leadership behaviour in the context of nepotism ...

Complimentary Contributor Copy

In: Leadership for Improvement Editor: Susan Morison

ISBN: 978-1-53612-944-1 © 2017 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 11

LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR IN THE CONTEXT OF NEPOTISM, CRONYISM AND FAVOURITISM: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Isaac Nana Akuffo* and Kurmet Kivipõld, PhD 1

School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

ABSTRACT This paper reviewed leadership in the context of nepotism, cronyism and favouritism (NCF) from different disciplines. Studies reviewed were those that have established an association between leadership and NCF behaviours, country differences in leadership and NCF behaviours and the extent of attention that has been granted to leadership in the context of NCF. The analysis was based on articles published by peer-review from

*

Corresponding Author Address Email: [email protected].


256

Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld 1980 to 2016. The analysis accessed data from EBSCO Discovery, Web of Science, Science direct, Scopus, E-journals and E-books and Google scholar. In total, 24 empirical studies, 12 theoretical studies and 3 news reports were reviewed. The analysis was guided by three research questions. 1) How do existing studies cover leadership behaviour in the context of NCF? 2) How is different leadership behaviour associated with NCF? 3) How are country differences – developed versus developing – associated with leadership behaviour in the context of NCF? It was found that only a few studies mentioned exact leadership behaviour in studies associating leadership and NCF behaviours. All studies reviewed in this paper acknowledged the association between leadership and NCF behaviours except one. There were no country differences as far as leadership and NCF behaviours were concerned. There were scant studies of leadership in the context of NCF behaviours in Africa and Latin America and it is recommended that more empirical cross-country studies on leadership and NCF behaviours should be undertaken to draw attention to these negative behaviours in the political environment, business environment and educational environment.

Keywords: leadership, nepotism, cronyism, favouritism

INTRODUCTION Leadership is a broad concept that includes leaders by position as well as leadership by expertise or relational power. This paper sought to review leadership in the context of nepotism, cronyism and favouritism (NCF) behaviours. Interest in this analysis is on leadership by position. Leadership behaviour is a phenomenon that indicates the behaviour adopted by leaders in management of employees and the organisation at large. Leadership behaviour could have positive or negative effects on the efficiency of the organisation, for instance, if the leadership desists from the use of NCF in recruitment, promotion, determination of salaries and distribution of national resources. Such fair distribution would have positive effects on employees’ commitment, efficiency of the organisation and the economy of the nation as whole [1, 2]. Leaders influence their followers in every step they take and these steps provide direction to achieve organisational goals [3, 4]. Thus, leaders


Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …

257

serve as a role model for their employees and they have the ultimate responsibility to instil ethical and moral values into their employees to help guide employees’ behaviour and decision-making [5]. Leaders whose behaviour is deemed fair and trustworthy, in other words eschews NCF behaviours, have been proven to yield good work attitudes, such as reduction in turnover, absenteeism as well as enhance morale, satisfaction and commitment to the organisation [6, 7, 8]. In other words, leaders are expected to employ free and fair means in the discharge of their duties. Unfortunately, some leaders have been found to employ NCF in the discharge of their duties despite their negative effects on the health of the organisation and the state at large [9–13]. Leaders who engage in NCF behaviours do so in the belief that appointing close relatives, friends and cronies will ensure loyalty and in turn enhance employee performance, however, this belief has been proven otherwise by these studies below [11, 14, 15]. This phenomenon is not only common to leaders in organisations but also applies to leaders of states regarding the appointment and distribution of resources. Evidence shows that leaders from developed [16] as well as developing [17] countries have engaged in nepotism, cronyism and favouritism in the appointment of key members of their administration. Despite the above instances, studies of NCF behaviours have clearly neglected leadership behaviour [9, 18, 19]. In other words, the role of leadership behaviour has not really been examined in the context of NCF behaviours, even though leadership and NCF behaviours cannot be divorced. Leadership plays a major role in succumbing to NCF behaviours because the leader’s behaviour will either strengthen or weaken the practice of these negative behaviours. Hence, it is prudent to examine leadership and NCF behaviours together to help establish if indeed a relationship exists. This paper reviewed studies that have explored leadership in the context of NCF behaviours. The analysis found that no study has ever examined leadership in the context of NCF and this study is the first to do so. Studies on NCF behaviours were reviewed to see if the role of leadership as a cause of these negative behaviours has been examined


258

Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld

together or in isolation and which specific leadership behaviour is connected to NCF behaviours. It is important to analyse this relationship to determine whether leadership influences NCF behaviours which in turn affect the efficient and effective distribution of resources within an organisation and the state at large. The review sought to find out how well this problem has been covered in the business environment, educational environment, political environment as well as developed and developing countries. The findings from this analysis will serve as the foundation for further studies.

METHODS This study used the review of literature that associates leadership and NCF behaviours as is research method. This review was based on articles published by peer-review ranging from 1980 to 2016 from different disciplines that have written about the topic under review. In reviewing this literature, several databases were accessed, for instance, EBSCO Discovery, Web of Science, Science direct, Scopus, E-journals and Ebooks and Google scholar. Databases were searched with key words nepotism, cronyism and favouritism individually against leadership and different leadership behaviours such as authentic, transformational, transactional, ethical, team, organizational, democratic etc. Since leadership and NCF behaviour spans different fields, peer-reviewed journals were reviewed across different disciplines such as political science, organisational behaviour, economics, management, psychology, public administration and sociology and in addition news report were also reviewed. Articles were reviewed that reported empirical and nonempirical studies to help understand various perspectives researchers have examined for the area under discussion. In other words, studies that use field or empirical data and non-field data were reviewed. We reviewed 24 (61.5%) empirical studies, 12 (30.8%) theoretical studies and 3 (7.7%) news reports. These studies were reviewed to find out if leadership in the context of NCF behaviours have received the needed attention.



259

Although there is a plethora of studies on leadership and corruption, leadership in the context of NCF has received little attention. Three research questions are posed to guide this analysis: 1) How do existing studies cover leadership behaviour in the context of nepotism, cronyism, and favouritism? 2) How are different leadership behaviour associated with nepotism, cronyism, and favouritism? 3) How are country differences – developed versus developing – associated with leadership behaviour in the context of nepotism, cronyism, and favouritism?

REVIEW OF THE STUDIES Years and Coverage for Studies This section of the analysis examined the extent to which leadership in the context of NCF has been covered by researchers in the field of management, economics, public administration, sociology, psychology, and organisational behaviour. This study sought to determine the level of attention that has been paid to the area under review. Over 3 million studies (3,316,000) have been conducted on NCF behaviours, however only 39 studies (0.0012%) have looked at leadership and NCF behaviours and only 5 (12.8%) of the 39 studies reviewed stated the exact leadership behaviour (see Appendix 1). RQ1. How do existing studies cover leadership behaviour in the context of nepotism, cronyism, and favouritism?

This part of the review assessed the quantity of papers published on leadership and NCF behaviours. The analysis looked at the years and total publications and examined if interest in the field has increased or decreased since the first article was published. Details of the analysis are shown in Figure 1 below.


260


9 8

Number of publications

7 6 5 4

Total Studies 3 2 1 0

Year of publication

Figure 1. Year and total number of publications.

The study sought to find out how much emphasis has been placed on leadership in relation to NCF. The analysis shows that studies connecting leadership and NCF behaviours are scant (see research question two below). There are only 39 studies that have looked at the connection between leadership and NCF behaviours, 24 of which are empirical studies, 12 theoretical studies and 3 news reports. The years of the studies reviewed ranged from 1980 to 2016. Most of the studies were published in 2014 (eight studies), followed by 2015 and 2011 with four studies each. In 2016, two studies and one news report were published while three studies were published in 2009. Two studies each were published in 2012 and 2013. Finally, from 1983 to 2008, eleven studies and two news report were published (see Figure 1). Studies associating leadership and NFC behaviours have increased since the first was published in 1983 but this topic has not been extensively covered. Even though many studies have been conducted on NCF to establish its general impact on employees’ behaviours such as performance, quitting intentions, commitment, satisfaction and brain drain [9–13], these studies looked at these negative behaviours in isolation from



261

leadership behaviour, thus, no specific leadership behaviour was considered and its role could not be established.

The Relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Nepotism, Cronyism and Favouritism This subsection answers research question 2 and reports on studies that were found to have established an association between leadership and NCF behaviour (n = 39). RQ2. How are different leadership behaviour associated with nepotism, cronyism, and favouritism? These 39 studies were categorised into leadership behaviour and type of environment where leaders engage in NCF (see appendix 1). The reviewed studies were classified into three environments: business, educational and political. . Business Environment The first section of this review below shares light on leadership behaviour and NCF in the business environment. Thirteen studies [15, 21– 32] and two reports [33, 34] reviewed showed the use of nepotism and favouritism by leaders in the business environment (see Appendix 1). Only five studies were found that mentioned the exact leadership behaviour and its association with nepotism and favouritism (refer to appendix 1). The rest of the studies mentioned leadership in general without specifically mentioning the exact leadership behaviour. Of the five studies that mentioned specific leadership behaviours, Mattar [35] and Banerji et al. [32] reported that transformational leadership is associated with nepotism and negatively associated to favouritism and bribery respectively. Uymaz [23], Dasborough et al. [24] and Mӓkilouko [31] conducted studies on destructive leadership, individual leadership, task and relationship-oriented leadership styles. Similarly, they concluded that destructive leadership,


262


individual leadership, task leadership were associated with nepotism and favouritism. Eight studies [15, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30] and two news report [33, 34] with no specific mention of exact leadership behaviour within the business environment were reviewed. The primary conclusions from eight studies [15, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30] and two news report [33, 34] were not dissimilar from one another even though the leader’s mode of engagement in NCF differed in various studies. However, one of the studies held a contrary view as far as leadership behaviour and favouritism were concerned [27]. Six studies and one news report out of the eleven studies were centred on the appointment and recruitment of personnel by leaders within the organisation [15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33]. Drange [33] also reported that Hyperloop One’s top managers used nepotism to hire or give contracts to people who lacked the skills to do the task assigned. The job was assigned to the least experienced people instead of the most qualified due to links they have with top management. Simulation modelling was employed by Liu et al. [15] to examine how social network dynamics complicate a leader’s selection of successors. The study focused on nepotism employed by leaders in selecting a successor to manage a family business in the UK and concluded that leaders used nepotism and selection bias which prevented plain field competition between family members and non-family members in the selection of successors. Ponzo et al. [26], who analysed favouritism in recruitment reached a similar conclusion. They concluded that there is favouritism and nepotism in the recruitment of employees by managers. Pelletier and colleagues [28] found that of all references to organisational politics, 76% referred to aspects of nepotism and cronyism as a practice used by top managers in giving preferential treatment to their in-group. Similarly, Westphal and Stern [30] examined the pathway to the boardroom and found that top managers who engaged in ingratiatory behaviour towards the CEO such as flattery, opinion conformity and favour-rendering were more likely to receive board appointments in other firms where the CEO served as the director or other boards where the CEO



263

was connected. They also found that board interpersonal influence played a major role in appointment as compared to elite credentials. However, a contrary view has been found by Salvato and colleagues [27]. They assessed the route to CEO to find out whether it was based on nepotism or managerial proficiency in a family business in Italy. Contrary to expectations, the results show that accumulation of human capital throughout a manager’s career supersedes family considerations in predicting CEO appointments. From the nine studies and two reports above, one report [34] and one study [29] drew similar conclusions on the use of favouritism in the election of candidates to the chamber of commerce and in sports car racing respectively. Miller [34] identified alleged favouritism within the Latin Chamber of Commerce when choosing and promoting candidates and officers during its election in Las Vegas, Nevada [34]. Similarly, Baucus et al. [29] found perceptions of favouritism and unfairness in attempts to prevent cheating in stock car racing. Finally, a study by Perez et al. [22] to examine factors that hinder the exchange of knowledge among workers found that concerning management negligence or misconduct, the most relevant barriers were influenced hiring or cronyism, harassment and humiliation of employees, inadequate working climate, poorly designed or non-existent organisational structure, and authoritarian management styles.

Educational Environment This section of the review is centred on leadership and NCF behaviours in the educational environment. Four studies [35–39] and one news report [39] were identified from the educational sector (appendix 1). Results from these studies and report showed the practice of favouritism by leaders from different academic levels and perspectives in an educational environment. For instance, Wadesango [36] investigated the perceptions of secondary school teachers towards school-based promotion procedures and found that teachers had a negative perception of the school-based promotions when Head teachers were perceived as making unilateral appointments without consulting teachers. Findings showed manipulations


264


within the school to favour certain teachers and that teachers could be promoted not on the strength of their expertise but because they do not question leadership decisions. Similarly, Spaulding [38] qualitatively assessed over 81 views of teachers from five states and 15 cities in the USA on politics and ineffective behaviours of school principals and findings showed that 51 out of 62 teachers indicated principals of the schools used favouritism in their decision-making. However, findings by Mattar [35]; Owino et al. [37] and MacWilliams [39] reflected another perspective on how educational leaders engage in nepotism and cronyism and drew similar conclusions. Mattar found evidence of nepotism in the Lebanese educational institution he studied. Similarly, Owino and colleagues conducted a study in private and public universities in Kenya and found that the major problem that hindered quality education was nepotism and negative ethnicity. In addition, MacWilliams [39] reported the use of cronyism by universities in Ukraine during the admission process. The four studies and one report reviewed clearly show an association between an educational leader’s behaviour and NCF even though the mode or practice differs.

Political Environment The final section of this review centred on leadership and NCF behaviours in the political environment. Nineteen studies were obtained on the leader’s behaviour within the political environment [1, 20, 40–56], see Appendix 1. The number of studies reviewed on leadership behaviour in the political environment was greater than leadership behaviour in the business environment and educational environment. Five out of the eighteen studies reviewed indicated that political leaders influenced the distribution of resources within the political leader’s state or region. They concluded that political leaders use favouritism and ethnic bias in the distribution of resources [1, 41, 43, 46, 47]. Eight studies [42, 44, 48, 49, 52–55] showed that leaders in the political environment used NCF in the appointment and recruitment of people to occupy top positions in various sectors of the state. These studies established an association between leadership and NCF behaviours.



265

However, the mode of practice of these negative behaviours differs from the other studies reviewed in this section. Six out of the eight studies above were conducted in China and they concluded that leaders used NCF and clientelism in the recruitment and appointment of people to high official position [42, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55]. Fong [56] studied subcommunal participation and leadership cohesiveness in Singapore and found evidence of nepotism prevalent in approaches to leadership. These studies demonstrate that reporting of the use of NCF has increased since the first study acknowledged its existence in the political environment in 1983. The three studies [42, 48, 52] which are part of the eight noted above, demonstrated the national leaders’ influence on the capital markets in the state where the leader was born, on appointments and on the national investment of the state. A case study [52] conducted in the financial sector of government banks in China showed that top executives of the bank were appointed due to their political affiliations and not verifiable business performance. Chen et al. [42] established a similar association between birth place of the political or national leader and the favours granted to the capital market in that province or region. They also found that patterns usually differ over time as national leadership changes. Nwaiwu and Okoye [48] also concluded that political leaders use nepotism in investment of state resources. The remaining five studies [20, 40, 45, 50, 51] drew similar conclusions. A study by Hollibaugh [45] in the USA found that the President can make patronage appointments and use legislature to support such appointments. Tikkanen [20] found that favouritism and cronyism were used to appoint people in the Royal Navy. Jamil and Panday [50] investigated the inter-organisation coordination and corruption in urban policy implementation in Bangladesh and found that coordination problems (which the authors attributed to a lack of formal coordination mechanisms, partisan leadership, and a fragmented organisation culture of patron-clientage) lead to favouritism and nepotism. Guliyev et al. [51] studied the Trans-Caspian energy found that while foreign companies are supported by respective governments, national firms


266


also enjoy great state support due to their associations with elites in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. They found that most shipping line companies operating in these two countries were mostly owned directly or indirectly by the governments of these two countries and as a result enjoyed favouritism and crony capitalism. Similarly, Al-Khasawneh et al. [40]; found evidence of cronyism and nepotism. Overall these reviews of the literature outlined above from the business environment, educational environment and political environment all acknowledged a positive association between leadership and NCF behaviours, except four. Transformational and task orientated leadership were found to be negatively related to nepotism [35] and favouritism [31, 32] and Salvato et al. [27] also found appointments based on human capital and not favouritism.

Country Differences in Leadership Behaviour The purpose of this section is to explore differences in leadership behaviour in developed and developing countries and its influence on NCF as reported in the literature. The analysis broke down the review into studies conducted in developed and developed countries, similarities and differences in the results obtained, the industry data collected and the type of research conducted. Details are discussed below in research question three. RQ3. How are country differences – developed versus developing – associated with leadership behaviour in the context of nepotism, cronyism, and favouritism? The analysis of differences in leadership behaviour in different countries in the context of NCF was based on 39 studies. The classification of these countries as developed or developing countries was based on the classification by the World Bank for the 2017 fiscal year [64]. Table 1



267

below displays countries (both developed and developing) and key findings obtained from studies reviewed from these countries. Table 1. Country differences in leadership behaviour Author(s)

Country/ continent

Type of research

Key findings

USA

Industry/ source of information Service

Pelletier et al. [28] Baucus et al. [29]

Empirical

USA

Sports

Theoretical

Miller [34]

USA

Report

Westphal & Stern [30]

USA

Spaulding [38] Dasborough et al. [24] Drange [33]

USA USA

Chamber of commerce Service and manufacturing Service N/A

Related to nepotism and cronyism Related to unethical behaviour, favouritism and unfair treatment Related to favouritism

Report

Hollibaugh Jr [45] Liu et al. [15] Tikkanen [20]

USA

Manufacturing Service

related to nepotism, cronyism, and favouritism Related to favouritism Individual leadership is related to favouritism Related to nepotism

Empirical

Related to cronyism

UK UK

Simulation Security

Empirical Theoretical

Zudenkova [44] Walker et al. [21]

Germany

Simulation

Empirical

Related to nepotism Related to favouritism and cronyism Related to cronyism

Australia

Service

Empirical

Ponzon & Scoppa [26]

Italy

N/A

Theoretical

USA

Empirical

Empirical Theoretical

fraud, bribery, corruption, favouritism and special treatment were identified as some ethical dilemmas for leaders Related with nepotism and favouritism


268

Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld Table 1. (Continued)

Author(s)

Country/ continent

Industry/ source of information Manufacturing

Type of research

Key findings

Salvato et al. [27]

Italy

Empirical

27 service and manufacturing construction

Empirical

CEO appointment is based on human capital instead of favouritism in family business contrary to other findings Related to cronyism

Perez et al. [22] Mӓkilouko [31]

Spain

Fong [56]

Singapore

Empirical

China

Historical Inscriptions N/A

Naughton et al. [53] Tanner & Feder [54] Chen et al. [42] Keum et al. [55] Mu & Zhang [47] Hong [25] Heilmann [52] Li [49]

China

N/A

Theoretical

Related to favouritism and nepotism Related to nepotism

China

Financial

Empirical

Related to favouritism

China

N/A

Theoretical

China

Service

Empirical

Related to nepotism and favouritism Related to favouritism

China China China

N/A Financial N/A

Theoretical Empirical Theoretical

Uymaz [23]

Turkey

Empirical

Al-Khasawneh et al. [40]

Jordan

Chamber of Commerce Royal governance

Finland

Empirical

Theoretical

Empirical

Task leadership is related to cultural blindness, ethnocentrism and ingroup favouritism Related to nepotism

Related to cronyism Related to cronyism Related to nepotism and rampant corruption Destructive leadership is related to nepotism Related to cronyism and nepotism


Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism … Author(s)

Country/ continent

Mattar [35]

Lebanon

Banerji et al. [32]

269

Industry/ source of information Education

Type of research

Key findings

Empirical

India

Service and manufacturing

Empirical

Jamil & Panday [50] Guliyev et al. [51] Mac Williams [39]

Banglade sh Kazakhst an Ukraine

Service

Empirical

N/A

Theoretical

Education

Report

Soumahoro [41] Nwaiwu et al. [48] Wadesango [36] Owino et al. [37] Ilorah [1]

Africa

48 African countries N/A

Empirical

South Africa Kenya

Education

Empirical

Transformational leadership is related to nepotism Transformational leadership is negatively related to favouritism and bribery Related to nepotism and favouritism Related to cronyism and favouritism related to bribery, cronyism and corruption Positively related to favouritism Related to nepotism and tribalism Related to favouritism

Education

Empirical

Africa

N/A

Theoretical

Ӧhler et al. [43]

Africa, Asia and Latin America Africa, Asia, Americas, Europe and Oceania

Financial

Empirical

Related to nepotism and ethnicity Related to favouritism and ethical bias Related to favouritism

Satellites data

Empirical

Related to favouritism

Hodler et al. [46]

Nigeria

Theoretical


270


15 studies [15, 20–22, 24, 26–31, 38, 44, 45, 56] and two reports [33, 34] were from developed countries while 19 studies [1, 23, 25, 32, 35–37, 40–42, 47–55] and one report [39] were from developing countries. Two of the studies [43, 46] were conducted in both developed and developing countries without specifically stating the names of each country in the study (see Table 1).

Findings from Developed Countries The studies from developed countries (see table) found evidence of NCF. Seven of the studies in this section focused on Europe [15, 20, 22, 26, 27, 31, 44]. Two of these studies, of which one is empirical [15] and the other is theoretical [20], were UK based. All found the practice of NCF in their respective organisations in the UK. Three studies from Germany, Spain and Finland [22, 31, 44] concluded that leaders used cronyism and favouritism in the management of their organisations. Two studies from Italy [26, 27] found the use of nepotism and favouritism by managers. However, Salvato et al. [27] did not find favouritism in the recruitment of CEOs in Italy. Findings from Developing Countries Studies identified from developing countries identified the presence of NCF (see Table 1). Eight studies from China [25, 42, 47, 49, 52–55] found the existence of NCF in Chinese organisations. Four studies from Turkey, Kazakhstan, Jordan and Lebanon [23, 35, 40, 51] showed that leaders in organisations of these countries engage in NCF. Two further studies from India [32] and Bangladesh [50] found a negative relationship between transformational leadership behaviour and favouritism. Similarly, MacWilliams [39] reported cronyism by leaders in educational organisations in the process of university admissions in Ukraine. In addition to the above, five studies from Africa [1, 36, 37, 41, 48]. All concluded that the political and educational leaders used favouritism and nepotism in the management of organisations. Finally, two empirical studies were conducted empirically by Öhler et al. [43] and Hodler et al. [46] looking at Africa, Asia, Latin America,



271

Europe, Americas and Oceania. Holder et al. [46] found that regional favouritism in the distribution of national resources was prevalent in Africa (42 countries sampled) and Asia (31 countries sampled) but not in the Americas (21 countries sampled), Europe (31 countries sampled) and Oceania (four countries sampled). Öhler et al. [43] found favouritism in World Bank projects in Asia and Latin America but not Africa. Overall, country differences in leadership behaviour in the context of NCF are very difficult to determine because the studies reviewed found the practice of NCF by leaders in both developed and developing countries.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This chapter reviewed studies in the literature that have established an association between leadership and NCF behaviours. It also explored country differences in leadership in the context of leadership and NCF. The literature review focused on two main topics: the number of studies that specifically mentioned exact leadership behaviour in the context of NCF; and distribution of the studies about the leadership and its connection with NCF behaviours in different economic regions around the world. First, the review found that only four studies have used specific leadership behaviour to measure the relationship between leadership and NCF. These studies look at transformational leadership behaviour [35, 32], destructive leadership behaviour [23]; and task-oriented leadership behaviour [31]. According to these studies, transformational and taskoriented leadership behaviour have negative relationship with nepotism [35] and favouritism [31, 32], while destructive leadership behaviour has a positive relationship with nepotism [23]. Additionally, Dasborough et al. [24] highlighted the relationship between individual leadership and favouritism. However, no studies were identified that examined the domains of leadership such as authentic and collective leadership and it is important that in future, research is undertaken to look at these domains in relations to NCF behaviours. While authentic leadership covers moral and ethical aspects of leaders’ behaviour [57], collective leadership (such as a


272


shared [58], distributed [59], complex [60], and organisational leadership [61] focuses on power relationships among organisational or team members. More knowledge and understanding about the relational mechanism between leadership and NCF behaviours at the individual as well as collective level should help to increase effectiveness in organisations. Second, the review found that most of the studies reviewed on leadership and NCF behaviours were conducted in North America, Asia and Europe with few studies from Africa and Latin America. This review found that only one study had examined leadership and NCF behaviours in Latin America and it also covered countries in Africa and Asia [43]. This review of literature found a significant positive relationship between the birth place of political leaders and distribution of aid in the countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Similarly, Soumahoro [41], Nwaiwu et al. [48] and Ilorah [1] found a strong and positive relationship between the birth place of political leaders and distribution of national resources and investments in African countries. For instance, most presidents in Ghana after independence were from the south and this may have caused the development gap which has led to influx of school age children to engage in menial jobs in the south to take care of themselves and their families. Similarly, Owino et al. [37] found evidence of family members being appointed to senior University positions in Kenya instead of appointment of the most suitably qualified applicant. Findings from studies reviewed suggest that NCF is gradually becoming a common phenomenon across the world. Evidence from studies conducted [62, 63] revealed that countries such as Africa, Latin American and Asian predominately hold collective culture beliefs while people from Europe and North America predominately hold individual culture beliefs. Although it could be expected that people from a collective cultural background would engage more in NCF behaviours the review did not confirm this expectation. Further research needs to be conducted to explore this subject in more detail in order to determine whether there are crosscountry differences or similarities in leadership and NCF behaviours in collective and individual culture countries. Such research will help to



273

establish if indeed differences in leadership in the context of NCF behaviours exist in these cultures.

APPENDIX 1: LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR AND NEPOTISM, CRONYISM AND FAVOURITISM Mattar [35]

Transformational leadership Destructive leadership Individual leadership Task and relationshiporiented leadership

Educational (top management Business (top management) Business (top management) Business (top management)

Banerji et al. [32]

Transformational leadership

Business (middle management)

Al-Khasawneh [40] Drange [33]

Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned

Political (top management) Business (top management) Political (top management) Business (top management) Political (top management) Political (top management) Political (top management) Political (top management) Political (top management)

Uymaz [23] Dasborough et al. [24] Mӓkilouko [31]

Tikkanen [20] Liu et al. [15] Soumahoro [41] Chen et al. [42] Ӧhler et al. [43] Zudenkova [44] Hollibaugh Jr [45]

Related to nepotism Related to nepotism Related to favouritism Related to cultural blindness, ethnocentrism and ingroup favouritism Negatively related to favouritism and bribery Related to cronyism and nepotism Related to nepotism Related to favouritism and cronyism Related to nepotism Positively related to favouritism Related to favouritism Related to favouritism Related to cronyism Related to cronyism


274

Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld Appendix. (Continued)

Author(S)

Leadership Behaviour

Holder et al. [46]

Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned

Environments Leadership Operate Political (top management) Political (top management) Business (top management)

Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned

Political (top management) Business (top management) Political (top management) Educational (top management) Political (top management) Educational (top management) Business (top management) Business (top management) Business (top management)

Behaviour not mentioned

Political (top management)

Mu & Zhang [47] Walker et al. [21]

Nwaiwu et al. [48] Perez et al. [22] Li [2012] Wadesango [36] Jamil & Panday [50] Owino et al. [37] Hong [25] Ponzon & Scoppa [26] Salvato et al. [27]

Ilorah [1]

Key Findings

Related to favouritism Related to favouritism Fraud, bribery, corruption, favouritism and special treatment identified as some ethical dilemmas for leaders Related to nepotism and tribalism Related to cronyism Related nepotism and rampant corruption Related to favouritism Related to nepotism and favouritism Related to nepotism and ethnicity Related to cronyism Related to nepotism and favouritism CEO appointment is based on human capital instead of favouritism in family business contrary to other findings Relationship with favouritism and ethical bias


Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism … Author(S)

Leadership Behaviour

Guliyev et al. [51] Pelletier et al. [28] Baucus et al. [29]

Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned

Environments Leadership Operate Political (top management) Business (top management) Business (top management)

Miller [34]

Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned

Business (top management) Business (top management)

Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned

Political (top management) Educational (top management)

Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned Behaviour not mentioned

Political (top management) Educational (top management) Political (top management) Political (top management) Political (top management)

Westphal & Stern [30] Heilmann [52] MacWilliams [39] Naughton et al. [53] Spaulding [38] Tanner & Feder [54] Keum et al. [55] Fong [56]

275

Key Findings

Related to cronyism and favouritism Related to nepotism and cronyism Related to unethical behaviour, favouritism and unfair treatment Relationship with favouritism Related to nepotism, cronyism and favouritism Related to cronyism Related to bribery, corruption and cronyism Related to favouritism and nepotism Related to favouritism Related to nepotism Related to nepotism and favouritism Related to nepotism

REFERENCES [1] [2]

Ilorah R. Ethnic bias, favouritism and development in Africa. Dev South Afr. [Internet] 2009 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 26(5). Wong LC, Kleiner BH. Nepotism. Int J Prod Perform Manag. [Internet] 1994 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 43(5):10–12.


276


[3]

Yukl, G. Leadership in organizations. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1994 [4] Zaccaro SJ, Klimoski RJ. The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting todays leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2001. [5] Brown ME, Trevinõ LK, Harrison DA. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. [Internet] 2005 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 97:117–134. [6] Ambrose ML, Cropanzano R. Longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions. Int J Appl Psychol. [Internet] 2003 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 88(2):266–275. [7] Korsgaard MA, Brodt SE, Whitener EM. Trust in the face of conflict: The role of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Int J Appl Psychol. [Internet] 2002 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 8(2):312–319. [8] Padgett MY, Morris KA. Keeping it “all in the family:” Does nepotism in the hiring process really benefit the beneficiary? J Leader Organ Stud. [Internet] 2005 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 11(2):34– 45. [9] Safina, D. Favouritism and nepotism in an organization: Causes and effects. Proc Econ Financ. [Internet] 2015 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 23:630–634. [10] Arasli H, Bavik A, Ekiz EH. The effects of nepotism on human resource management: The case of three, four, and five star hotels in Northern Cyprus. Int J Sociol Soc Policy. [Internet] 2006 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 26(7/8): 295–308. [11] Altındağ E. Evaluation of nepotism as accelerating effect on employee performance: An empirical study in Turkey. Eur J Bus Soc Sci. [Internet] 2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 3(7):97–104. [12] Büte M. The effects of nepotism and favouritism on employee behaviours and human resources practices: A research on Turkish



[13]

[14] [15]

[16] [17] [18] [19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

277

public banks. TODAIE’S Review of Public Administration. [Internet] 2011 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 5(1):185–208. Arasli H, Tumer M. Nepotism, favouritism and cronyism: A study of their effects on job stress and job satisfaction in the banking industry of north Cyprus. Soc Behav Pers. [Internet] 2008 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 36(9):1237–1250. Brecher AD. Long-term relationship: stay together or break up? J Property Manag. [Internet] 2016 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 81(2):42–42. Liu C, Eubanks DL, Chater N. The weakness of strong ties: Sampling bias, social ties, and nepotism in family business succession. Leadersh Q. [Internet] 2015 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 26:419–435. Bellow A. In praise of nepotism: A natural history. New York: Doubleday; 2003 Hodler R, Raschky PA. Regional favouritism. Q J Econ. [Internet] 2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 129(2):995–1033. Coco G, Lagravinese R. Cronyism and education performance. Econ Model. [Internet] 2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 38:443–450. Khatri N, Tsang EWK, Begley TM. Cronyism: The downside of social networking. in Academy of Management Proceedings (pp.C1C6). Presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings, Academy of management. [Internet] 2003 [cited 25 Jun 2017]: 1–6. Tikkanen H. Favouritism is the secret of efficiency! Admiral Sir John Fisher as the First Sea Lord, 1904–1910. Manag Organ Hist. [Internet] 2016 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 11(3):253–275. Walker D, Lloyd-Walker B. Client-side project management capabilities: dealing with ethical dilemas. Int J Manag Proj Bus. [Internet] 2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 7(4):566–589. Perez JID, Barcena LS, Del Campo MAM, Monroy CR. A theoretical and empirical study of barriers to knowledge sharing in the enterprise. Interciencia. [Internet] 2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 39(3):156–163.


278


[23] Uymaz AO. A study of development of destructive leadership scale. Institute of Business Administration-Management Journal. [Internet] 2013 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 24(75):37–57. [24] Dasborough MT, Ashkanasy NM, Tee EYJ, Tse HHM. What goes around comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine organization attitudes towards leaders. Leadersh Q. [Internet] 2009 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 20:571– 585. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.009. [25] Hong C. Is cronyism always negative? A model of organizational appointment based on structure of Guanxi. International Conference on Management Science & Engineering (18th), Rome, Italy; 2011. [26] Ponzo M, Scoppa V. A simple model of favouritism in recruitment. Res Econom. [Internet] 2011 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 65:78–88. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.rie.2010.09.003. [27] Salvato C, Minichilli A, Piccarreta R. Faster route to the CEO suite: nepotism or managerial proficiency? Fam Bus Rev. [Internet] 2011 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 20(10):1–19. [28] Pelletier KL, Bligh MC. The aftermath of organizational corruption: Employee attributions and emotional reactions. J Bus Ethics. [Internet] 2008 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 80:823–844. [29] Baucus M, Norton Jr WI, Davis-Sramek B, Meek W. Cheating and NASCAR: Who’s at the wheel? Bus Horiz. [Internet] 2008 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 51:379–389. [30] Westphal JD, Stern I. The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence behaviour as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status obtaining board appointments. Adm Sci Q. [Internet] 2006 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 51(2):169–204. [31] Mäkilouko M. Coping with multicultural projects: the leadership styles of Finnish project managers. Int J Proj Manage. [Internet] 2004 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 22:387–396. [32] Banerji P, Krishnan VR. Ethical preferences of transformational leaders: an empirical investigation. Leader Organ Dev J. [Internet] 2000 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 21(8):405–413.



279

[33] Drange M. Hyperloop One cofounder accuses company leadership of nepotism, Assault, Wrongful Termination. Business Source Complete. 2016 Dec 7. [34] Miller V. Latin chamber vote spurs infighting (allegations of manipulation, other activities abound). Business Press. 2007 Nov 5; 24(45): 2–3. [35] Mattar DM. Lebanese cherishing a transformational educational leader. Int J Educ Manage. [Internet] 2016 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 30(6):1045–1071. [36] Wadesango N. Perceptions of secondary school teachers towards school-based promotion procedures. Anthropologist. [Internet] 2013 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 15(3):353–359. [37] Owino GC, Ogachi OI, Olel MA. Role of institutional managers in quality assurance: reflections on Kenya’s university education. Aust J Bus Manage Res. [Internet] 2011 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 1(2):113– 124. [38] Spaulding A. Life in schools-a qualitative study of teacher perspectives on the politics of principals: Ineffective leadership behaviours and their consequences upon teacher thinking and behaviour. Sch Leadersh Manage. [Internet] 1997 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 17(1): 39–56. [39] MacWilliams B. Athletics: International notes. Chronicle of Higher Education. 2005 Aug 7; 51(44) 33–33. [40] Al-Khasawneh AL, Barakat HJ. The role of the Hashemite leadership in the development of human resources in Jordan: An analytical study. Int Rev Manage Market. [Internet] 2016 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 6(4):654–667. [41] Soumahoro S. Leadership favouritism in Africa. Appl Econ Lett. [Internet] 2015 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 22(15):1236–1239. [42] Chen Y, Henderson JV, Cai W. Political favouritism in China’s capital markets and its effects on city sizes. J Urban Econ. [Internet] 2015 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 000:1–19.


280


[43] Öhler H, Nunnenkamp P. Needs-based targeting or favouritism? The regional allocation of multilateral aid within recipient countries. Kyklos. [Internet] 2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 67:420–446. [44] Zudenkova G. Political cronyism. Soc Choice Welf. [Internet] 2015 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 44: 473–492. [45] Hollibaugh Jr GE. Naive cronyism and neutral competence: Patronage, performance, and policy agreement in executive appointments. J Public Adm Res Theory. [Internet] 2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 25:341–372. [46] Hodler R, Raschky PA. Regional favouritism. Q J Econ. [Internet] 2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 995–1033. Available from: doi:10.1093/qje/qju004 [47] Mu R, Zhang X. Do elected leaders in a limited democracy have real power? Evidence from China. J Dev Econ. [Internet] 2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 107:17–27. [48] Nwaiwu JN, Okoye PVC. Investment in volatile economy: the role of national leaders. J Bus Retail Manage Res. [Internet] 2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 8(2). [49] Li C. The End of the CCP’s resilient authoritarianism? A tripartite assessment of shifting power in China. China Q. [Internet] 2012 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 211:595–623. [50] Jamil I, Panday P. Inter-organizational coordination and corruption in urban policy implementation in Bangladesh: A case of Rajshahi City Corporation. Int J Publ Admin. [Internet] 2012 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 35(5):352–366. [51] Guliyev F, Akhrarkhodjaeva N. The Trans-Caspian energy route: Cronyism, competition and cooperation in Kazakhi oil export. Energy Pol. [Internet] 2009 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 37:3171–3182. [52] Heilmann S. Regulatory innovation by Leninist means: Communist Party supervision in China’s financial industry. China Q. [Internet] 2005 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 1. [53] Naughton BJ, Yang DL. Holding China together: Diversity and national integration in the post-Deng era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004



281

[54] Tanner MS, Feder MJ. Family politics, elite recruitment, and succession in post-Mao China. Aust J Chin Aff. [Internet] 1993 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 30:89–119. [55] Keum HY, Campbell JR. The price of change – policy reform in post-1978 mainland China and Gorbachev Soviet-Union. Issues Stud. [Internet] 1993 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 29(9):59–84. [56] Fong ML. Subcommunal participation and leadership cohesiveness of the Chinese in nineteenth-century Singapore. Mod Asian Stud. [Internet] 1983 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 17(3):437–453. [57] Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Wernsing TS, Peterson SJ. Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a TheoryBased Measure? J Manage. [Internet] 2008 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 34(1):89–126. [58] Shuffler ML, Burke CS, Kramer WS, Salas E. Leading teams: Past, present, and future perspectives. In Rumsey, MG, ed. The Oxford handbook of leadership, New York Oxford: University Press. 144– 166; 2013. [59] Zaccaro SJ, Klimoski RJ. The nature of organizational leadership: An introduction. In Zaccaro SJ, Klimoski RJ, eds. The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today’s leaders. San Francisco Jossey-Bass. 3–41; 2001. [60] Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, McKelvey B. Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadersh Q. [Internet] 2007 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 18(4):298–318. [61] Gronn P. Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadersh Q. [Internet] 2002 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 13(4):423–451. [62] Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage; 2001.


282


[63] Hofstede G, Hofstede GH, Minkov M. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Revised and expanded, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill; 2010. [64] World Bank [Internet] World Bank Country and Leading Groups [Cited 27 Jul 2017]. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank. org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-andlending-groups.
