Analyzing Nepotism and Favoritism Using Social Network Analysis

I will work with HHL Leipzig in the second module, however after completing my degree in Fletcher I would like to conduct an analysis of the practice of nepotism and favoritism within Indonesia Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

            As a newly democratic country after thirty-two years of authoritarian rule, Indonesia is gravely infested with corruption, collusion, and nepotism both in private and public sector. After the democratic reform, private sectors are more successful in combating such practice, however public sector seems to lag behind. I have been working for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 2008 and despite efforts to conduct internal reform, including redesigning of recruitment process, there are still alleged practices of nepotism and favoritism within the Ministry, especially among those who have connections with high-ranked officials, particularly family connections. The result of this alleged practice, among others, is uneven distribution of work, uneven frequency of overseas tour, and overseas posting outside of a person’s field of expertise.

            This allegation seems to be a black box because nobody has any idea how to reveal the truth. Also, young officials with well connections but not involved in such practices often find themselves under unwanted spotlight, which could lead to rumors that hinder productivity. I would like to analyze this situation using social network analysis.

            Due to the sensitivity of the issue, ideally a small team from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Bureau of Human Resources should lead data collection. Human resources data such as formal and non-formal education background, fields of interest, in-field training received during service in the Ministry, and the existence of familial relationship with high officials are few among many data that the bureau can provide. The attributes from this first set of data later combined with attributes from social network survey that would cover:

• Current unit; whether or not compatible with educational background and fields of interests and/or expertise.
• Number of activities and/or projects conducted during service, and promotions received within a certain time frame; allegedly, under-achieving officials still receive promotion despite their performance due to practices of nepotism and favoritism.
• Relationship with colleagues. For this subject, there will be questions such as ‘name three people within the same unit that you consider as the ‘go-to’ person’. For junior officials the question would be: ‘in your scope of work, name three people who supervise your performance’, while for senior officials: ‘name three junior officials who perform best’, ‘name three junior officials who you supervise’, etc. Within the Indonesia Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there is a strict bureaucracy in terms of flow of work. Sometimes the flow is interrupted by bottlenecks, either caused by an underperforming official who does not supervise his juniors well, or vice versa.
• Frequency of foreign tour, the types of previous attended tours (summit meeting, working groups, conference, etc.), and assignment in each tour, whether or not compatible with area of expertise; There have been complains from member of delegates on delegates composition, for example person X attending overseas meeting that does not match his/her expertise, and had somebody else preparing the materials. Ideally, the person who prepared the material should be the one attending.
• Other desired information can be incorporated within the survey design.

Again, due to the sensitivity of the matter, in commencing data collection the survey language needs to be neutral or positive. It should show minimal hint towards any investigation nor give any chance to discredit a person. For instance, a survey question should be ‘name three junior officials who perform best’ instead of ‘name three junior officials who perform worst’. I realize the complexity of the matter and I predict this analysis to take a very long time if applied to the whole Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I would advise the Bureau of Human Resources to experiment in one of the sub-departments and see whether a more complete study is feasible. In the case of the Bureau of Human Resources decline to carry the analysis, I will apply the analysis in my immediate unit as per my return to office.

            Up to this moment, complains and concerns pertaining to alleged practices of nepotism and favoritism within government offices are seldom voiced. I hope social network analysis can help contribute to internal reform of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to help improve work performance among my peers, and to help give credit to whom the credit is due.