Butchers of merit in modern Saudi management damage workplace loyalty 
Today, in many countries, including Saudi Arabia, the field of management faces a real problem: not a decline in productivity, but the circumvention of regulations and the exploitation of loopholes to gain rapid professional influence, often occurring outside natural career progression.
A study conducted by the British Institute of Management in 2024 identified this circumvention, noting that almost 30 percent of exceptional contracts in modern management sectors are specifically designed to bypass the seniority rule and justify career leapfrogging. This was confirmed by the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission (Nazaha) in its statement issued on July 23 this year, which highlighted the involvement of officials and staff in crimes of abuse of power and administrative forgery to push through irregular recruitment and promotion decisions, both of which demonstrate that exceptional regulations may sometimes be used as backdoor routes to appoint leaders of modest ability, in a manner that is legally permissible, granting them the right to start at the top of the hierarchy.
These administrative irregularities have undoubtedly taken advantage of the regulations on the recruitment of outstanding talent, issued in May 2019, which were intended to attract rare expertise, but instead of recruiting a genuine expert from outside the system, an employee working within the government body itself, holding a minor post with limited powers, is asked to resign voluntarily, only to be rehired as a director-general, with astronomical perks, so that they may lead their former superiors by virtue of the contract rather than merit and competence. This scenario is complemented by the drafting of job descriptions and the required qualifications, ensuring that these are met by the preselected candidate and no one else, as if the role were a tailor-made festive garment.
The irregularity is presented to the regulatory authorities as a recruitment process that meets statutory requirements; in reality, however, it is a disguised form of favoritism designed to block the path of the most competent candidates, and a means of empowering young and middle-aged leaders by granting them the financial benefits of the contract, whilst simultaneously sifting out and excluding seasoned professionals. According to human resources figures for 2025, employment contracts and exceptional provisions — particularly in middle and senior management positions — have risen by 2 percent, and there is a possibility that these may be exploited for the benefit of individuals associated with influential figures within government bodies.
It is perhaps clear that manipulating the rules to serve certain groups does not stop at stifling passion and productivity; rather, it transforms those who carry out this work into butchers, slaughtering merit with the sharp knife of the system.
In some cases, organizational maneuvers take the opposite form at the very top of the administrative hierarchy, when a middle-aged contract official is nominated for a senior post or a prestigious government position; his contract is terminated, and his privileges cease, but in return he gains benefits and powers that he could not have attained through the contract alone. This administrative behavior has its roots in Western societies, which have witnessed major businessmen leaving their financial empires in pursuit of political immunity and status, as was the case with Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian media tycoon and prime minister.
The phenomenon was documented with figures in a study published by Northwestern University in the US in 2023, which revealed that 11 percent of the world’s wealthy individuals and businesspeople wish to attain official government posts in their own countries, so as to obtain a mandate granting them the right to exercise control and issue orders, thereby bypassing traditional bureaucracy, enabling them to use their new position as a tool to dismiss those with experience and long service, and to settle scores with opponents, as if they were transforming the official post from a national duty into private property.
Irregular administrative practices began in Roman civilization, specifically in 149 B.C., when the senate was compelled to enact the Calpurnius Law and establish the first court to counteract attempts to circumvent regulations. A historical example of this is the trial of the Roman governor Gaius Verres, after it became clear that he had not been openly and flagrantly violating the regulations, but rather exploiting loopholes and flexible provisions, asking people to voluntarily waive their rights so that, on the face of it, his paperwork would appear to meet the formal requirements. At present, the regulations and exceptional provisions, originally intended to promote competence and improve performance, have been transformed into tools for legitimizing the appointment of unqualified individuals and bypassing the seniority queue, in ways that appear, broadly speaking, to be in accordance with the rules.
It goes without saying that leadership practiced in the manner described above has a negative impact on organizational loyalty and leads to a sense of frustration amongst experienced staff who have spent years progressing through the career ladder, turning the workplace into little more than a stage for promoting unqualified individuals to positions of authority. However, I am not generalizing, but exclusionary selection does exist and is evident in Western workplaces, through the manipulation of rules designed to marginalize experienced and qualified staff, as occurred in the famous discrimination case at NASA. The case revealed that management had employed a performance appraisal system that deliberately awarded experienced staff members from ethnic minority backgrounds low ratings, to thwart their chances of managerial promotion. The same organizational approach was repeated in the case of the American oil company Texaco, when it forced its managers to give targeted employees low performance appraisals, to be used as a formal justification for their dismissal, and to oust competent staff on the pretext that they were “out of step” with the organization’s culture.
It is perhaps clear that manipulating the rules to serve certain groups does not stop at stifling passion and productivity; rather, it transforms those who carry out this work into butchers, slaughtering merit with the sharp knife of the system.
I believe that the above requires a specific regulatory approach, beginning with the introduction of a statutory cooling-off period of no less than two years, during which the organization from which the employee resigns is strictly prohibited from re-employing them on preferential terms.
It is also essential that all job advertisements for the recruitment of high-caliber talent be subject to rigorous scrutiny to ensure that the conditions for accepting such posts are not tailored to suit a limited number of employees. That eligibility for senior positions is determined by performance criteria that are publicly available to all, so as not to stop those who seek to combine financial influence with power, and to restore the former prestige of the criteria of seniority and merit within the workplace.
* Dr. Bader bin Saud is a columnist for Al-Riyadh newspaper, a researcher in media and knowledge management, a university professor, an expert in crowd management and strategic planning, and the former deputy commander of the Special Forces for Hajj and Umrah in Saudi Arabia. X: @BaderbinSaud.
