Content uploaded by Kurmet Kivipõld
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kurmet Kivipõld on Jan 30, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
In: Leadership for Improvement ISBN: 978-1-53612-944-1
Editor: Susan Morison © 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
1School 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: akuffo@ut.ee.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
256
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
Complimentary Contributor Copy
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
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
258
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 E-
books 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 non-
empirical 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.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
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.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
260
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
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Number of publications
Year of publication
Total Studies
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
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,
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
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
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
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
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
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.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
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
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
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
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
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
Industry/
source of
information
Type of
research
Key findings
Pelletier et al.
[28]
USA
Service
Empirical
Related to nepotism
and cronyism
Baucus et al.
[29]
USA
Sports
Theoretical
Related to unethical
behaviour, favouritism
and unfair treatment
Miller [34]
USA
Chamber of
commerce
Report
Related to favouritism
Westphal &
Stern [30]
USA
Service and
manufac-
turing
Empirical
related to nepotism,
cronyism, and
favouritism
Spaulding [38]
USA
Service
Empirical
Related to favouritism
Dasborough et
al. [24]
USA
N/A
Theoretical
Individual leadership is
related to favouritism
Drange [33]
USA
Manu-
facturing
Report
Related to nepotism
Hollibaugh Jr
[45]
USA
Service
Empirical
Related to cronyism
Liu et al. [15]
UK
Simulation
Empirical
Related to nepotism
Tikkanen [20]
UK
Security
Theoretical
Related to favouritism
and cronyism
Zudenkova
[44]
Germany
Simulation
Empirical
Related to cronyism
Walker et al.
[21]
Australia
Service
Empirical
fraud, bribery,
corruption, favouritism
and special treatment
were identified as some
ethical dilemmas for
leaders
Ponzon &
Scoppa [26]
Italy
N/A
Theoretical
Related with nepotism
and favouritism
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
268
Table 1. (Continued)
Author(s)
Country/
continent
Industry/
source of
information
Type of
research
Key findings
Salvato et al.
[27]
Italy
Manufacturing
Empirical
CEO appointment is
based on human
capital instead of
favouritism in family
business contrary to
other findings
Perez et al.
[22]
Spain
27 service and
manufacturing
Empirical
Related to cronyism
Mӓkilouko
[31]
Finland
construction
Empirical
Task leadership is
related to cultural
blindness,
ethnocentrism and in-
group favouritism
Fong [56]
Singapore
Historical
Inscriptions
Empirical
Related to nepotism
Naughton et al.
[53]
China
N/A
Theoretical
Related to favouritism
and nepotism
Tanner &
Feder [54]
China
N/A
Theoretical
Related to nepotism
Chen et al.
[42]
China
Financial
Empirical
Related to favouritism
Keum et al.
[55]
China
N/A
Theoretical
Related to nepotism
and favouritism
Mu & Zhang
[47]
China
Service
Empirical
Related to favouritism
Hong [25]
China
N/A
Theoretical
Related to cronyism
Heilmann [52]
China
Financial
Empirical
Related to cronyism
Li [49]
China
N/A
Theoretical
Related to nepotism
and rampant
corruption
Uymaz [23]
Turkey
Chamber of
Commerce
Empirical
Destructive leadership
is related to nepotism
Al-Khasawneh
et al. [40]
Jordan
Royal
governance
Empirical
Related to cronyism
and nepotism
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
269
Author(s)
Country/
continent
Industry/
source of
information
Type of
research
Key findings
Mattar [35]
Lebanon
Education
Empirical
Transformational
leadership is related to
nepotism
Banerji et al.
[32]
India
Service and
manufacturing
Empirical
Transformational
leadership is
negatively related to
favouritism and
bribery
Jamil &
Panday [50]
Banglade
sh
Service
Empirical
Related to nepotism
and favouritism
Guliyev et al.
[51]
Kazakhst
an
N/A
Theoretical
Related to cronyism
and favouritism
Mac
Williams [39]
Ukraine
Education
Report
related to bribery,
cronyism and
corruption
Soumahoro
[41]
Africa
48 African
countries
Empirical
Positively related to
favouritism
Nwaiwu et al.
[48]
Nigeria
N/A
Theoretical
Related to nepotism
and tribalism
Wadesango
[36]
South
Africa
Education
Empirical
Related to favouritism
Owino et al.
[37]
Kenya
Education
Empirical
Related to nepotism
and ethnicity
Ilorah [1]
Africa
N/A
Theoretical
Related to favouritism
and ethical bias
Ӧhler et al.
[43]
Africa,
Asia and
Latin
America
Financial
Empirical
Related to favouritism
Hodler et al.
[46]
Africa,
Asia,
Americas,
Europe
and
Oceania
Satellites data
Empirical
Related to favouritism
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
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,
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
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 task-
oriented 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
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
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 cross-
country differences or similarities in leadership and NCF behaviours in
collective and individual culture countries. Such research will help to
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
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
Educational (top
management
Related to nepotism
Uymaz [23]
Destructive
leadership
Business (top
management)
Related to nepotism
Dasborough et al.
[24]
Individual
leadership
Business (top
management)
Related to favouritism
Mӓkilouko [31]
Task and
relationship-
oriented leadership
Business (top
management)
Related to cultural
blindness,
ethnocentrism and in-
group favouritism
Banerji et al. [32]
Transformational
leadership
Business (middle
management)
Negatively related to
favouritism and
bribery
Al-Khasawneh
[40]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to cronyism
and nepotism
Drange [33]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Business (top
management)
Related to nepotism
Tikkanen [20]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to favouritism
and cronyism
Liu et al. [15]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Business (top
management)
Related to nepotism
Soumahoro [41]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Positively related to
favouritism
Chen et al. [42]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to favouritism
Ӧhler et al. [43]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to favouritism
Zudenkova [44]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to cronyism
Hollibaugh Jr
[45]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to cronyism
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
274
Appendix. (Continued)
Author(S)
Leadership
Behaviour
Environments
Leadership
Operate
Key Findings
Holder et al. [46]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to favouritism
Mu & Zhang [47]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to favouritism
Walker et al. [21]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Business (top
management)
Fraud, bribery,
corruption, favouritism
and special treatment
identified as some
ethical dilemmas for
leaders
Nwaiwu et al.
[48]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to nepotism
and tribalism
Perez et al. [22]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Business (top
management)
Related to cronyism
Li [2012]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related nepotism and
rampant corruption
Wadesango [36]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Educational (top
management)
Related to favouritism
Jamil & Panday
[50]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to nepotism
and favouritism
Owino et al. [37]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Educational (top
management)
Related to nepotism
and ethnicity
Hong [25]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Business (top
management)
Related to cronyism
Ponzon & Scoppa
[26]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Business (top
management)
Related to nepotism
and favouritism
Salvato et al. [27]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Business (top
management)
CEO appointment is
based on human
capital instead of
favouritism in family
business contrary to
other findings
Ilorah [1]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Relationship with
favouritism and ethical
bias
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
275
Author(S)
Leadership
Behaviour
Environments
Leadership
Operate
Key Findings
Guliyev et al.
[51]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to cronyism
and favouritism
Pelletier et al.
[28]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Business (top
management)
Related to nepotism
and cronyism
Baucus et al. [29]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Business (top
management)
Related to unethical
behaviour, favouritism
and unfair treatment
Miller [34]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Business (top
management)
Relationship with
favouritism
Westphal & Stern
[30]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Business (top
management)
Related to nepotism,
cronyism and
favouritism
Heilmann [52]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to cronyism
MacWilliams
[39]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Educational (top
management)
Related to bribery,
corruption and
cronyism
Naughton et al.
[53]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to favouritism
and nepotism
Spaulding [38]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Educational (top
management)
Related to favouritism
Tanner & Feder
[54]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to nepotism
Keum et al. [55]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to nepotism
and favouritism
Fong [56]
Behaviour not
mentioned
Political (top
management)
Related to nepotism
REFERENCES
[1] Ilorah R. Ethnic bias, favouritism and development in Africa. Dev
South Afr. [Internet] 2009 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 26(5).
[2] Wong LC, Kleiner BH. Nepotism. Int J Prod Perform Manag.
[Internet] 1994 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 43(5):10–12.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
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
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
277
public banks. TODAIE’S Review of Public Administration. [Internet]
2011 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 5(1):185–208.
[13] 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.
[14] Brecher AD. Long-term relationship: stay together or break up? J
Property Manag. [Internet] 2016 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 81(2):42–42.
[15] 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.
[16] Bellow A. In praise of nepotism: A natural history. New York:
Doubleday; 2003
[17] Hodler R, Raschky PA. Regional favouritism. Q J Econ. [Internet]
2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 129(2):995–1033.
[18] Coco G, Lagravinese R. Cronyism and education performance. Econ
Model. [Internet] 2014 [cited 25 Jun 2017]; 38:443–450.
[19] Khatri N, Tsang EWK, Begley TM. Cronyism: The downside of
social networking. in Academy of Management Proceedings (pp.C1-
C6). Presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings,
Academy of management. [Internet] 2003 [cited 25 Jun 2017]: 1–6.
[20] 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.
[21] 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.
[22] 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.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
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.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
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.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
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
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Leadership Behaviour in the Context of Nepotism …
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 Theory-
Based 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.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
Isaac Nana Akuffo and Kurmet Kivipõld
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-and-
lending-groups.
Complimentary Contributor Copy
