Raglanroadie, "My guess is that if they were the son they would have a different opinion." My guess is that--given a second chance--you wouldn't put the discussion into the emotional arena.
I am one of those who strongly opposes corporate "incest." I don't have the same feeling about privately held businesses--even very large ones--for a couple of reasons: I have no vested interest in the action so it's none of my business; and the deciding executive or owner has every right to apply any selection criterion he desires.
In the case of a large, publicly held corporation--let me randomly select Q--the preselection of Paul has to have happened years ago to permit him to be cycled through the appropriate internship. There might even have been a "competition" for the job between Paul and his brother, even though neither might have been aware of it. I understand that the board approved IJ's choice of Paul, and I will mention the term "rubber stamped" only in passing.
No matter how Paul's ascension was ordained, the probability that Qualcomm selected and named the very best candidate for the job is almost infinitely small. The selectors can have confidence that they have chosen the very best only after they have had the opportunity to evaluate the resumes of and interview applicants from the self-selected universe of minimally quallified candidtaes.
Even at levels below a full, open announcement of the recruitment, let us suppose that the board had competitively selected 3 to 5 potential successors to the post of CEO. All of the candidates selected would have undergone the same intersnhip as Paul, whatever that was. Would Paul have emerged from the competition as the top performer? Could be. Wanna bet?
As I see it, Paul would likely have had a 1:3 or 1:5 chance of being the "best." Those are not good odds for any enterprise. It was preselection--nepotism--at its worst and virtually guaranteed that Qualcomm could not get the best person for the job. Adequate? Probably. Best? Unilkely.
My objection is not based on emotion; I suppose envy would be the word I should use in the context of the sentence I quoted to open this sermon.
My objection is based on established principles of effective personnel selection and management. To follow any other set of guidelines or principles is to commit a corporation to being led by less than the best.
IMO, of course.
