Introduction

University management must be based on solid administrative structures that support the academic mission and guarantee transparent processes. This article analyzes how nepotism and other factors in the assignment of management positions affect staff morale, talent retention, organizational climate, and institutional accreditation. Likewise, ethical and academic implications are addressed, taking as a reference guidelines from accrediting agencies such as SACSCOC and DEAC.

The modern university requires management structures that ensure coherence between the academic mission and the institutional administration. In this framework, the Operations Directorate occupies a strategic role as an articulator between the planning and implementation of educational policies (Mintzberg, 2018).

University management requires solid administrative structures that support the academic mission and guarantee transparency in decision-making. However, in many contexts, the Operations Management has been used as a space where personal interests prevail over criteria of professional merit. This practice, associated with nepotism and other factors, generates internal conflicts, affects the morale of the teaching and administrative staff, and compromises the reputation of the institution (García-García, 2021).

Nepotism and Operations Management at the University

The Operations Directorate at a university should focus on administrative efficiency, adequate allocation of resources, and logistical support to academic functions. Its strategic role lies in being a bridge between institutional planning and the implementation of policies that favor educational quality (Mintzberg, 2018). However, when the position is occupied by people with no real experience in academic management, it becomes a space of power that can be used to consolidate networks of convenience.

Nepotism is defined as the practice of favoring family members, friends, or close people in selection, hiring, or promotion processes, without considering the merits, abilities, or competencies of the candidates (Oxford English Dictionary, 2023). In organizational terms, it implies that decisions are based on personal relationships rather than objective criteria, which generates a weakening of institutional transparency and efficiency (Padilla, 2019).

Several authors highlight that nepotism constitutes a form of administrative corruption, since it breaks with the principle of meritocracy, an essential element for the proper functioning of academic institutions and for the credibility of higher education systems (García-García, 2021). According to Martínez and López (2022), in the university context this phenomenon causes a “brain drain”, by marginalizing professionals with proven competencies and giving priority to people whose main strength is their closeness to the authorities.

Nepotism, in addition to affecting justice in internal processes, has a direct impact on the work environment, academic quality and social perception of the university. When a strategic position, such as Operations Management, is awarded for personal convenience and not for professional suitability, the institutional purpose is distorted and organizational sustainability is put at risk (SACSCOC, 2021; DEAC, 2023).

Nepotism directly affects the quality of education and institutional reputation. Accrediting agencies such as SACSCOC and DEAC stress that universities must guarantee the suitability of those in key management positions, since the proper implementation of academic programs and the evaluation of results depend on it (SACSCOC, 2021; DEAC, 2023).

When strategic positions are awarded for personal convenience, principles of institutional integrity are violated, which can negatively influence external evaluation processes, the renewal of accreditations and the public perception of the university.

Nepotism also erodes trust among the academic community. Recent research has shown that cronyism in the education sector leads to the loss of talent, the departure of highly trained personnel, and decreased institutional commitment (Martínez & López, 2022). When hiring and promotion decisions respond to personal relationships, professionals with experience and credentials are displaced, replacing them with individuals whose priority is personal convenience.

The placement of unskilled people in key operational positions creates toxic work environments. Talented staff who refuse to submit to vested interests are marginalized, resulting in frustration, turnover, and a significant loss of human capital. At the macro level, this dynamic has an impact on institutional accreditation and reputation, as external agencies assess the suitability of those in strategic positions (SACSCOC, 2021; DEAC, 2023).

The Operations Management at the University

The Operations Directorate must focus on resource management, administrative efficiency, and logistical support to academic functions. However, when positions are occupied by people with no experience in the university environment, management becomes a space of power oriented to personal interests.

The appointment of collaborators without the appropriate credentials has an impact on:

1.Toxic work environments, where talented staff are marginalized.

2.Organizational burnout, which produces frustration and turnover.

3.Loss of human capital, by favoring the departure of competent teachers and administrators.

These dynamics reduce the capacity for innovation, generate inefficiency in institutional management and, ultimately, put the sustainability of the academic project at risk.

Nepotism in the Operations Directorate not only erodes trust among the academic community, but also compromises the university mission. Operations management should be a guarantor of efficiency and support for teaching and research processes, but under favoritism practices it becomes an obstacle to quality.

The literature agrees that universities require clear policies of transparency, accountability, and meritocracy (Martínez & López, 2022; Padilla, 2019). It is also proposed that institutional catalogues include suitability criteria and teacher-student ratios as a way to guarantee quality and avoid discretion in critical decisions (DEAC, 2023).

Impacts on Quality and Accreditation

Nepotism directly affects the quality of education and institutional reputation. Accrediting agencies such as SACSCOC and DEAC stress that universities must guarantee the suitability of those in key management positions, since the proper implementation of academic programs and the evaluation of results depend on it (SACSCOC, 2021; DEAC, 2023).

When strategic positions are awarded for personal convenience, principles of institutional integrity are violated, which can negatively influence external evaluation processes, the renewal of accreditations and the public perception of the university.

Conclusions

Nepotism in strategic positions such as Operations Management at a university represents a significant risk to institutional quality. By prioritizing personal convenience over professional and academic experience, meritocracy is eroded, administrative efficiency is weakened, and academic and organizational sustainability is called into question.

The solution requires strengthening transparency policies, establishing meritocratic selection processes, and ensuring that managers have the necessary academic credentials and professional experience. Only in this way will the university be able to fulfill its educational mission and maintain the trust of society and accrediting agencies.

References

DEAC. (2023). Accreditation Handbook. Distance Education Accrediting Commission.

García-García, P. (2021). Nepotism and governance in higher education institutions. Ibero-American Journal of Higher Education, 12(34), 45–62.

Martínez, R., & López, S. (2022). Cronyism and loss of human capital in Latin American universities. Journal of Social Sciences, 28(2), 101–118.

Mintzberg, H. (2018). Managing the Myths of Health Care. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2023). Nepotism. Oxford University Press.

Padilla, A. (2019). Administrative corruption and nepotism in educational institutions. Journal of Organizational Studies, 15(1), 77–95.

SACSCOC. (2021). Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.