Having lived and worked in Cyprus for over 10 years, I was exposed to two distinct influencers.  The first influencer was Greek civilization, including the myths and legends of Ancient Greece. The second influencer was the unique management style that prevailed within the Cypriot business world.

The ancient Greek civilization is rich with stories of the various gods and deities; all of whom provided thoughts of wisdom, parables and stories of heroism.

As for the management style, the majority of businesses in Cyprus are privately owned by families who made their names and fortunes through such businesses.  Without wishing to over-simplify the Cypriot management style, it was universally accepted that, like a monarchic system, a member of the business-owning family must lead the business, irrespective of whether or not the individual is the most capable, experienced and with the necessary leadership qualities.  In short, a family member will be nominated to lead the business and be treated by all other employees with reverence and sometimes un-earned respect.

The net effect of this approach is that a family member business leader will remain in his/her role regardless of business results. Success is attributed to him/her and failure is apportioned to lesser mortals or unfavourable business conditions.

It has to be said though, that this approach to running a business is applied to family-owned businesses throughout the MENA region.  I would go further and say that similar principles applied and continue to apply in Western markets. I should know, I worked in Europe for two large and very successful organisations that were headed by individuals from the owning families. Gradually though, as companies become public entities who must adhere to rigorous corporate governance code, where the business is led by professionals who must show positive results during a strategy lifecycle or risk losing their jobs.  Further, public companies are expected to appoint a more active and less obsequious boards of directors.

Back to Greek mythology.  Here is a story that supports monarchy in favour over meritocracy and why it is such a bad example to follow.

Damocles was a servile courtier at the court of Dionysius II, a tyrant who ruled over Syracuse on the Isle of Sicily.

On a rare occasion of bravery, Damocles mused that the king was fortunate to have inherited all his wealth and possessed power over his people.  On an even rarer occasion, King Dionysius II, who must have been in a good and playful mood that day, offered to swap places with Damocles for one day; an offer Damocles readily jumped at, expecting to rule over the kingdom and enjoy the power that comes with such a rule.

However, King Dionysius II arranged for Damocles’ to sit on the throne, above which he ordered a sharp sword be hung, kept in place by a single hair of a horse’s tail.  Thus, began the 24-hour rule of Damocles, watched over by the king. Before the day was over, Damocles begged the king to terminate the deal as he felt he was in constant danger of the lethal sword falling on him, causing him serious injury or death.

No doubt, you spotted a number of problems with such a parable.  Here is my analysis:

  • Not being of royal blood, Damocles was made aware that his tenure as a king was a temporary one that can be taken away at any time
  • Losing the role of king was not a zero-sum equation where a commoner like Damocles can just walk away unscathed by the experience.Indeed, he was likely to pay for this temporary and precarious privilege with his own life; a heavy price to pay, I am sure you agree.
  • It kind of explains why political tyrants and dictators start out as reasonable people but soon convince themselves that their survival relies on making sure their leadership tenure is extended for as long as possible by getting rid of anyone who might have any influence over the ‘Sword of Damocles’ falling on them.Thereafter begins the culling of rivals, enemies and critics.
  • It also explains why they amass obscene amounts of money and multiple residences, to make sure they are not in one spot for long enough for the sword of Damocles to fall on them.
  • You may be surprised to learn that tyranny and dictatorship are not confined to the political arena.I have witnessed it in the commercial world too.  Admittedly, the bosses’ rivals are not summarily shot or hanged but, they do lose their jobs and occasionally their careers are halted or put in reverse.

Back to the world of commerce, I am saddened to see that many (not all) privately owned businesses still rely on nepotism to retain control of their business.  What is even more frustrating is that various corporate governance codes allow them to impose poorly qualified family members to take up un-earned senior positions in the company.

To counteract this problem, a privately-owned business needs a strong and largely independent board of directors to make sure positions of influence are filled by suitably qualified individuals, even family members who may well be qualified to hold such offices.

The trouble is, not enough private businesses bother with appointing independent-minded and strong boards of directors.  And why should they seek outsiders who challenge the owners’ decisions, if they don’t have to?

I would like to end with a description of a cartoon that encapsulates the concept of nepotism very well, as well as being funny.  The cartoon consisted of one frame and a single line of monologue.  The scene is in a large office with a huge desk. Behind the desk sat a powerful looking man with an enormous cigar.  Sitting in a visitor’s chair on the other side of the desk is a goofy looking young man with a stupid grin on his face.  The third and final person in the frame is a nervous looking man standing at a respectable distance from the desk with his hands folded in front of him. The monologue is delivered by the powerful man and it goes like this:

“Simpsons, this is my son Alex, I want you to show him everything about the business and guide him all the way to the top, even if it takes a whole week.”