El reconocimiento de la anáfora

The culture of a country or society varies in the way they perceive and endorse inequality, hierarchy and egalitarianism/ meritocracy. Societies as a whole are presented with dilemmas associated with managing relationships amongst groups, inequality in status, wealth and power (Basabe & Ros, 2005). Some cultures are more inclined to endorse hierarchical relations over egalitarian relations - a phenomenon that Hofstede (1983) coined power distance. For

example, countries like India endorse inequality and hierarchical relations, which form a principal component of society (Hofstede, 1980; 1983).

Countries with low power distance are more likely to show a preference for shared decision making, see each other as equal, have equal rights, and engage in informal communication, which is direct and characterised by a degree of

participation from all levels (Hofstede 2001). However, countries with high power distance are more likely to have a high degree of acceptance for inequality

between high power/status and low power/status individuals. Furthermore, people are more likely to look to individuals in authority to make decisions, and

engage in deference rather than challenge unethical behaviour from superiors (Basabe & Ros, 2005; Curtis, Conover, & Chui, 2012; Hofstede, 2010).

Power distance and the associated tendency to endorse inequality have had little mention in the literature on nepotism. A handful of studies have examined ethical practices such as whistleblowing and corruption because higher power distance countries have fewer inspections and regulations against the misuse of power (Schultz et al., 1993; Davis & Ruhe, 2003; Basabbe & Ros, 2005; Hofstede, 2001; Pillay & Dorasamy, 2010; Curtis, Conover & Chui, 2012), but none have focused on investigating the relationship between power distance and nepotism.

In countries such as India or Indonesia where there is a high power distance, individuals are unlikely to challenge the power of their bosses and it would be highly unlikely they would bypass their chain of command (Davis & Ruhe, 2003). Therefore, practices such as extortion, unequal levels of compensation (Getz & Volkema, 2001) and nepotism are more likely to exist. In contrast, in countries such as Denmark or Finland where power distance is small, and society is more equal, there is less corruption, and anyone can challenge powerholders or the chain of command (Francesco & Gold, 1998).

Gomez-Mejia, Balkin and Cardy (1998) stipulated that low power distance societies are more likely to have egalitarian-based systems in place; therefore, selection would be based on merit, not nepotistic connections, and nepotism on the whole would be seen as unethical and a conflict of interest. Conversely, in

societies that have a large power distance, which often also coincides with a more collectivistic or relationship-based culture (Pillay & Dorasamy 2010), the primary means for getting ahead or getting things done lies in the ability to network. Thus, power relations are manifested in, and perpetuate through personal and family networks (Hooker, 2009). In this view, nepotistic appointments serve to reinforce inequality and the concentration of privilege and wealth amongst powerful ‘elites’ (Guhan & Samuel, 1997; Mills, 1956).

The notion of dependence on those in authority can lead individuals with low power/status to subscribe to hierarchical differentiation and refrain from questioning leaders’ decisions even if the latter may be unethical (Hofstede, 1983). In contrast, individuals in authority with high power/status would be free to act nepotistically for the benefit of relatives knowing they would not be challenged (Basabe & Ros, 2005; Deschepper et al., 2008). For example, the very powerful ex-Indonesian president, Suharto, appointed his submissive brother-in- law to public office who in turn proceeded to appoint other members of the Suharto family and their friends, some of whom were widely considered to be incompetent to hold public office or carry out contracts awarded to them for public services (Robertson-Snape, 1999). However, due to the level of power and authority commanded by President Suharto and his family, his people were intimated into accepting his way (Robertson-Snape, 1999).

Hofstede’s power distance dimension is related to the extent to which national cultures tolerate and buy into the unequal distribution of power in their society, as illustrated by the example of the Indonesian president, Suharto. In general, it relates to inequality (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) and the

stratification between high and low status individuals (Basabe & Ros, 2005). Reviews of cross-cultural studies carried out by Triandis et al. (1988) and Basabe and Ros (2005) suggest collectivistic societies have more social and economic inequality and power differentials are more acceptable and considered to be legitimate.

Eastern countries are often characterised by a greater prevalence of high- power distance, whereas Western countries are characterised by low power distance (Erez ,1994; Triandis, 1994). Banuri and Eckel (2012) suggested that collectivist cultures have their moral values and beliefs rooted in the betterment of their in-group. However, power distance is also linked to unethical behaviour and practices (Khatri, 2009), which again leads to the prediction that nepotistic practices are more prevalent in high power distance settings, when compared to low power distance settings. This is consistent with Bellow’s (2003) supposition that nepotism occurs far more frequently in less developed nations and societies, which are, with some exceptions, more likely to be classified as high power

(which are characterised by high power distance) is hierarchical and dominated by superiors; those in position of authority make decisions without consulting with their subordinates. Communication between bosses and subordinates is often done via formal methods only. As a result, there is little to no informal interaction between superiors and subordinates because of hierarchical

structures. In contrast, in low power distance organisations superiors may seek out their subordinates’ views and input before making a decision, as the

likelihood of subordinates resisting new decisions without consultation is high (Brockner et al., 2001).

Hierarchical structures facilitate top-down decision-making, where power- holders are free to make important decisions and appoint employees with little oversight or involvement from employees. These top-down decisions are less likely to be merit based and more likely to involve nepotistic practices. For example, qualitative research suggests that family-owned businesses in Pakistan—a high power distance culture—have no human resource department, and business owners don’t see the need for it as those in senior positions appoint relatives to positions and award promotions based on their level of connection to the founder or the general managers (Mangi, Shah & Ghumro, 2012). Therefore, the closer the connection to the founder, the higher the position you would be appointed too (Afzal, Khan & Ali, 2009). This practice maintains existing hierarchical structures, and the founder or mangers often regard their business as their fiefdom (Mangi, Shah, & Ghumro, 2012). Also, family members appointed or

promoted are happy to maintain the status quo; therefore those in authority are unchallenged, and the nepotistic hierarchal gap between low level employees and management remains.