In the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina, the dirtiest
five-letter word in American business and government may be
“crony.”
When Michael Brown, the former head of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, resigned his post on September 12, the age-old practice of
cronyism--i.e., favoritism shown to an old friend without regard to his or her
qualifications--came under the media microscope.
Whether Brown was indeed a poster boy for the evils of
friendly featherbedding or a fall guy for FEMA’s besieged parent organization,
the Department of Homeland Security, remains to be seen. But human resource
professionals throughout the nation may be uneasily looking at their companies’
executive hiring practices in the wake of revelations that no one in the federal
government seemed to have done a rudimentary background check on the
questionable résumé Brown submitted in 2001.
The résumé, which was posted on the agency’s Web site, was
submitted when he was first hired by a longtime ally in the Republican Party to
be FEMA’s then-general counsel. News organizations looking into FEMA’s behavior
during Hurricane Katrina uncovered several discrepancies in Brown’s account of
his job history.
There have always been land mines for the HR executive who’s
faced with doing a background check on the golfing buddy of the CEO who’s
angling for a job or has to tell the boss that a longtime friend submitted false
information on a résumé. But the stakes are higher than ever, ranging from the
kind of media scrutiny FEMA faced to a legal system that penalizes bad hiring
via breach of fiduciary duty and negligent-hiring lawsuits.
“Any board of directors of an organization that condones not
doing a thorough background check on any new hire, even if it’s for the CEO
position, had better hope the stars are in alignment,” says Garry Mathiason, an
employment law attorney and the chair of the compliance and litigation group at
the Littler Mendelson legal firm in San Francisco.
Mathiason’s clients often claim they didn’t do a background
check on a new top hire because they thought the process would be “insulting,
because everybody in the industry knew this person’s reputation,” Mathiason
says.
He cites an instance in which one client initially declined
to do a background check on a potential CEO, a well-respected veteran within his
industry.
When the background check was finally done, it revealed that
the applicant had been indicted, but not prosecuted, for misappropriation of
funds and, in a civil case related to the criminal indictment, had been found
liable for damages. (The applicant was subsequently rejected for the CEO
slot.)
But when an organization demands that all new hires, from
truck drivers to the CEO, undergo a background check, pressure for giving a
high-ranking candidate a pass is off. “And don’t let anyone complain about the
cost,” adds Mathiason, who notes that some online background checks today cost
as little as $5 a search.
However, an applicant who is friendly with the boss but lacks
work experience related to an open position should not be automatically excluded
in the hiring process, says professor Samuel Bacharach, director of Cornell
University’s Institute for Workplace Studies and the author of the book Get Them
on Your Side.
“Many of the best executives shine in positions where they
had to learn on the job,” Bacharach says, “and hiring someone who is an ally of
a leader is not inherently wrong. The truth of the matter is, leaders need
people in their corner who are going to help them set an agenda and get things
done.”
But when leaders hire on the basis of cronyism regardless of
qualification, “the message the leader sends is one of exclusion, insecurity and
payoffs. It also implies a certain fear of looking outside the leader’s circle,”
Bacharach says.
“Mixing the terms ‘cronyism’ and ‘politics’ is a cheap shot,”
he adds. “Cronyism implies incompetence and just keeps your career going in the
short term. The best CEOs can identify their political allies who are also
competent.
“That’s just good leadership.”
--Ross Johnson