The article investigated the search for favouritism by candidates to influence the arbitration committee during oral exams since they need to pass exams to be admitted into the public sector in Turkey. The difficulties faced by candidates when finding favour, the efforts of their families, and their need for moral relief in complicated and legally criminalized acts emerged in a qualitative study. Based on an analysis of people looking for favouritism, we developed 5 groups of ways of thinking to justify their act: obedience to the system requirement, socio-economic status anxiety, approval of the merit, minimizing the risk, and career enhancement. On the one hand, candidates argue that they do it because the system requires it. On the other hand, they see it as an approval of merit. They even make their ability to find a favour a part of their success story.