Paper Power: How Diploma Fetishism and Cronyism Hollow Out Organizations

I have seen it far too often: skilled professionals are sidelined because they lack the "right" formal qualifications, while highly educated newcomers make demonstrably poor decisions due to a lack of practical understanding. Senior management is satisfied — the paperwork is in order, the diplomas are framed — and the discussion seems closed.

The result is that organizations with strong professionals still underperform, because those who truly understand the work are systematically obstructed. In the public sector, this translates directly into societal costs: inefficient policies, wasted resources, and ultimately a bill paid by the citizen.

On top of that, cronyism amplifies the problem. People are appointed without relevant knowledge or experience, not based on merit, but because of family ties, networks, or internal loyalties. When this is further disguised with fashionable justifications — such as poorly designed diversity programs lacking substantive standards — the recipe is complete: inequality presented as progress, and incompetence protected by paper.

Modern organizations like to present themselves as rational, meritocratic, and professional. Roles are filled based on "objective criteria," procedures are formalized, and selection committees are meant to safeguard quality and integrity. In theory. In practice, we see something very different: a structural clash between formal qualifications and practical experience, in which paper credentials and networks consistently outweigh actual knowledge of the work.

This is not an isolated incident, but a pattern. And it often begins with the flight toward the measurable: diplomas are neat, easily verifiable, and legally defensible, while real experience is messy, context-dependent, and difficult to quantify.

The Flight Toward the Measurable

Diplomas are tidy. They can be verified, archived, and legally defended. In a world of audits, accountability, and risk aversion, they offer a comforting illusion of certainty. Practical experience, by contrast, is messy. It resists neat capture in job descriptions and spreadsheets. And so organizations choose what is measurable over what is essential.

This choice is marketed as rationality, but in reality it is a simplification that ignores the complexity of real work.

HR as the Gatekeeper of Mediocrity

HR processes are often built around generic role profiles that are disconnected from the shop floor. "Master's degree required." "Minimum X years of management experience." The outcome is predictable: people with deep operational knowledge are filtered out, while candidates with the right titles but limited substantive understanding advance.

Not because they are better — but because they fit the form.

Leadership Without a Shop Floor

The further decision-makers are removed from execution, the more dependent they become on paperwork. Managers and executives who lack hands-on experience also lack the frame of reference to recognize real quality. As a result, they rely on diplomas, advisory reports, and external consultants. Thus emerges a governing layer that makes decisions about processes it has never performed itself.

This is not an abstract issue. It leads to mistakes — sometimes costly, sometimes dangerous — that experienced professionals had long foreseen.

Status, Culture, and Diploma Fetishism

In many organizations, an implicit hierarchy prevails: the higher the level of education, the greater the authority. This is not a measure of quality but a status mechanism. It creates situations in which people without practical experience manage professionals who do understand the work. Criticism from below is not treated as expertise, but as resistance.

Craftsmanship is thus subordinated to title.

Cronyism as a Catalyst

When diploma fetishism coincides with cronyism, the system becomes openly toxic. Loyalty outweighs competence. People are selected because they "fit," are "known quantities," or feel politically safe. Mistakes are covered up, criticism is punished, and mediocrity is normalized.

The message to the shop floor is unmistakable: effort and knowledge matter less than networks and presentation.

The Undervalued Power of Practical Knowledge

Ironically, practical knowledge is often the most critical form of knowledge there is. It is tacit, situational, and built through years of doing. It cannot be learned from books, but from mistakes, routines, and insight. Precisely for that reason, it is difficult to transfer — and precisely for that reason, it is indispensable for sound decision-making.

Yet because it does not fit neatly into a diploma, it is systematically undervalued.

Self-Sabotage as the End Result

The end result is an organization that sabotages itself: poor decisions, inefficient processes, excessive pressure on those who actually carry the work, and a culture of cynicism and resignation. Talent leaves — not because it falls short, but because it goes unseen.

What remains is a façade of professionalism, upheld by paper and procedures, yet detached from reality.

It Can Be Different — But Only With Courage

There are organizations that weigh practical experience as heavily as formal education, that select based on skills rather than networks, and that value transparency over loyalty. They perform demonstrably better — not because they are perfect, but because they take reality seriously.

That requires courage: from leaders willing to step away from the safety of paper, and from organizations willing to acknowledge that true quality cannot always be certified.

As long as diplomas are confused with competence and networks with suitability, the gap between leadership and practice will persist. And the organization — and ultimately society — will continue to pay the price.