line dividing incompetent management and unlawful practice. If the decisions of a boss are aimed at punishing workers who have complained of unlawful practice, that could be unlawful retribution (Wells & Hymes, 2012). For instance, if a manager disservices a workers after s/he complains of discrimination, that would also be unlawful retribution. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which interprets and implements anti-discrimination policies, has stated that cronyism could be a form of sexual harassment if it is rooted in giving in to a superior’s sexual attempts (Reilly et al., 2012, 433). For instance, if some workers get more favorable tasks or other work incentives because they tolerate a superior’s sexual advances, the other workers could still file a legal complaint against the organization. Because tolerating harassment is a requirement to get work incentives, workers may file a legal complaint of sexual harassment. Some courts have even concluded that giving preferential treatment to an intimate partner in the workplace may amount to sexual harassment, in several instances (Reilly et al., 2012). On the other hand, discrimination occurs when employes make work-related choices on the basis of the protected traits of workers--- characteristics that the law have deemed should not be the source of employment decisions (Burke & Cooper, 2009). For instance, under the law, it is unlawful for employers not to employ a person because of his/her racial affiliation, to decline to promote female employees, or to assign disabled workers to menial jobs. According to Kerley (2002), if cronyism in the workplace is rooted in protected traits, then it is unlawful discrimination. Solutions and Proposals to Eliminate Career Corruption Companies cannot get rid of people’s connections or affilations with one another, and they cannot expect everybody on their workforce to work in isolation. Nevertheless, companies can implement steps to lessen the prevalence of cronyism. For instance, most organizations have rules that forbid dating between subordinates and superiors and mandate that intimate partners, relatives, and spouses work in separate divisions (Burke & Cooper, 2009). Other measures that can contribute to the eradication of different types of career corruption are as follows. First, develop and enforce disclosure obligations to make sure that superiors are informed of any connections that may create ethical dilemmas. Second, establish review or evaluation procedures that distance or place boundaries between related individuals. Third, formulate measurable objectives to establish qualification for bonuses, promotions, raises, and other rewards. And lastly, develop and implement justifiable and fair minimum requirements for every position in the organization so that friends and relatives must have similar qualifications as any other job candidate. Preventing or regulating cronyism begins with a recognition that cronyism is being practiced within the organization. There are several legal solutions to this unfair practice. First, an anti-cronyism policy that attempts to address career corruption in a holistic manner should be developed and implemented. This involves formulating stricter and more binding policies to prevent cronyism and the granting of contracts or other incentives to individuals who are not deserving of it. Second, there should be an anti-cronyism hotline where cases of cronyism can be reported in secret. Third, form an investigating team that will monitor and get rid of corruption in the workplace. Fourth, there should be procedures and rules to safeguard individuals who report cases of cronyism. Fifth, develop training programs or orientations for all employees on ethical conduct and career corruption. And lastly, prosecution of those who will exhibit favoritism based on retribution, discrimination, and sexual harassment. There are also legal measures that may be adopted at the organizational level. Some of them are as follows: implement zero tolerance rule toward cronyism; launching incentives that will reconcile administrative purpose with the objective of the organization; guaranteeing that the workplace environment persuades all workers to talk about or report any concerns to superiors or appropriate commitees; and, making sure that all rewards, compensation, and promotions are rooted entirely in performance using an impartial and transparent process for assessing this performance. Conclusions Corruption takes on numerous forms. There are widespread, general forms and one-off, occasional forms. Cronyism tends to be the fundamental drive in corrupt transactions that are widespread. Hence, to identify and understand specific forms of corruption, one should first familiarize him/herself to the concept of cronyism. Cronyism is basically an unintentional outcome of the need of superiors for control. As bosses have the authority to distribute resources, this enables them to create feelings of gratitude and debt among those they have given preferential treatment or favors. Nevertheless, the over-dependence on personal networks or connections without consideration for skills, knowledge, and experience brings about a damaging weakness in the capacity of the organization to adjust to its internal and external environment. In fact, it would be crucial to explore legal solutions or organizational policies that may inprove performance without the need to resort to cronyism. This essay assumes that cronyism is widespread in organizations, both in the public and private sector. Nevertheless, it is an overlooked phenomenon and has not been given proper emphasis by scholars. Cronyism has detrimental impacts on the process of recruitment and selection because applicants are considered for the job because of their connections. Since those employees may not possess sufficient capabilities, knowledge, and experience, they may fail to deliver or perform efficiently. This harms organizational unity, morale, and fairness. References Baig, K. (2013). What does Islam teach about justice? Neither love nor hatred can be allowed to compromise justice, Retrieved April 20, 2013 from SoundVision: http://www.soundvision.com/info/peace/justice.asp Burke, R. & Cooper, C. (2009). Research Companion to Corruption in Organizations. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing. Cascarino, R. (2012). Corporate Fraud and Internal Control + Software Demo: A Framework for Prevention. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Gertrude, E. (1987). Moral rights in the workplace. New York: SUNY Press. Jennex, M. (2007). Knowledge Management in Modern Organizations. New York: Idea Group Inc. (IGI). Kerley, P. (2002). Employment Law for the Paralegal. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Khatri, N. et al. (2013). Cronyism: Antecedents and Consequences. Retrieved from http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/nbs/sabre/working_papers/10-99.pdf Langan-Fox, J., Cooper, C., & Klimoski, R. (2007). Research Companion to the Dysfunctional Workplace: Management Challenges and Symptoms. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing. Larmour, P. & Grabosky, P. (2001). Corruption Australia: its prevention and control. In Gerald E. Caiden, O.P. Dwivedi and Joseph Jabbra (eds). Where Corruption Lives. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Reilly, N., Sirgy, J., & Gorman, A. (2012). Work and Quality of Life: Ethical Practices in Organizations. New York: Springer. Storti, C. (2004). Americans at Work: A Guide to the Can-Do People. Maine, USA: Intercultural Press. Wells, J. & Hymes, L. (2012). Bribery and Corruption Casebook: The View from Under the Table. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Read More