Conference 7.286::digital

I'm not (and hopefully never will be!) a manager, but I think what I'd do is:

1. Evaluate all the candidates on their merits, ignoring (however difficult
   that might be) outside pressure.

2. If I decided that the relative was *not* the best person for the job then
   I'd hire someone else.  If I discovered that this was a career limiting
   decision then I'd either transfer to another group or else raise hell
   though personnel/upper management (if I thought it was worth the hassle).

3. If I decided that the relative *was* the best person for the job then I'd
   try to resolve the nepotism question; I'd talk to my personnel rep and
   with other managers whom I repected (apparently my boss would not fall into
   that category!) and decide whether it was just me or if it really wouldn't
   be the "right thing" to hire this person.

4. If the candidate passed tests 1 and 3 then I'd hire him/her, and if the
   relative used his/her influence with Dad/Uncle/Brother-in-Law against me,
   I'd take corrective action as in 2.

				-- Bob

    It's a shame your management chain has put you in this predicament
    in the first place.  My own personal opinion is that there should
    always be complete detachment between relatives who work in the
    same company, unless said company is family-owned and operated.
    One should not be supervised or evaluated the other, since the
    potential for abuse is signifigant.
    
    That being said, the realities of life and politics are that it
    happens often, and you just have to live through it.  Given that
    you seem to indicate that more than one level of management above
    you is trying to influence you, the chances of the ODP helping you
    out are pretty slim.  Quoting chapter and verse from the P&P is
    useless if you don't have *someone* in management who knows you
    and is willing to back you up, I know that from experience.
    
    As you have noted, there are lots of ramifications to hiring a
    relative of your boss, both to your personal career, and to the
    company as a whole.  Do you have any indications that your boss
    has thought about them (or even cares)?  Or is the subject so
    delicate that you hesitate to even discuss it?  If that's the
    case, then it may be time for you to make a career change, rather
    than the dreaded "CLM".  I've always been fortunate that DEC has
    (historically) had lots of career alternatives for me, but these
    of course dwindle rapidly as you move up the hierarchy.
    
    No matter what, I hope you are able to resolve your situation into
    something you can work with, even if means walking the edge of "doing
    the right thing."  A sour taste in the mouth is still better than
    no food in the tummy ...

    Geoff

You may be able to justify it, your managers may be able to justify it,
but bringing a relative into your own group will only bring trouble.
Remember Jim Wright.  Even if everything he did was legal and within the
rules it still looks like it stinks.  If it looks like it stinks then it
does stink.  Also think about the people in your group.  There are not
to many better ways to destroy moral than to hire a relative.

Nepotism is great.  Do what you can to find a job for the relative in
some other group. 

Anne Landers

>    My problem is twofold.  First of all, I feel unable to objectively
>    evaluate the candidate, although I will say that the candidate indeed
>    looks very strong.  (From my perspective, this is unfortunate, since
>    it complicates the issue:  My manager may be right - the candidate may
>    be superior to others. )  
    
    Think about what you just said there.  I'm sure you took Cornerstones;
    change the scenario from 'bosses relative' to 'single woman with
    children and job requires travel'.  See what I mean?
    
    It's not the candidates fault that he happens to be related to
    your manager.  You shouldn't let that get in the way of your hiring
    decision.  Hire decisions should be made on the basis of ability
    only.
    
    You are right in being concerned about how things will work out
    if the person is hired.  My opinion: forget personnel, forget the
    ODP.  This should be between you and your boss. God made spines 
    just for this purpose.  My experience is that honesty doesn't necessarily
    make friends, but it definitely commands respect.  If you can't
    work it out, I doubt anyone is going to work it out for you.
    
    If the candidate is not suitable, tell your boss so and tell him
    why.  You (I presume) are the one who is going to have to live with
    the results of the process, so take the opportunity to convince
    your boss that you are right.  If you are, and if he's not a complete
    dope, you shouldn't have any permanent problem.  If you boss is
    a dope, well you'd be better off elsewhere anyway.
    
    If you would hire the candidate, tell your boss about your
    reservations. Say "I'm very concerned about the potential problems
    of hiring your relative.  What assurances can you give me that I
    will have the latitude to deal with this employee like any other?"
    If your boss is good, he'll be sensitive to the issue and would
    probably go out of his way to make sure nepotism isn't the determining
    factor.  If he's a jerk, update your resume.
    

    Al
    

        1. I think there is a conflict of interest. Doesn't your boss have
        sign off on your employee to be's reviews and salary raises....
        
        2. I would contact your local Personnel Rep, ask for their
        clarification and have it put on record with them that you find
        the situation unacceptable etc.. Then you are covered, if your
        boss tries to put pressure on you....
        
        q
        

	Personally, the fact that the manager(s) brought all this up during the
interview process rules out any possibility of even-handed treatment further
down the road, IMHO.  Someone is up to no good.  These kinds of things make me
leary of management jobs, even though that's my next path.

	BTW, Tom, could you possibly tell us if this is a Field situation, or
a "Corporate" one? 

Interesting replies to an interesting policy...

We seem to cover the spectrum from .4's "See if you can smooth it out
through diplomacy" to .6's "Get it on tape and nail him!"

P&P is nice, anbd so is the ODP, but it still boils down to *LOCAL*
politics.... and you're fooling yourself if you don't think there's 
sufficient power at that level to put ANY single individual on the 
street... and make it look like their choice.

Its a tough call...  And from experience I can tell you that one of the
questions you have to ask yourself is "how far am I willing to let this
go?... Do I go as far as to leave the company over it?"

Its easy to sit on the sidelines and stand up for principles, and quite
another to look at your new house, and your wife and kids playing in
the yard and say "Do I tear my family out by the roots to relocate
to another position within the company (if possible) or another company
(if possible) and what are the chances that I won't find another job 
at the same level as this one...and THEN is it worth all that?"
 
Life is never fair... not even in Digital... although there are some
areas in Digital where it seems to be more fair than average, there
are other that are much worse.

IMHO, I tend to lean toward .4's solution.  Ultimately, it has to be
worked out between you and your manager, unless you feel you have enough
political clout to overide any "indirect" damage he could inflict on
your career.  From the sound of it, I think its your manager that has
all the clout from above.

If attempting to reach a workable solution with your manager as in .4
does not provide a resolution, then you have to fall back on the 
decision I mentioned above... "Is it worth my job?"

But the important thing is to make that decision ahead of time so that
you won't have to make it on the fly...

(This advice was offered to me in a different "sticky" situation, and 
this is my disclaimer of credit for it)  8^)

Good luck...

Bob

    Another angle is that if the choice turns out to be a poor one
    *and* not the relative, guess who hears about it?
    
    A-a-r-g-h!
    
    I say go with your "gut" feeling.  You'll sleep better if nothing
    else.
    
    Richard

	I have to agree with the previous notes that having a relative in 
the chain of management represents severe conflict of interest and does , in 
my opinion, violate the P&P rules of a relative within the same work group. 

	If this candidate is so qualified, there should be other positions 
within the company they could be suited for. You would be doing the "right 
thing" by disqualifying the candidate. Remember that "secrets" are never 
secure, as witnessed by recent national government disclosures. 

	The OPEN DOOR policy extends above your manager, his manager, and so 
on right to the top. It may be painful and I am simply offering advice with
no ability to offer help or refuge for you if you take my advice. You need 
to document what is going on so you have a chronology of events. Trying to 
handle this situation is going to be difficult and even more difficult if 
you don't have it written down.

	Complicity in a wrongful action is dangerous. Remember, NO person is 
above the "law" (either public law or corporate policies). 

    This suggestion only addresses one of the problems, that of objective
    evaluation of the candidates.  If possible, ask somebody else to
    evaluate the candidates -- somebody who doesn't know which of the
    candidates is the relative (although they may know that one of the
    candidates is related to a manager). 
    
    
    				-- edp 

    Hire the best qualified candidate and ensure you're working within
    the "guidelines" of PP&Ps.
    
    Also, the previous note's suggestion is valuable, much like a 2nd
    opinion.  
    
    You're looking for a person who has the knowledge, skill, experience
    and qualifications to do a job that needs to be done!  Hire the
    best!  And if people scream "Nepotism, nepotism!!", just be honest
    and straightforward with them.  

        Although I know a few additional details that have not been
        disclosed here, I'll refrain from sharing any of them unless the
        author of the topic note asks me to do so.  I'm sure each of you
        would want me to handle an anonymous topic note in the same way
        for you. 
        
        Many of the suggestions so far are excellent!  My advice would be
        along the same lines:  if there's a better qualified candidate,
        hire the better qualified person, and you thereby avoid all the
        problems that can ensue from having a person's relative in the
        chain of command, and all the problems that could arise because of
        that relationship.  Also, make sure, if you *must* hire the boss's
        relative, that your own personnel folks have signed off on this
        "bending" of the rules -- get it in writing.  If there's a problem
        later on, you can guess who's behind would be in the wringer. 
        
        Tom

I'd suggest, at the very least, that you DOCUMENT everything now (dates,
conversations, phone calls, meetings, etc) for your own benefit.  Including
what was said, as exactly as you can remember it.  In the off chance you need
it later.  You can't go back and reconstruct it.

It smells like a lose-lose for you.  It definitely doesn't look right.

Good luck.  Let us know what happens!

    
    As a manager, I'm sorry, but even if this candidate WAS qualified,
    and might even be the BEST qualified, I'd not employ him/her.
    
    The pressure you're getting now is indicative of bad times ahead.
    As previous notes have implied, even if this person is #1 in ability,
    suppose they turn out to:
    
    	o  Be a drunk?
    	o  Take drugs on the job?
    	
    Too severe? OK, how about:
    
    	o  3 hour lunches?
    	o  Leaves at 4:00 every day?
    	o  Spends 20 minuts out of every 2 hours on the phone on personal
    	   calls?
           
    Make up your own "little problems", but the bottom line is, if this
    person EVER does anything that bugs you as their manager, you are
    goint to have twice the headaches you would otherwise have, simply
    because they are related to a person who works above you.
                          
    Performance problems are NOT FUN! Compound them with a manager above
    you who is watching your every move and protecting their relative,
    and you're in for bad times. Even if this person looks good on paper,
    even a 50/50 chance of them working out wouldn't entice me.
    
    /se
    
    

    I agree with .14. I wouldn't employ a relative of my Manager in any
    circumstances.

    I also agree with .14.  The person may be very well qualified, but the
    situation is a set up for disaster. The disaster might not happen, but
    the probability is unreasonably high, and if it doesn come about, you
    know who will lose.
    
    It is very clearly a direct violation of the policy and procedure that
    was written precisely to prevent this sort of thing. Let the manager
    persuade some other department to hire him. You shouldn't be having to
    deal with this.

    Assuming that no company policy would be violated, the last 3 replies
    are advocating discrimination.  Like I suggested to the base note
    author, change the scenario a little bit:
    
    Job: Support engineer, travel required.
    
    Applicant:  MIT graduate, MSEE, 8 years experience in corporate
    engineering.  Highly recommended by current manager.
    
    Personal profile:  Single woman (divorced), two children ages 2
    and 4.
    
    Imagine yourself saying "This job requires someone who can travel
    on short notice.  One of the kids will get sick and she'll be stuck
    home.  I'll hire a man instead."
    
    None of the performance problems enunmerated in .14 are unique to
    a manager's relatives.  
    
    Al
    
    

         <<< Note 802.17 by HOCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ "Shoes for industry" >>>
>
>    Assuming that no company policy would be violated, the last 3 replies
>    are advocating discrimination.  
    
    I don't have P&P in front of me but believe that company policy WOULD
    be violated in this situation.
    
    However,
    
    "Discrimination" is exercised every time you pick a candidate and offer
    them a job. The "right" candidate is the one most suitable, period.
    
    "Most suitable" includes that they be hired in line with P&P.
    
    - Andy

    re: .19
    
    Not enough information was presented in the base note to determine
    with certainty whether or not the policy is being violated.  The
    hiring managers boss says it is not.  He might be wrong, but then
    he might not be.  In any event the _purpose_ of the policy (in the
    USA, 6.04) is quite clear - relatives should not be placed into
    positions where a conflict of interest might occur.  The only thing
    clear from the base note is that hiring the relative causes a problem
    for the hiring manager, who is not related to either the candidate
    or his own manager, nor are either of the related parties in direct
    supervision of one another.  In short, nothing is clear.
    
    And I differ with you on discrimination.  When you choose one candidate
    over another, you are being discriminating.  When you use criteria
    that are not job related in making your decision, you are practicing
    discrimination.
    
    My only point is that _if_ no policy is being violated (and I realize
    that is a major if), basing the hiring decision solely on how
    uncomfortable it makes you feel seems quite contrary to our employment
    practices and policies.
    
    Al
    

    I think it also depends on the job.  In my last job, we hired
    a *lot* of WC2 stockkeepers.  Most of them were hired from a temporary
    agency, and *if* they worked out well, were normally offered permanent
    positions, when we could get external authorizations.  
    
    There was never a time that went by that we weren't being asked
    to hire this son or daughter for the summer, or this son or daughter
    cuz s(he) didn't want to go to college for a couple of years, or
    needed the DEC benefits to pay for the college, etc...
    
    The only time I ever saw any pressure was when the person wanted
    his/her son/daughter to be hired into the permanent field before
    they could (or before someone who should have been offered the job).
    
    This worked out well, gave them an opportunity they probably might
    not have been able to have, and benefited all (if they worked out).
    
    It was also made clear to the person, that they might have had helped
    walking through the door, but once they were there, it was their
    own merits that were going to keep them there.
    
    So.. I think it all depends on the job you are hiring the person
    for.
    
    Although I do agree with Bob Early, for a high level WC4 place,
    I don't think I'd hire them either, and then I would probably change
    jobs, becuase I wouldn't want to be working for a boss that had
    that kind of ethics!
    
    Gale
    

    Policy is what it's interpreted as, and, despite the
    career-limiting-move involved, in my mind the situation is against
    the policy so I would NOT hire the relative.  In order to provide
    some employment opportunity for the relatives of senior executives,
    I would suggest there must be two persons in between relatives who
    are in a direct reporting line, as:
    
                            Big Boss
                               |
                          Medium Boss
                               |
                          Little Boss
                               |
                      Big Boss's relative
                      
    In today's supposedly flattening organizations, this may pose some
    difficulties.
    
    In another life, I hired a vice president's wife (not the VP to
    whom I reported) and found all problems to be outside our department
    and our relationship.  It seems that others infer a lot.
    
    In the base note, the error was made by the already-employed relative
    who should have stood as a reference (if asked) and nothing else.
    In fact, the manager should be documenting virtually every contact
    and innuendo regarding this affair, and, if his perception is correct
    that he is under the gun in this matter, both his manager and his
    manager's manager should be shown the door.  Or at least moved
    to non-supervisory positions.
    
    Don

Once upon a time, many years ago, my boss hired the District Manager's
wife for a software residency.

She was qualified for the job (over-qualified, for that matter), and he had
permission from very high up in the company (and he wasn't pressured
by anyone other than the customer who needed help).  The permission was
for six months or a year, and wasn't renewed, so the woman left Dec
and was hired by the customer (she earned more, and the customer
payed less).

He mentioned once that he found it a bit strange to do her salary planning
with her husband.  She's now divorced from the District Manager, and
is back working for Dec.

In regard to this situation, I would recommend that, if qualified, the
person should be considered for a position in a different group, but
not one in the manager's area.

Martin.

Check with personnel to answer the Policy questions.  If its against 
the Policy,  you may not have to deal with the situation.

Doing the right thing can often be career limiting in the local area,
hence the suggestion to determine upfront how willing you may be to relocate.

Remember... this person will be doing YOUR salary review...

Digital doesn't always do the right thing, nor is it always able to 
support someone who does...   Sometimes local politics is too strong, and
your idea of "the right thing,"  even if it is, gets overidden...

My $.02 

Bob

Here's the orangebook (PP&P manual) info:

(B)0lqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqwqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqk
x                      PERSONNEL                      x Section 6.04           x
x                                                     x Page  1 of 1           x
x               POLICIES AND PROCEDURES               x Effective 03-JAN-89    x
mqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqvqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqj

                   Assignment of Employees Who Are Related


              ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE RELATED


POLICY

It is the Company's policy that employees who are related will not
be assigned to the same work group.  The Company's interest is to
promote an environment in which business decisions are made free
from the effect of family relationships.  Likewise employees should
not accept or remain in positions in which a family relationship
with another employee could impact their ability to make decisions
in an objective manner.

PRACTICE

| For purposes of this policy, family relations are defined as
| parent, spouse, child, sister, brother, stepparent, stepchild,
| foster parent, guardian, in-law, grandchild or grandparent.
| Specifically, related employees will not be assigned to positions
| such as:

    o  Direct supervision of one another,

    o  Dependent responsibilities, i.e., Purchasing and Accounts
       Payable,

    o  Disbursement of petty cash to one another, or

    o  Access to privileged or confidential information about one
       another.

It is understood that the examples contained within this policy may
not precisely cover every situation which arises.  The line manager
and the Personnel Department are responsible for reviewing all
applications of this policy on a case by case basis.  Employees who
feel they may be subject to the provisions of this policy should
bring it to their manager's attention.  Additional points are
covered in Policy 6.06, Conflicts of Interest.


** The Company's interest is to promote an environment in which business
** decisions are made free from the effect of family relationships.

** The line manager and the Personnel Department are responsible for reviewing
** all applications of this policy on a case by case basis.

Looks like personnel needs to be involved for sure!!

Lee

    o  Direct supervision of one another,

OK, this case is arguably indirect.

    
    
    o  Access to privileged or confidential information about one
       another.

But it would clearly be a violation of this one!

    Because of the pressures brought to bear on you, you should refuse
    to even interview the relative.  Document all conversations very
    thoroughly, get Personnel directly involved, and prepare to get
    screwed at your next review.
    
    You might also try asking another manager, who is not aware of the
    situation to do a courtesy interview of your top choices, and docu-
    ment that carefully.
    
    As the job market tightens up, there will probably be a lot more
    of this, and personnel should start seriously thinking about a very
    clear policy on the subject.

    Of course, we're all assuming that you don't work for Personnel!
    

    RE: .0 There is another alternative, a classic one for this type
    of situation:  find a job for the individual in another group/company.
                                         
    That may take some extra work, but it'll be worth it to you, to
    them, AND to the boss (who in turn is probably being pressured by spouse!)
                                         
    If your boss's "child" works for you, you'll never be free to be
    as objective as you may want to be.  
    
    	Rick
    	Merrill

It seems in this note that "related" is being interpreted as in the "Orange
book".

It could, from reading .0, be the M**2's (2nd level manager's) cousin
(Uncle, Nephew, ...) .   In this case, P&P is met and according to reading the
policy, the person is hireable.

This still does not mean one should condone the practice of pressure from above
to hire ANY individual.  What would have happened if the pressure had been to
hire applicant X, for any X who is a close friend of M**2 ?  Wouldn't this be
just as testy to deal with, having (as noted earlier) you're manager responsible
for approving Salary plans and so on for this person.

To throw the hypo more thetical, the orange book does not include Significant
Other's where the SO relationship is non-blood, non marriage, but is intense.
If you follow the orange book here, you could have you're "other half" as a
direct report.


					Bill

    
    As far as I am concerned, you should take action via personnel, if not
    for your own sake, then the rest of your subordinates (folks working
    for you). This kind of situation is far reaching in the sense that once
    you have been convinced/forced/etc to hire this person then you have
    the passed the legacy of this decision onto everyone they will work
    with. Furthermore, consider how the person being hired is going to deal
    with the situation. Noone will find it comfortable to have frank and
    honest discussions about various issues within the company whilst what
    is,to be honest, a direct line up through two levels of management, is in
    the area.
    
    I may be biased, I am not sure. But having experienced working with a
    "boss's relative" at first hand, I do not relish the experience that is
    in store for the people in this case.
    
    Obviously, everyone has discussed at great length the implications to
    the manager involved but what about the wider implications of workload,
    moral and career progression for other members of that manager's group?
    
    I my case, my boss the technical director of a small software company
    hired her sister as a programmer despite the fact that she had no
    programming experience. Her starting salary was somewhere around twice
    the amount that members of the team, of two years within the company,
    were being paid. (only discovered by being near a printer on which the 
    personnel records chose to print one day)
    
    The relative proceeded to take extended lunch breaks, came in late, 
    left early and for her pains was provided with a company car in which
    to do this. Workload destined for the relative fell onto other members 
    of the team and attempts by other workers to persuade (in a verbal NOT
    physical way people!) the relative to pull their weight were met with
    hostility and the attitude of "well, my sister thinks I'm doing OK!".
    
    The general attitude of the boss turned from satisfaction with the work
    that we produced to general dissatisfaction with everyone except her
    sister and higher levels. The only conclusion that may be drawn is that
    in some way information is being perverted since the quality and
    quantity of software produced by the normal members of the team was if
    anything increasing. 
    
    General attitude of the relative became that of "I am superior to you 
    because my sister is the boss" and was stated in no uncertain terms.
    Resentment increased and team members not willing to cowtow to the
    whims of the relative were targeted as uncooperative and lazy. Salary
    reviews for these persons were frozen (bias here because I was one of
    them, I do realise this but the statement is true).
    
    Formal complaints to the boss met with an unwillingness to acknowledge
    any bias towards the relative and a statement to the effect that if we
    didn't shape up then we would all be out on our ears.
    
    What happens now? Do you become a supporter of this destructive nepotism
    or do you take the only other option open to you which is to quit and seek
    employment elsewhere?
    
    My choice was not easy since how can you feel good about yourself in
    a working environment when your boss is telling you that their relative
    is the model employee and your know damn well that she is not doing her
    job?  But when you enjoy the job you are doing and want to succeed in
    that job?
    
    In the end, I quit my job and went back to college, now I'm working for
    Digital for a year as a college break and finding that the atmosphere
    is so much better here. I would hate to see the same thing happen to 
    Digital as happened in my last company. It would be nothing short of a
    sin.
    
    I know that I may have gone into rather a lot of detail here, but I 
    personally believe that this manager has got to bite the bullet and defend
    his groups' interests aswell as his own. I have sympathy for his
    problem but believe in all honesty that it is his responsiblity to his
    team to make a stand against destructive nepotism because that is
    his/her job (managers should manage in a way that protects their group
    and produces the goods for the company, to the benefit of both).
    I don't see how the manager resigning will help the guys at the bottom
    who may have to work under the conditions that may result from the 
    employment of a relative.
    
    To take things to their extremes, should a manager who is worried
    about standing up for the good of themself and their group really be a
    manager?
    
    This is my opinion and is not meant to hurt, annoy or damage anyones
    ego. You have here a situation which I feel very strongly about and
    you may have just touched a raw nerve or two, hence the ranting and
    raving.
    
    Just remember that once the situation is allowed to progress further
    that the big manager/middle manager/small manager stage, it is more
    that just three/four peoples careers you are playing with and having
    experienced this, move on option is not as easy as it sounds. When I
    applied for my job with Digital the reference that came from my
    previous company stated that "I resigned the day before they were going
    to fire me...". Completely unjustifiable and as far as I am concerned a
    case of sour grapes, but there you go, the impact can be far reaching
    and long lifed.
    
    I'd better shutup now,
    
    SP
    the  
    
    Problem number one - Myself and my
    colleagues having worked with the company for almost 2 years are dealt
    with unfavourably at the next salary review, whereas the relative is 
    given a salary of approximately twice what we earn.

    Sorry about the rubbish at the bottom of the last note, part of the
    note that I forgot to delete after rewording it.
    
    SP *8^)

    Another solution:
    
    	a.  Hire the relative.
    	b.  Kiss up to the Boss.
    	c.  Get a big fat raise.
    
    
    P.S. Only kidding.