Risk of increased acceptance for organizational nepotism and cronyism during the COVID-19 pandemic

Ignatowski, Grzegorz; Sułkowski, Łukasz; Stopczyński, Bartłomiej Article Risk of increased acceptance for organizational nepotism and cronyism during the COVID-19 pandemic Risks Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Ignatowski, Grzegorz; Sułkowski, Łukasz; Stopczyński, Bartłomiej (2021) : Risk of increased acceptance for organizational nepotism and cronyism during the COVID-19 pandemic, Risks, ISSN 2227-9091, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 1-35, https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9040059 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/258148 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ risks Article Risk of Increased Acceptance for Organizational Nepotism and Cronyism during the COVID-19 Pandemic Grzegorz Ignatowski 1,* , Łukasz Sułkowski 2and Bartłomiej Stopczy´nski 1   Citation: Ignatowski, Grzegorz, Łukasz Sułkowski, and Bartłomiej Stopczy´nski. 2021. Risk of Increased Acceptance for Organizational Nepotism and Cronyism during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Risks 9: 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9040059 Academic Editors: Tomas Kliestik and Zbysław Dobrowolski Received: 5 February 2021 Accepted: 20 March 2021 Published: 24 March 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1Department of Management, University of Social Sciences, 90-113 Lodz, Poland; [email protected] 2Department of Management and Social Communication, Institute of Public Affairs, Jagiellonian University, 31-007 Cracow, Poland; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-603-648-228 Abstract: Nepotism and cronyism are forms of favoritism towards certain people in the workplace. For this reason, they constitute a problem for organization managers, ethicists and psychologists. Identifying the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the increase of nepotism and cronyism may provide a basis for organizations to assess their extent and to take possible measures to prevent their negative effects. At the same time, the research presented in the article may provide a basis for further research work related to nepotism and cronyism at the times of other threats, different from the pandemic. The aim of the article is to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on growing acceptance for nepotism and cronyism in Polish enterprises. Qualitative and quantitative methods have been included in the conducted research. Qualitative study aimed at improving knowledge of nepotism and cronyism and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these phenomena, followed by a quantitative study conducted in order to verify the information obtained in the qualitative study. This research has demonstrated that Nepotism and cronyism in the workplace, are phenomenon that are basically evaluated negatively. They adversely influences social and economic development, but the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on nepotism and cronyism is not significant. Keywords: nepotism; cronyism; nepotism acceptance; pandemic; COVID-19 1. Introduction Both concepts, nepotism and cronyism, have negative potential. It results from the fact that in the case of nepotism it is about favoring the closest family members during the employment process without paying attention to their competences, and in the case of cronyism about friends and acquaintances (Riggio and Saggi 2015). Although it was not until the 16th century that Roman popes were accused of assigning high positions to immediate family members, nepotism-like practices had been and are still encountered throughout human history. Nowadays, when special attention is paid to the competences of employees, the issue of accepting to favor certain people is considered from the perspective of history, religion, sociology, political science, economics and law. With a religious perspective in mind, the phenomenon of nepotism is being studied in the structures of some Christian churches (Austin 2019). A practice that uses biased tools based on family relationships and acquaintances rather than competences and professionalism in the recruitment process is studied by psychologists dealing with its impact on employees who have to follow strict employment rules. Nepotism and cronyism put incompetent people in important positions and are thus the antithesis to valuing more qualified and effective people who cannot occupy high positions at work. This way, these phenomena work against the introduction of professional management, limiting the possibilities of effective management. Consequently, they have a negative impact on human resources, improving qualifications, as well as on attachment and loyalty to one’s company (Sidani and Thornberry 2013) . From an ethical perspective, attention is drawn to the very moral issue of favoring people who are disqualified in the workplace and to some forms of Risks 2021,9, 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9040059 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/risks Risks 2021,9, 59 2 of 35 discrimination. Lawyers, economists and people responsible for hiring employees see the negative economic effects in organizations where nepotism and cronyism are practiced, and therefore seek to limit this. The phenomenon of nepotism is also considered from the perspective of family businesses (Jaskiewicz et al. 2013;Hiebl 2015;Efferin and Hartono 2015;Liu et al. 2015;Cherchem 2017). Research on family businesses emphasizes that it is better for the future of the company to hire a competent manager who can professionally manage the company rather than to entrust it to incompetent family members (Bozer et al. 2017). The phenomenon of nepotism is widely discussed and criticized in developing and highly industrialized countries (Joffe 2004;Aldraehim et al. 2012;Popczyk 2017). The phenomenon of nepotism is also considered from the perspective of various countries and regions. Knowledge of the level of acceptance for nepotistic practices enables better management of foreign capital in organizing workplaces and understanding nepotistic practices (Keles et al. 2011;Demaj 2012;Aldraehim et al. 2012;Sidani and Thornberry 2013;Vveinhardt and Petrauskaite 2013;Gustafsson and Norgren 2014). The phenomenon of nepotism and its importance for the functioning of the organization has also been studied in Poland. Most often, these were articles based on studies comparing nepotism in Poland and Ukraine or Lithuania (Sroka and Vveinhardt 2020). Comparison of nepotism depending on membership in the public and private sector, age and gender, as well as Poland and Lithuania (Sroka and Vveinhardt 2020;Vveinhardt and Sroka 2020). The understanding of nepotism from the perspective of family businesses was also undertaken (Ignatowski et al. 2019). Al-Youbi et al. (2020) dealt with the issue of acceptance for organizational nepotism from the perspective of belonging to the Protestant and Catholic denominations. This text raises the issue of acceptance of nepotism during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the article is to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on growing acceptance for nepotism and cronyism in Polish enterprises. In order to achieve the abovementioned goal, the researchers put forward the following research hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 (H1). Nepotism is assessed more gently during the COVID-19 pandemic than before it. Hypothesis 2 (H2). Cronyism is assessed more severely during the COVID-19 pandemic than before it. Hypothesis 3 (H3). The negative impact of nepotism on workers is lower during the COVID-19 pandemic than before it. Hypothesis 4 (H4). The negative impact of cronyism on workers is greater during the COVID-19 pandemic than before it. Qualitative and quantitative methods have been included in the conducted research to verify these hypotheses. 2. Literature Review It should be noted that the phenomena of nepotism and cronyism are not understood unequivocally. Overall, we can say that nepotism and cronyism are about favoring people in the workplace. The term “nepotism” is derived from the Latin word “nepos” which we translate as grandson or nephew. Hence, nepotism means favoring close family members in a given organization. Cronyism, on the other hand, comes from the word “crony”, which refers to the colloquial language used by Cambridge University students in the 17th century. This word was used to describe a person as “friend of long-standing”. Today, the term stands for favoring friends and acquaintances in the workplace. When it comes to favoring family members and friends, we sometimes also use the term “patronage” (Çarikiçi et al. 2009) . However, according to Arasli and Turner (2008), cronyism is referred to as favoritism and means granting special privileges to friends, colleagues and Risks 2021,9, 59 3 of 35 acquaintances during employment, further careers and making personal decisions. Both phenomena, nepotism and cronyism, however, are not limited to the employment process itself. They also cover the period of support during career development and favoring the person on the occasion of remuneration (Abdalla et al. 1998;Pelletier and Bligh 2008; Keles et al. 2011;Jones and Stout 2015). Bearing in mind family businesses, where we can encounter the phenomenon of nepotism much more often, in the literature on the subject we encounter the notions of “entitlement nepotism” and “reciprocal nepotism” (Jaskiewicz et al. 2013). However, the phenomenon of nepotism is usually viewed negatively in any company. Therefore, where it is not possible to find a qualified manager coming from the circle of the closest family, it is proposed to employ a qualified manager in a family business. We most often encounter the phenomenon of nepotism where there are intense and traditional family ties and relationships, and where marketing principles are not developed, as is the case in highly industrialized countries. The choice of relatives is a natural phenomenon in the human world. According to the biological and ecological approach, nepotistic practices are rational behavior. The second factor that determines support for nepotism is the structure of the family and society. Where individualism prevails, nepotism will have less appreciation. In societies where traditional family ties dominate and individuals feel dependent, nepotism is an obstacle to economic and economic development. Individuals who trust only the family or its further members do not allow the establishment of free and independent relationships. Nepotism dominates in those countries where traditional relationships are more important than ethical obligations (Çarikiçi et al. 2009). Traditional family ties, their preferred values, and thus economic effects and organizations, are also influenced by religions, which influence how individuals perceive family loyalty as opposed to other members of society (Arruñada 2004;Sulkowski 2017;Allchin 2015;Arruñada and Krapf 2019). This, of course, influences the perception of nepotism (Treisman 2000). Research shows that in countries that arose from Protestant traditions, where there is a greater emphasis on individualism, there is less support for organizational nepotism (Filipova 2012;Ignatowski et al. 2020). In the mid-nineteenth century, the study of human ethical attitudes revealed the process of transferring ethical issues from the sphere of philosophy and theology to the field of natural sciences, and human morality is justified in biology (Goatly 2006;Šamánkováet al. 2018). This process is reflected in the evolutionary theory of ethnic solidarity, which allows us to understand why people can also support their friends and acquaintances beyond the circle of their closest family members. According to this theory, we cannot talk about supporting the closest family members, but rather about a genetic tendency to support other people in general. The tendency to become members of a different social group is present in all populations, indicating its evolutionary approach. For evolutionary solidarity to develop, there has to exist a significant capacity to sacrifice individual fitness for groups or populations that had ethnic characteristics (Allchin 2015;Salter and Harpending 2013). Although we are generally faced with a negative assessment of the impact of nepotism on the organization, some authors, however in the minority, see its positive impact under certain circumstances. They include the existence of natural kin-related ties in the transmission of knowledge and greater responsibility (Jaskiewicz et al. 2013). We see the claim that family members with a positive reputation can, under certain circumstances, transfer that reputation to the organization (Okyere-kwakye et al. 2010). In some publications, we encounter arguments that testify to the positive importance of nepotism, namely, that family members of a recognized leader can gain the trust of other members of the organization. Another argument is the belief that they gain greater trust and loyalty and commitment to the organization themselves (Dickson et al. 2012). The culture of enterprises in which families have a definite advantage is more conducive to actions than the culture of enterprises in which there is no family domination. Pfeffer (2005) defends nepotistic employment as a way to create a “communal organization” that seeks to build a sense of community at work and shows holistic concern for workers, in contrast to the more Risks 2021,9, 59 4 of 35 restricted and transactional approach that many organizations adopt in their relationships with employees (Pfeffer 2005;Padgett et al. 2015). However, most researchers point to the negative importance of nepotism (Pearce 2015;Sroka and Vveinhardt 2018;Sroka and Vveinhardt 2020;Vveinhardt and Sroka 2020). Research shows the negative impact of nepotism either on the organization itself, or on the employees who face this phenomenon. The respondents show that nepotism negatively affects job satisfaction (Arasli et al. 2006;Arasli and Turner 2008;Padgett et al. 2015). This negative impact is also expressed in negative attachment to the organization (Padgett and Morris 2005; Padgett et al. 2015) and the motivation of employees (Padgett et al. 2015) who witness nepotism and have no benefits for it. Nepotism also reduces trust in the organization (Keles et al. 2011) and increases stress among employees (Basu 2009). With the increase of nepotism, the intention to leave the organization also increases (Keles et al. 2011). People who take a negative stance towards nepotism will be less favorable to people who have been employed according to nepotism practices and will be able to stigmatize them. People who have been employed under nepotistic practices will be considered less competent than those who have been employed under the applicable rules and therefore deserve lower wages and will generally be viewed less favorably by other workers (Padgett et al. 2015). From the perspective of a professional ethicist, both cronyism and nepotism can be a problem. They negatively affect not only the satisfaction with the work and its performance, but also weaken morale and attachment to the organization. Despite all these negative effects, it should be remembered that nepotism is legally limited with a certain reserve (Fu 2015). The reason is not mainly indicated on the positive sides of the phenomenon, but rather ethical dilemmas. Introducing drastic restrictions on employing people in a nepotistic way can lead to some form of discrimination. Family members are denied employment just because they belong to decision-makers in a given organization (Fershtman et al. 2005) . The introduction of strict nepotism rules can put an organization in a difficult position. It turns out that the introduction of rules aimed at preventing the employment of unqualified family members led to a ban on the employment of qualified individuals who were spouses of current employees. There are even worse situations when colleagues who meet at work fall in love with each other and want to get married. Most likely, they were both employed on the basis of their competences. An anti-nepotism policy can lead to a situation where one of the parties has to be transferred to another department or leave the organization completely (Fisher 2005). The strict rules in this respect introduced in the American public sector in the mid-nineties of the last century meant that women had to change jobs more often than men (Williams and Laker 2010). The sources of organizational nepotism should be sought in strong family ties. It does not change the fact that it has been present in all civilizations in the world and we meet it in all sectors of public life. In this article, we ask whether the COVID-19 pandemic is having an impact on increased acceptance of nepotism. Such a statement is justified by the fact that with the spread of the pandemic, unemployment increases, and at the same time restrictions in the economic field help tighten family ties. The fact that we are dealing with the pandemic was confirmed on 11 March 2020 by the chairman of the World Health Organization, who said during a press conference that the coronavirus causing the COVID-19 disease can be considered a pandemic. He added that all countries must find the right balance between protecting health, minimizing economic and social disruptions and respecting human rights. WHO is working with many partners around the world to mitigate the social and economic impact of the pandemic. In the case of COVID-19, we cannot speak of a crisis that affects public health, but it will affect all people and everyone must get involved in fighting this crisis (WHO 2020). During the pandemic, there were a number of radical economic and lifestyle changes. First of all, the world, including enterprises, was not prepared for the situation of a global pandemic (Belzunegui-Eraso and Erro-Garcés 2020). This resulted in a number of difficulties in running a business, in extreme cases resulting in the disruption of supply Risks 2021,9, 59 5 of 35 chains. Entire industries whose specificity of operation forced the necessity of interpersonal contacts (most services addressed to individual recipients, tourism, passenger transport) were “switched off” or their activity was severely limited. At the same time, many employees had to switch to remote work via social messaging and teleworking. Its use on a mass scale was a complete novelty for many organizations (Toshihiro 2020; Sostero et al. 2020;Katsabian 2020;Fana et al. 2020). Teleworking, although generally assessed positively by many, met with a number of negative opinions, especially by men and the older generation. The most important disadvantages include the inability to demonstrate exceptional skills, difficulties with proper assessment by superiors of their results and competences or problems with asynchronous communication and work organization. At the same time, teleworking was rated worse by older workers. Lack of direct contact and feedback decreased motivation and trust (Raišien ˙ e et al. 2020; Baert et al. 2020) . The COVID-19 pandemic has also changed the approach to formulating an organization’s sustainable development strategy. Its effects and the lack of preparation of most organizations in the world clearly showed that such pandemics must be considered as one of the important elements of a sustainable development strategy (Ikram et al. 2020). At the same time, research on Spanish companies during the COVID-19 pandemic showed the importance of organizational ethics and corporate social responsibility, the improvement of which may lead to greater employee satisfaction (Castellanos-Redondo et al. 2020). A certain positive influence of the family on the functioning of enterprises was also noticed, characterized by greater solidarity and cohesion in family enterprises (Kraus et al. 2020). A direct effect of the COVID-19 pandemic was also a slowdown in the development of most of the world’s economies (Derkacz 2020;Soava et al. 2020;Islam et al. 2020). The economic changes also resulted in increasing unemployment and lowered salaries, which influenced the course of professional careers (Al-Youbi et al. 2020; Every-Palmer et al. 2020) . The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the lifestyle of Europeans, although the level of changes varies depending on the country, most often depending on the intensity of the epidemic in the countries studied (www.ircenter.com 2020). Among the changes, one of the most important is the increase in the importance of family and family ties, while at the same time the activity with friends has decreased (Vatavali et al. 2020;www.ircenter.com 2020). Human relationships will also be more respected (www.ircenter.com 2020). Remote work and the need to stay at home allowed to spend a lot of time with my family (Every-Palmer et al. 2020). At the same time, restrictions related to COVID-19 (quarantine for the sick, prohibition of movement, ban on assemblies, ban on contacts with hospitalized persons) significantly impeded the cultivation of family ties with members who were not in the same household during the pandemic (Annonymous 2020). Domestic violence increased in closed families as a result of restrictions (Usher et al. 2020;Campbell 2020;Humphreys et al. 2020;Prime et al. 2020;Lebow Jay 2020;Xue et al. 2020;Pereda and Díaz-Faes 2020; Zhang 2020). The pandemic also increased the level of depression and anxiety (Serafini et al. 2021, p. 8; Bourion-Bédès et al. 2020;Kar et al. 2021, pp. 3–4; Cénat et al. 2020;Vatavali et al. 2020;Mechili et al. 2020;Every-Palmer et al. 2020;Mazza et al. 2020;Ettman et al. 2020; Rehman et al. 2021;Salari et al. 2020;Ma et al. 2020;Bäuerle et al. 2020;Oducado et al. 2021, p. 76). Satisfaction with life decreased (Blasco-Belled et al. 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic is also a series of pseudoscientific information about the epidemic, having a negative impact on the mental health of the society (Escolà-Gascón et al. 2021). The quality of social capital played a significant role in the impact of COVID-19 on this health. The higher it was (especially its elements such as: interpersonal trust, community membership and social participation), the lower the negative impact of the epidemic was (Li et al. 2020). At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic took many governments by surprise. Most of them had underinvested health care, which did not have sufficient resources to fight the global mass epidemic (Stawicka and Stawicki 2020). This resulted in the need to quickly replenish them, which was possible very often only thanks to intervention purchases. As a result, there were corruption abuses related to the purchase of medical equipment resulting Risks 2021,9, 59 6 of 35 from the loosening of anti-corruption rules in the name of accelerating the purchase and the lack of procedures for dealing with the pandemic (Steingrüber et al. 2020). Summing up, it seems that the pandemic increased the importance of loyalty, honesty and clarity of principles in running a business, which should translate into lower acceptance for both nepotism and cronyism. At the same time, the previously described positive nepotism, when the employed family member has appropriate qualifications, may contribute to strengthening solidarity and cohesion in a family business. The increase in unemployment and turmoil in the labor market should result in an increase in nepotistic situations due to the redundant looking for shortcuts when looking for a new job. Teleworking, and the related lack of direct physical contact between employees, should facilitate the employment of family members and friends, because interpersonal contacts in companies, especially informal ones, are very limited, so it is easier for a recruiting manager to hide favoritism when hiring, which should also translate into growth the prevalence of both nepotism and cronyism. A higher scale of anxiety, depression and dissatisfaction with life should result in a more rigorous assessment of nepotism and cronyism in the organization. The authors of the article will examine whether the above changes in the scale of occurrence and assessment of nepotism and cronyism actually take place. 3. Materials and Methods The main aim of the study was to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the phenomena of nepotism and cronyism. For the purposes of the study, the following specific objectives have been formulated: • Assessment of the impact of nepotism and cronyism from both entrepreneurs and employees before the pandemic. • Assessment of the impact of nepotism from both entrepreneurs and employees during the pandemic. • Employees and owners’ assessment of the impact of the pandemic on nepotism and cronyism. In order to achieve the above research goals, the following research questions were asked: • How did the COVID-19 pandemic influence the phenomena of nepotism and cronyism? • Will a greater respect for family relationships result in a softer assessment of nepotism? • Will a greater respect for family relationships reduce the negative impact of nepotism? • Are there differences in the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic between nepotism and cronyism? Based on the above-mentioned research questions, research hypotheses have been formulated. The hypothesis H1 and hypothesis H2 relate to the assessment of the phenomenon of nepotism and cronyism by both employees and owners. Based on literature research, it can be stated that the former assess both nepotism and cronyism negatively, while business owners evaluate nepotism positively due to the specificity of family businesses, and cronyism—negatively (Sroka and Vveinhardt 2018;Onoshchenko and Williams 2014;Williams and Onoshchenko 2014;Padgett and Morris 2005;Padgett et al. 2015; Abdalla et al. 1998;Vveinhardt and Sroka 2020). At the same time, the competences and skills of the employed person have an impact on the assessment of nepotism. Due to the strengthening of family relationships, as a result of the pandemic (Vatavali et al. 2020; www.ircenter.com 2020) it is assumed that the impact of the pandemic will result in a milder assessment of nepotism. On the other hand, increasing the importance of corporate social responsibility and organizational ethics (Castellanos-Redondo et al. 2020) should lead to a more rigorous assessment of the above-mentioned phenomena. Therefore, it is assumed that the assessment of cronyism during the pandemic will be more severe. Based on the above knowledge, two further research hypotheses have been formulated. Hypothesis 1 (H1). Nepotism is assessed more gently during the COVID-19 pandemic than before it. Risks 2021,9, 59 7 of 35 Hypothesis 2 (H2). Cronyism is assessed more severely during the COVID-19 pandemic than before it. In the course of the conducted literature studies, the influence of nepotism and cronyism on a number of factors related to the functioning of the company have been identified. Generally, nepotism and cronyism negatively affect employee satisfaction, motivation to work, employee commitment, trust in the organization and willingness to work in the organization (Padgett and Morris 2005;Padgett et al. 2015;Abdalla et al. 1998;Arasli et al. 2006;Qaisar 2016;Keles et al. 2011;Vveinhardt and Petrauskaite 2013). However, in family businesses, due to their specificity, nepotism may have a positive impact on: o reducing the scale of conflicts at the owner-manager level, loyalty of managers, sharing knowledge between managers, involvement of managers in the company (Lin and Hu 2007; Popczyk 2017;Padgett et al. 2015). At the same time, if the employed family manager has the appropriate qualifications, they can have a positive impact on employee commitment in the company (Padgett et al. 2015). Due to the strengthening of family relations (Vatavali et al. 2020;www.ircenter.com 2020) the COVID-19 pandemic should result in a reduction of the negative impact of nepotism on employees. At the same time, increasing the importance of corporate social responsibility and organizational ethics (Castellanos-Redondo et al. 2020) should lead to an increase in the negative impact of the above-mentioned phenomena. Therefore, the following research hypotheses have been formulated: Hypothesis 3 (H3). The negative impact of nepotism on workers is lower during the COVID-19 pandemic than before it. Hypothesis 4 (H4). The negative impact of cronyism on workers is greater during the COVID-19 pandemic than before it. In order to verify the above research hypotheses, both qualitative and quantitative methods were included in this study. As part of the qualitative method, an individual in-depth interview was used. Its main goal was to test the acceptance of the phenomenon of organizational nepotism during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to some discrepancies in the approach to the terminology of nepotism itself in the literature on the subject, it was first attempted to determine how it is understood by the owners of the surveyed companies. During the interviews, attempts were also made to check whether the entrepreneurs perceive the negative or positive effects of practicing nepotism. The interviews were conducted between 3 December 2020 and 20 December 2020 with the owners of 11 companies operating during the COVID-19 pandemic. The choice of the dates of the interviews was not accidental. At that time, administrative constraints intensified compared to the previous ones, which prevented companies from operating more fully not only in Poland, but also around the world. The choice at this stage of the research made it possible to reach specific cases and gave the opportunity to understand the specificity of the phenomenon under study and the operating enterprises (Stake 2010; Sułkowski 2009;Fendt and Sachs 2008;Jackson et al. 2007). The individual in-depth interviews were based on a repeatable research scenario, which gave the respondents the opportunity to ask additional questions, which allowed for more detailed research issues. Before conducting the research, the scenario was consulted with external experts dealing with the functioning of enterprises in times of threats and crises. Two of the experts came from academia and the other two from organizations dealing with crisis strategies. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed and subjected to qualitative analysis. In cases where the analyzed issues required further explanations, communication with the surveyed entrepreneurs was carried out using reliable Internet platforms for online meetings, telephone calls, and also during face-to-face conversations. The selection of respondents was deliberate. The survey was participated by owners and managers of companies who run their businesses during the pandemic and, despite difficulties, do not lay off but employ working staff. They were representatives of two Risks 2021,9, 59 8 of 35 companies providing accounting services operating in a city with over 750,000 inhabitants. Another respondent was a person operating in the press industry in a city with more than 750,000 inhabitants. Two more companies operate in the service and construction industry. However, the first one is located in a city with more than 750,000 inhabitants, and the other one, in a town with less than 5000 inhabitants. The study included one company operating in the tourism and one transport industry. The first one operates in the tourism industry and is located in a city with less than 100,000 inhabitants, the other in a city with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Two other companies conduct hairdressing and beauty activities and operate in cities of over 100,000 inhabitants and less than 43,000 inhabitants. The last two companies operate in the catering industry. The first operates in a town with more than 43,000 inhabitants, and the other one with less than 100,000. The selection of respondents in the qualitative research is presented in the Table 1: Table 1. Business taking part in the qualitative study. Respondent Number Industry Size of the Company Localization F1 Accounting services Micro-enterprise City over 750,000 F2 Accounting services Small enterprise City over 750,000 F3 Press media industry Large enterprise City over 750,000 F4 Construction services Medium-size enterprise City over 750,000 F5 Construction services Small enterprise Town less than 5000 F6 Tourism Small enterprise City less than 100,000 F7 Transport Medium-size enterprise City over 100,000 F8 Hairdressing and beauty Micro-enterprise City over 100,000 F9 Hairdressing and beauty Micro-enterprise Town less than 43,000 F10 Gastronomy and catering Small enterprise City over 100,000 F11 Gastronomy and catering Micro-enterprise Town less than 43,000 Source: authors’ own elaboration. In the second stage of the study, a quantitative study was conducted in the form of two surveys, the first of which took place in spring 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the other one in November 2020, during the fall peak of the pandemic. Due to the fact that two questionnaires with identical questions were carried out, it was possible to compare the respondents’ opinions on phenomena related to nepotism and cronyism before and during the pandemic. The first survey was conducted on a group of 510 first and second cycle students of a large university in Poland in the form of an auditory survey. The vast majority of these students are already working, so they have the experience necessary to answer the survey questions. A similar sample was used by Padgett, Padgett and Morris in their research (Padgett et al. 2015;Padgett and Morris 2005). The study was conducted in centers located in both large cities as well as in smaller ones. A questionnaire with four extended principal questions was used for the study, two of which were used for the analysis and three questions for the statistical information. All questions were closed and complex measuring scales were used. The structure of the respondents is presented in the Table 2. Risks 2021,9, 59 15 of 35 The statistical analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p> 0.05) in the structure of tolerance of cronyism in the organization depending on the workplace. Detailed data is presented in Table 5. Following this, the analysis of selected situations of favoring selected people in organizations was undertaken. First, it was checked: what are the opinions on the impact of the pandemic on employing family members by managers (not owners) depending on the place of work. The number of people related in this organization was moderate—33.6% (202 people) and only 14.8% (89 people) described the impact of the Covid pandemic on this situation as non-significant. High or moderate impact on employing family members by managers (not owners), depending on the place of work, was most often indicated by 67.8% (99 people) the respondents who were not working, and the least by 55.2% (16 people) by the respondents running their own business. Similar indications were also obtained among employees of family businesses 55.8% (29 people). Statistical analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p> 0.05) in the employment structure of the manager responsible for the recruitment of a related person in this organization depending on the workplace. Detailed data is presented in Table 6. Table 6. Statistical analysis of the assessment of the impact of the Covid pandemic on employing a family member by the manager responsible for recruitment in the organization depending on the workplace. Employment Situation Employing a Relative by a Manager Responsible for Recruiting in the Organization Working in a Family Business Working in a Non-Family Business Working in the Public Sector Business Owner Not Working Total n%n%n%n%n%n% Not significant 9 17.3 40 16.8 18 13.2 5 17.2 17 11.6 89 14.8 Minimal impact 14 26.9 57 24 31 22.8 8 27.6 30 20.6 140 23.3 Moderate impact 20 38.5 70 29.4 42 30.9 8 27.6 62 42.5 202 33.6 High impact 9 17.3 71 29.8 45 33.1 8 27.6 37 25.3 170 28.3 Total 52 100 238 100 136 100 29 100 146 100 601 100 Statistical analysis Test Chi2Person = 12.86 Significance level 0.3795 Source: authors’ own elaboration. In the next step, opinions on the employment of a related person in the company by the owner of the family business were analyzed. The analysis of the data in Table 7shows that the respondents most often assessed the impact of the Covid pandemic on the employment of a related person by the owner of a family business as high—35.4% (213 people) and only 15.6% (94 people) assessed the impact of the Covid pandemic on this situation is irrelevant. A high or moderate impact on the employment by the owner of a family business of a related person in this company depending on the place of work was most often indicated by those working in the public sector 66.2% (90 people) and the least by the respondents working in a family business 59.6% (31 people). The differences between the groups in this case were not large. It should be added that although business owners indicated a moderate and high impact less frequently than those not working or working in the public sector and in non-family enterprises, they most often indicated this impact as very high. This suggests that almost half of them may be considering hiring a family member in their business. Risks 2021,9, 59 16 of 35 Table 7. Statistical analysis of the assessment of the impact of the Covid pandemic on employing a family member by the owner of the family business depending on the place of work. Employment Situation Employing a Relative by the Family Business Owner Working in a Family Business Working in a Non-Family Business Working in the Public Sector Business Owner Not Working Total n%n%n%n%n%n% Not significant 10 19.2 43 18.1 18 13.2 5 17.2 18 12.3 94 15.6 Minimal impact 11 21.1 45 18.9 28 20.6 6 20.7 32 21.9 122 20.3 Moderate impact 14 26.9 68 28.6 37 27.2 5 17.2 48 32.9 172 28.6 High impact 17 32.7 82 34.4 53 39 13 44.8 48 32.9 213 35.4 Total 52 100 238 100 136 100 29 100 146 100 601 100 Statistical analysis Test Chi2Person = 7.37 Significance level 0.8322 Source: authors’ own elaboration. The statistical analysis did not show any statistically significant differences (p> 0.05) in the structure of employing a person related to him by the owner of the family business in this company depending on the workplace. Detailed data is presented in Table 7. The next analyzed cases concern cronyism. The first is when the recruiting manager hires a friend in this organization. The analysis of the data contained in Table 8shows that the respondents most often assessed the impact of the Covid pandemic on hiring a manager responsible for recruiting a friend as moderate 37.4% (225 people) and only 14.8% (89 people) said that the impact of the Covid pandemic on this situation does not exist. A high or moderate impact on the employment of a manager responsible for recruiting a friend, depending on the place of work, was most often indicated by those not working 65.1% (95 people) and the least by the respondents running a business 51.7% (15 people). The statistical analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p> 0.05) in the structure of employment by the manager responsible for recruiting a friend depending on the workplace. Detailed data is presented in Table 8. Table 8. Statistical analysis of the assessment of the impact of the Covid pandemic on employing a friend by the manager responsible for recruitment in the organization depending on the workplace. Employment Situation Employing a Friend by a Manager Responsible for Recruiting in the Organization Working in a Family Business Working in a Non-Family Business Working in the Public Sector Business Owner Not Working Total n%n%n%n%n%n% Not significant 6 11.5 44 18.5 16 11.8 5 17.2 18 12.3 89 14.8 Minimal impact 17 32.7 53 22.3 35 25.7 9 31 33 22.6 147 24.5 Moderate impact 20 38.5 85 35.7 51 37.5 7 24.1 62 42.5 225 37.4 High impact 9 17.3 56 23.5 34 25 8 27.6 33 22.6 140 23.3 Total 52 100 238 100 136 100 29 100 146 100 601 100 Statistical analysis Test Chi2Person = 10.63 Significance level 0.5604 Source: authors’ own elaboration. The second situation concerns cronyism in a family business. The analysis of the data contained in Table 9shows that the respondents most often assessed the impact of the Covid pandemic on employment by the owner of a friend’s family business in that company as moderate 36.8% (221 people) and only 16.3% (98 people) described the impact of the pandemic Covid as non-significant. High or moderate impact on employment by the owner of the family business of a friend in this company, depending on the place of work, was most often indicated by those working in the family business 67.3% (35 people) Risks 2021,9, 59 17 of 35 and less by business owners 61.06% (18 people) and the least working in the sector public 51.7% (15 people). Table 9. Statistical analysis of the assessment of the impact of the Covid pandemic on employing a friend by the owner of the family business depending on the workplace. Employment Situation Employing a Friend by the Family Business Owner Working in a Family Business Working in a Non-Family Business Working in the Public Sector Business Owner Not Working Total n%n%n%n%n%n% Not significant 11 21.2 49 20.6 16 11.8 5 17.2 17 11.6 98 16.3 Minimal impact 6 11.5 41 17.2 35 25.7 9 31 41 28.1 132 21.9 Moderate impact 20 38.5 91 38.2 47 34.6 6 20.7 57 39 221 36.8 High impact 15 28.8 57 24 38 27.9 9 31 31 21.2 150 25 Total 52 100 238 100 136 100 29 100 146 100 601 100 Statistical analysis Test Chi2Person = 21.31 Significance level 0.046 Source: authors’ own elaboration. Statistical analysis showed a statistically significant difference (p< 0.05) in the structure of employment by the owner of a friend’s family business in this company depending on the place of work, i.e., employees employed in the family business statistically significantly indicated a greater impact of the Covid pandemic on employment by the business owner family friend in this company than other people. Detailed data is presented in Table 9. In the second block of questions, the authors decided to examine how the assessment of situations related to favoring others has changed during the Covid 19 pandemic. To assess situations related to favoritism, a five-point scale was used with the following possible answers: unacceptable, inappropriate, neutral, correct, or desirable. By comparing the answers of the respondents from before the pandemic with those during the pandemic, it is possible to determine how the attitude of the respondents to these situations changes. First, the change in the assessment of employment situations with the use of nepotism and cronyism in a non-family enterprise was examined. Most of the respondents assessed the situations in which there was help in employing non-family enterprises as negative. The situations in which the employee held a managerial position were treated the most severely, and there is no significant difference in this situation between nepotism and cronyism. The help of ordinary workers in recruiting their family members and friends to regular positions was rated the least favorably. Therefore, along with the decline in the rank of the position, the percentage of respondents assessing it negatively decreased. There were no significant differences in the assessment of these situations by respondents in the pre-pandemic period and during the pandemic. Although the number of respondents negatively evaluating employment for managerial positions was slightly lower during the pandemic, the help of ordinary workers in hiring was more often indicated as desirable, before the pandemic, fewer people indicated all the above situations as unacceptable, the differences are small and fall within statistical error limits. Detailed information is presented in Figure 2. Risks 2021,9, 59 18 of 35 Risks 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 35 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70% Unacceptable Unacceptable Inappropriate Inappropriate Neutral Neutral Correct Correct Desirable Desirable New study Old study New study Old study New study Old study New study Old study New study Old study Employing a family member for a managerial position by a manager responsible for recruiting in the organization Employing a family member for a regular position by a manager responsible for recruiting in the organization Assistance of any employee of an organization in employment for a family member in that organization Employing a friend for a managerial position by a manager responsible for recruiting in the organization Employing a friend for a regular position by a manager responsible for recruiting in the organization Assistance of any employee of an organization in employment for a friend in that organization Figure 2. Assessment of employment situations with the use of nepotism and cronyism in a non-family business. Source: authors’ own elaboration. The analysis of the data in Table 10 shows that the respondents most often assessed the employment by a manager responsible for recruiting a related person for a managerial position as inappropriate 49.5% (550 people) and only 1.1% (12 people) as desirable. Inappropriate and unacceptable assessment of employing a manager responsible for recruiting a related person for a managerial position depending on the date of the study Figure 2. Assessment of employment situations with the use of nepotism and cronyism in a non-family business. Source: authors’ own elaboration. The analysis of the data in Table 10 shows that the respondents most often assessed the employment by a manager responsible for recruiting a related person for a managerial position as inappropriate 49.5% (550 people) and only 1.1% (12 people) as desirable. Inappropriate and unacceptable assessment of employing a manager responsible for recruiting a related person for a managerial position depending on the date of the study was indicated more often in the study conducted before the Covid 19 pandemic, 70.1% (357 people). The correct and desirable assessment of employing a related person for a managerial position by a manager responsible for recruiting a related person also appeared more often in the Risks 2021,9, 59 19 of 35 study before the pandemic 6.1% (31 people). However, in both cases the difference between the old and new studies was small. Table 10. Statistical analysis of assessment of employing a relative for a managerial position by a manager responsible for recruiting depending on the date of the survey. Study Employing a Family Member for a Managerial Position by a Manager Responsible for Recruiting New Study Old Study Total n%n%n% Unacceptable 107 17.8 107 21 214 19.3 Inappropriate 300 49.9 250 49.1 550 49.5 Neutral 163 27.1 121 23.8 284 25.6 Correct 24 4 26 5.1 50 4.5 Desirable 7 1.1 5 1 12 1.1 Total 601 100 509 100 1110 100 Statistical analysis Test Chi2Person = 3.57 Significance level 0.4674 Source: authors’ own elaboration. Statistical analysis did not show any statistically significant differences (p> 0.05) in the employment structure by the manager responsible for recruiting a related person for a managerial position depending on the date of the study. Detailed data is presented in Table 10. The analysis of the data in Table 11 shows that the respondents most often assessed the employment by a manager responsible for recruiting a friend for a managerial position as inappropriate 46.9% (521 people) and only 1.8% (20 people) as desirable. The inappropriate and unacceptable assessment of employing a manager responsible for recruiting a related person for a managerial position depending on the date of the study was indicated more often in the study conducted during the Covid 19 pandemic, 65.6% (394 people). Correct and desirable assessment of employing a manager responsible for recruiting a friend for a managerial position also appeared more often in the study during the pandemic 8.2% (49 people). However, in both cases the difference between the old and the new study was small. Table 11. Statistical analysis of the evaluation of employing a friend for a managerial position by the manager responsible for recruiting depending on the date of the survey. Study Employing a Friend for a Managerial Position by a Manager Responsible for Recruiting New Study Old Study Total n%n%n% Unacceptable 98 16.3 92 18 190 17.1 Inappropriate 296 49.3 225 44.1 521 46.9 Neutral 158 26.3 155 30.4 313 28.2 Correct 36 6 31 6.1 67 6 Desirable 13 2.2 7 1.4 20 1.8 Total 601 100 510 100 1111 100 Statistical analysis Test Chi2Person = 4.64 Significance level 0.3257 Source: authors’ own elaboration. The statistical analysis did not show any statistically significant differences (p> 0.05) in the employment structure by the manager responsible for recruiting a friend for a managerial position depending on the date of the study. Detailed data is presented in Table 11. In the next questions, the authors examined the assessment of phenomena related to nepotism and cronyism in family businesses. Here, too, such situations were assessed Risks 2021,9, 59 20 of 35 negatively, and the percentage of respondents assessing them negatively also decreased with the decline in the rank of the position. There is a noticeable increase in the percentage of people assessing neutrally the employment of a family member for an ordinary position in a family business, with a clear decline in negative assessments of this phenomenon. Employing family members and friends for managerial positions is assessed similarly in both surveys (Figure 3). Risks 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 35 In the next questions, the authors examined the assessment of phenomena related to nepotism and cronyism in family businesses. Here, too, such situations were assessed negatively, and the percentage of respondents assessing them negatively also decreased with the decline in the rank of the position. There is a noticeable increase in the percentage of people assessing neutrally the employment of a family member for an ordinary position in a family business, with a clear decline in negative assessments of this phenomenon. Employing family members and friends for managerial positions is assessed similarly in both surveys (Figure 3). 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% Unacceptable Unacceptable Inappropriate Inappropriate Neutral Neutral Correct Correct Desirable Desirable New study Old study New study Old study New study Old study New study Old study New study Old study Employing a family member for a managerial position by the family business owner Employing a family member for a regular position by the family business owner Employing a family member for a managerial position by the family business owner Figure 3. Assessment of the employment situation by means of nepotism and cronyism in a family business. Source: authors’ own elaboration. Figure 3. Assessment of the employment situation by means of nepotism and cronyism in a family business. Source: authors’ own elaboration. The analysis of the data in Table 12 shows that the respondents most often assessed the employment by the owner of a family business of a related person for a managerial Risks 2021,9, 59 21 of 35 position as inappropriate 35% (387 people), but the number of people assessing the above situation neutrally was similar to 34.6% (383 persons). In the study during the Covid 19 pandemic, the percentage of people assessing the above situation as neutral was higher than those assessing it incorrectly. Only 3.4% (38 people) of the respondents assessed this situation as desirable. Improper and unacceptable assessment of employing a related person by the owner of a family business for a managerial position depending on the workplace was indicated more often in the study conducted before the Covid 19 pandemic, 48.6% (246 people). The correct and desirable assessment of employing a related person for a managerial position by the family business owner was also more frequent in the pre-pandemic survey 18.6% (94 people). However, in both cases the difference between the old and new research was small. Table 12. Statistical analysis of the assessment of employment of a relative for a managerial position by the family business owner depending on the date of the study. Study Employing a Family Member for a Managerial Position by the Family Business Owner New Study Old Study Total n%n%n% Unacceptable 76 12.7 70 13.8 146 13.2 Inappropriate 211 35.1 176 34.8 387 35 Neutral 217 36.1 166 32.8 383 34.6 Correct 75 12.5 78 15.4 153 13.8 Desirable 22 3.7 16 3.2 38 3.4 Total 601 100 506 100 1107 100 Statistical analysis Test Chi2Person = 3.08 Significance level 0.5446 Source: authors’ own elaboration. The statistical analysis did not show any statistically significant differences (p> 0.05) in the structure of employment by the owner of the family business of a related person for a managerial position depending on the date of the study. Detailed data is presented in Table 12. The analysis of the data in Table 13 shows that the respondents most often assessed the employment of a friend for a managerial position by the owner of a family business as neutral 38% (421 people) and only 2.7% (30 people) as desirable. The inappropriate and unacceptable assessment of employing a friend for a managerial position by a family business owner depending on the workplace was indicated more often in the study conducted before the Covid 19 pandemic 49.7% (252 people). The correct and desirable assessment of employing a related person for a managerial position by the owner of a family business was also more frequent in the pre-pandemic survey 15.2% (77 people). However, in both cases the difference between the old and the new survey was small, although also in this case an increase in people assessing the above situation as neutral. The statistical analysis showed no statistically significant difference (p> 0.05) in the structure of employment by the owner of a family business, a friend for a managerial position, depending on the date of the study. Detailed data is presented in Table 13. The last area studied was the evaluation of phenomena related to nepotism and cronyism, but not related to employment. Here, too, these phenomena were negatively assessed by the vast majority of respondents. There are also no major differences between preand pandemic testing. The exception is the evaluation of the promotion of relatives and friends. In the study, during the pandemic, the phenomenon of favoring people in promotion was assessed more mildly, though still negative by the vast majority. Detailed data is presented in Table 14. Risks 2021,9, 59 22 of 35 Table 13. Statistical analysis of the assessment of employment of a friend for a managerial position by the family business owner depending on the date of the study. Study Employing a Friend for a Managerial Position by the Family Business Owner New Study Old Study Total n%n%n% Unacceptable 60 10 62 12.2 122 11 Inappropriate 216 35.9 190 37.5 406 36.6 Neutral 243 40.4 178 35.1 421 38 Correct 65 10.8 64 12.6 129 11.6 Desirable 17 2.8 13 2.6 30 2.7 Total 601 100 507 100 1108 100 Statistical analysis Test Chi2Person = 4.33 Significance level 0.3631 Source: authors’ own elaboration. Table 14. Assessment of other situations related to nepotism and cronyism depending on the date of the study. New Study Old Study Unacceptable Inappropriate Neutral Correct Desirable Unacceptable Inappropriate Neutral Correct Desirable % % % % % % % % % % Promoting a person related to that person’s supervisor (direct or indirect) 21 44.6 27 5 2.5 27.8 45.2 19.5 6.1 1.4 Promoting a person related to the business owner 21 46.4 25.5 4 2.2 29.2 47.7 14.8 6.9 1.4 Promoting a supervisor’s friend (direct or indirect) 18.6 47.1 27.1 5.7 1.5 25.4 49.4 16.7 6.7 1.8 Promoting a friend of the company owner 19.8 48.6 25.3 4.8 1.5 26.9 47.7 19.8 4.6 1 Paying a higher salary to a relative of that person’s supervisor (direct or indirect) 37.6 41.6 13.1 5.5 2.2 43.6 36.9 12.6 5.1 1.8 Paying a higher salary to the business owner’s family member 39.1 39.4 14 5.5 2 44.9 33.7 15 4.7 1.8 Paying a higher salary to a supervisor’s friend (direct or indirect) 36.8 43.1 13.1 5.7 1.3 42.8 36.3 14.4 4.7 1.8 Paying a higher salary to a friend of the business owner 39.1 39.8 14.8 4.8 1.5 43.7 37.4 13 4.3 1.6 Better treatment of a supervisor’s relative (direct or indirect) 35.8 42.9 15.5 4.5 1.3 33.9 46.9 14.1 3.9 1.2 Better treatment of the business owner’s relative 35.6 42.4 15.1 4.3 2.5 33.9 43.8 16.4 3.8 2.2 Treating supervisor’s friend better (direct or indirect) 35.6 41.3 16.5 4.7 2 33.2 45 14.7 5.7 1.4 Treating business owner’s friend better 34.6 41.6 16.5 5.5 1.8 33.3 44.5 16.3 4.1 1.8 A milder assessment of supervisor’s relative (direct or indirect) 27.3 49.4 17 4.2 2.2 30 46.8 15 7.1 1 A milder assessment of the business owner’s relative 27.5 47.1 17.5 5.3 2.7 29.3 47.6 16.7 5.1 1.2 A milder assessment of the supervisor’s friend (direct or indirect) 26.6 49.3 17.1 5 2 29.1 44.8 20.6 4.1 1.4 A milder assessment of a business owner’s friend 27.3 47.1 18.8 4.5 2.3 28.9 46.3 17.3 5.5 2 Source: authors’ own elaboration. The last, third block of questions was to examine whether the pandemic had an impact on the functioning of employees in an organization with nepotism or cronyism. Previous studies indicate that both nepotism and cronyism negatively affect: employee satisfaction, Risks 2021,9, 59 23 of 35 motivation to work, employee commitment, trust in the organization and willingness to work in the organization (Padgett and Morris 2005;Padgett et al. 2015;Abdalla et al. 1998;Arasli et al. 2006;Qaisar 2016;Vveinhardt and Petrauskaite 2013). A four-point scale was used to assess the impact of favoritism in the workplace with the following possible answers: strongly disagree, rather disagree, rather agree, or strongly agree. By comparing the responses of the respondents before the pandemic with those during the pandemic, it is possible to determine how the impact of these situations on the respondents changes. According to the respondents, nepotism in a family business has a negative impact on job satisfaction in a given organization (enterprise, institution, etc.), motivation to work, commitment, and trust in the organization or even the willingness to work in an organization where there is a phenomenon of nepotism consisting in employment due to kinship. Such an opinion was expressed by the vast majority of respondents. There are no significant differences in assessing the impact of nepotism before and during the pandemic (Figure 4). Risks 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 35 The last, third block of questions was to examine whether the pandemic had an impact on the functioning of employees in an organization with nepotism or cronyism. Previous studies indicate that both nepotism and cronyism negatively affect: employee satisfaction, motivation to work, employee commitment, trust in the organization and willingness to work in the organization (Padgett and Morris 2005; Padgett et al. 2015; Abdalla et al. 1998; Arasli et al. 2006; Qaisar 2016, Keles et al. 2011; Vveinhardt and Petrauskaite 2013). A four-point scale was used to assess the impact of favoritism in the workplace with the following possible answers: strongly disagree, rather disagree, rather agree, or strongly agree. By comparing the responses of the respondents before the pandemic with those during the pandemic, it is possible to determine how the impact of these situations on the respondents changes. According to the respondents, nepotism in a family business has a negative impact on job satisfaction in a given organization (enterprise, institution, etc.), motivation to work, commitment, and trust in the organization or even the willingness to work in an organization where there is a phenomenon of nepotism consisting in employment due to kinship. Such an opinion was expressed by the vast majority of respondents. There are no significant differences in assessing the impact of nepotism before and during the pandemic (Figure 4). 0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.15% 0.20% 0.25% 0.30% 0.35% 0.40% 0.45% Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Rather disagree Rather disagree Rather agree Rather agree Strongly agree Rather agree New study Old study New study Old study New study Old study New study Old study The immediate superior employed due to the family relationship with the owners of the company reduces the motivation to work in a family business The immediate superior employed due to the family relationship with the owners of the company reduces satisfaction from working in a family business The immediate superior employed due to the family relationship with the owners of the company reduces commitment to work in a family business The immediate superior employed due to the family relationship with the owners of the company reduces trust to the family business If I knew that in a given family business it is preferable to employ a family in managerial positions, I would not work in this company Figure 4. The impact of nepotism on employees in a family business. Source: authors’ own elaboration. Figure 4. The impact of nepotism on employees in a family business. Source: authors’ own elaboration. The analysis of the data contained in Table 15 shows that the respondents most often agreed that the direct superior employed, due to the relationship with the owners of the company, reduces the motivation to work in a family business 39.9% (443 people) and only 9.1% (101 people) definitely did not match. In total, 60% (306 people) of the respondents Risks 2021,9, 59 24 of 35 in the pre-Covid 19 pandemic study strongly agreed and rather agreed. However, 44.4% (267 people) of the respondents to the study during the pandemic strongly disagreed and rather disagreed. The difference between the old and the new study was small, in the new study the percentage of people who did not agree with the above statement increased by less than 5% and the percentage of people who strongly agreed decreased by about 3%. Table 15. Statistical analysis of the assessment of the impact of the employee’s immediate superior due to the relationship with the owners of the company on the motivation to work in a family business depending on the date of the study. Study The Immediate Superior Employed Due to the Family Relationship with the Owners of the Company Reduces the Motivation to Work in a Family Business New Study Old Study Total n%n%n% Strongly disagree 51 8.5 50 9.8 101 9.1 Rather disagree 216 35.9 154 30.2 370 33.3 Rather agree 237 39.4 206 40.4 443 39.9 Strongly agree 97 16.2 100 19.6 197 17.7 Total 601 100 510 100 1111 100 Statistical analysis Test Chi2Person = 5.19 Significance level 0.1580 Source: authors’ own elaboration. Statistical analysis did not show any statistically significant differences (p> 0.05) in the structure of the assessment of the impact of a related person’s employment by the owner of a family business on a managerial position on employee motivation to work depending on the date of the study. Detailed data is presented in Table 15. The analysis of the data contained in Table 16 shows that the respondents most often disagreed that the direct superior employed, due to his relationship with the owners of the company, reduces the trust in the family business—39.1% (434 people) and only 11.35% (126 people) that it definitely did not, respectively. In total, 51.27% (261 people) of the respondents in the pre-Covid 19 pandemic study strongly agreed and rather agreed. However, 51.91% (312 people) of the respondents to the study during the pandemic strongly disagreed and rather disagreed. The difference between the old and the new study was small, within the limits of the statistical error. Thus, the impact of the pandemic has not been identified. Table 16. Statistical analysis of the assessment of the impact of the employee’s immediate superior due to the relationship with the owners of the company on trust in the family business depending on the date of the study. Study The Immediate Superior Employed Due to the Family Relationship with the Owners of the Company Reduces Trust to the Family Business New Study Old Study Total n%n%n% Strongly disagree 68 11.3 58 11.4 126 11.3 Rather disagree 244 40.6 190 37.3 434 39.1 Rather agree 214 35.6 191 37.5 405 36.5 Strongly agree 75 12.5 70 13.8 145 13.1 Total 601 100 509 100 1110 100 Statistical analysis Test Chi2Person = 1.37 Significance level 0.7113 Source: authors’ own elaboration. The statistical analysis did not show any statistically significant differences (p> 0.05) in the structure of the assessment of the impact of employing a family business owner of a Risks 2021,9, 59 31 of 35 Arasli, Huseyin, and Nagihan Cakmakoglu Arici. 2020. The effect of nepotism on tolerance to workplace ncivility: Mediating role of psychological contract violation and moderating role of authentic leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 41: 597–613. [CrossRef] Arruñada, Benito, and Matthias Krapf. 2019. Religion and the European Union. In Advances in the Economics of Religion. Edited by Sriya Iyer, Jared Rubin and Jean-Paul Carvalho. IEA Series; Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 158 vols, pp. 295–308. [CrossRef] Arruñada, Benito. 2004. The Economic Efects of Christian Moralities. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eea5/2c1f54ef6f48acf720ce05a2ce64ec008bc4.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2020). Austin, Monica L. 2019. Examining the Experience of Nepotism in a Protestant Church. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies 6393. Available online: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/6393 (accessed on 20 September 2020). Baert, Stijn, Louis Lippens, Eline Moens, Johannes Weytjens, and Philippe Sterkens. 2020. The Covid-19 Crisis and Telework: A Research Survey on Experiences, Expectations and Hopes. IZA Discussion Paper 13229. Available online: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=3596696 (accessed on 20 September 2020). Barakat, AL-shawawreh Tahara. 2016. Economic Effects of Using Nepotism and Cronyism in the Employment Process in the Public Sector Institutions. Research in Applied Economics 8: 58–66. [CrossRef] Basu, Sayan, and Anusree Bose. 2020. Effect of Celebrity Endorsements & Nepotism during this Covid-19 Pandemic Situation—A transformational Layout. International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development 3: 860–68. Basu, Sayan. 2009. Work Place Nepotism and Stress. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=1409089 (accessed on 28 December 2020). [CrossRef] Bäuerle, Alexander, Martin Teufel, Venja Musche, Benjamin Weismüller, Hannah Kohler, Madeleine Hetkamp, Nora Dörrie, Adam Schweda, and Eva-Maria Skoda. 2020. Increased generalized anxiety, depression and distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study in Germany. Journal of Public Health 42: 672–78. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Bekesiene, Svajone, Audrone Petrauskaite, and Rolanda Kazlauskaite Markeliene. 2021. Nepotism and Related Threats to Security and Sustainability of the Country: The Case of Lithuanian Organizations. Sustainability 13: 1536. [CrossRef] Belzunegui-Eraso, Angel, and Amaya Erro-Garcés. 2020. Teleworking in the Context of the Covid-19 Crisis. Sustainability 12: 3662. [CrossRef] Biroli, Pietro, Steven Bosworth, Marina Della Giusta, Amalia Di Girolamo, Sylvia Jaworska, and Jeremy Vollen. 2020. Family Life in Lockdown. Institute for the Study of Labor. IZA Research Paper Series Discussion Paper 13398. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3636627# (accessed on 28 December 2020). Blasco-Belled, Ana, Claudia Tejada-Gallardo, Cristina Torrelles-Nadal, and Carles Alsinet. 2020. The Costs of the COVID-19 on Subjective Well-Being: An Analysis of the Outbreak in Spain. Sustainability 12: 6243. [CrossRef] Bourion-Bédès, Stéphanie, Cyril Tarquinio, Martine Batt, Pascale Tarquinio, Romain Lebreuilly, Christine Sorsana, Karine Legrand, Hélène Rousseau, and Cédric Baumann. 2020. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on students in a French region severely affected by the disease: Results of the PIMS-CoV 19 study. Psychiatry Research, 113559. [CrossRef] Bozer, Gil, Leon Levin, and Joseph C. Santora. 2017. Succession in family business: Multi-source perspectives. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 24: 753–74. [CrossRef] Campbell, Andrew M. 2020. An increasing risk of family violence during the Covid-19 pandemic: Strengthening community collaborations to save lives. Forensic Science International Reports 2: 100089. [CrossRef] Çarikiçi, Ðlker, Hüseyin Özkul, Ahmet Sait, Oksay Aygen, Demir Uzunbacak, and Hasan Hüseyin. 2009. Favoritism and Nepotism in the Ottoman Empire. Paper presented at International Symposium on Sustainable Development, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, June 9–10; Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/153447043.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2020). Castellanos-Redondo, Sonia, Domingo Nevado-Peña, and Benito Yañez-Araque. 2020. Ethics and Happiness at Work in the Spanish Financial Sector. Sustainability 12: 9268. [CrossRef] Cénat, Jude Mary, Camille Blais-Rochette, Cyrille Kossigan Kokou-Kpolou, Pari-Gole Noorishad, Joana N. Mukunzi, Sara-Emilie McIntee, Rose Darly Dalexis, Marc-AndréGoulet, and Patrick Labelle. 2020. Prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychological distress among populations affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research 295: 113599. [CrossRef] Cherchem, Naïma. 2017. The relationship between organizational culture and entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: Does generational involvement matter? Journal of Family Business Strategy 8: 87–98. [CrossRef] Demaj, Esmir. 2012. Nepotism, favoritism and cronyism and their impact on organizational trust and commitment; the service sector case in Albania. Master dissertation, Epoka University, Tirana, Albania. [CrossRef] Derkacz, Arkadiusz J. 2020. Fiscal Investment and Export Multipliers and the COVID-19 Pandemic Slowdowns Uncertainty Factor in the First Half of 2020. Risks 8: 122. [CrossRef] Dickson, Marcus W., Nieminen Levi R., and Benjamin Biermeier-Hanson. 2012. Nepotism and organisational homenegeity: How the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) is accelerated by nonmerit-based decision-making. In Nepotism in Organisations. Edited by Robert G. Jones. New York: Routledge, pp. 93–129. Efferin, Sujoko, and Monika S. Hartono. 2015. Management control and leadership styles in family business. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 11: 130–59. [CrossRef] Escolà-Gascón, Álex, Francesc-Xavier Marín, Jordi Rusinol, and Josep Gallifa. 2021. Evidence of the psychological effects of pseudoscientific information about COVID-19 on rural and urban populations. Psychiatry Research 295: 113628. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Risks 2021,9, 59 32 of 35 Ettman, Catherine K., Salma M. Abdalla, Gregory H. Cohen, Laura Sampson, Patrick M. Vivier, and Sandro Galea. 2020. Prevalence of Depression Symptoms in US Adults Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Network Open 3: e2019686. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Every-Palmer, Susanna, Matthew Jenkins, Philip Gendall, Janet Hoek, Ben Beaglehole, Caroline Bell, Jonathan Williman, Charlene Rapsey, and James Stanley. 2020. Psychological distress, anxiety, family violence, suicidality, and wellbeing in New Zealand during the COVID-19 lockdown: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 15: e0241658. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Fana, Marta, Santo Milasi, Joanna Napierala, Enrique Fernandez-Macias, and Ignacio Gonzalez Vazquez. 2020. Telework, Work Organization. JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology JRC122591. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/ p/ipt/laedte/202011.html (accessed on 20 December 2020). Fendt, Jacqueline, and Wladimir Sachs. 2008. Grounded Theory Method in Management Research: Users’ Perspectives. Organizational Research Methods 11: 430–55. [CrossRef] Fershtman, Chaim, Gneezy Uri, and Frank Verboven. 2005. Discrimination and Nepotism: The Efficiently of the Anonimity Rule. The Journal of Legal Studies 34: 371–96. [CrossRef] Fetahu, Driton. 2017. The Importance of Nepotym and Corruption Management in Institutions and the Economy of the Country. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 2: 133–43. [CrossRef] Filipova, Lenka. 2012. Are attitudes conductive to economic groth stronger in protestants than in others? NUPI Working Paper: 804. Available online: https://nupi.brage.unit.no/nupi-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/277240/WP--804-Lenka-R.pdf?sequence=3 (accessed on 20 December 2020). Fisher, Cynthia D. 2005. Nepotism policies. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management, 2nd ed. Edited by Cary L. Cooper. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, vol. 5. Fu, I-Pang. 2015. Favoritism: Ethical Dilemmas Viewed Through Multiple Paradigms. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership 8: 56–60. Gjinovci, Arsim. 2016. The impact of nepotism and corruption on the economy and HR. Economic and Environmental Studies 16: 421–34. Goatly, Andrew. 2006. Humans, Animals, and Metaphores. Society & Animals 14: 15–37. [CrossRef] Gustafsson, Carina, and Hanna Norgren. 2014. Nepotism Perceived by Managersin Northern Sweden: An Explorative Study on Attitudes towards Nepotismand Its Usage. Bachelor’s thesis, Umeå School of Business and Economics, Umeå, Sweden. Available online: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-91571 (accessed on 22 March 2021). Hiebl, Martin R. W. 2015. Family involvement and organizational ambidexterity in later-generation family businesses. Management Decision 53: 1061–82. [CrossRef] Humphreys, Kathryn L., Myo Thwin Myint, and Charles H. Zeanah. 2020. Increased Risk for Family Violence During the COVID-19. Pandemic Pediatrics 146: e20200982. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32317306/ (accessed on 20 December 2020). [CrossRef] Ignatowski, Grzegorz, Bartlomiej Stopczynski, and Joanna Trebska. 2019. Paradox of Nepotism in Enterprises in Poland and Ukraine: Social Capital Perspective. Marketing and Management of Innovations 2: 295–313. [CrossRef] Ignatowski, Grzegorz, Łukasz Sułkowski, and Bartłomiej Stopczy´nski. 2020. The Perception of Organisational Nepotism Depending on the Membership in Selected Christian Churches. Religions 11: 47. [CrossRef] Ikram, Muhammad, Qingyu Zhang, Robert Sroufe, and Marcos Ferasso. 2020. The Social Dimensions of Corporate Sustainability: An Integrative Framework Including COVID-19 Insights. Sustainability 12: 8747. [CrossRef] Islam, Md, Arifa Jannat, Dewan Abdullah Al Rafi, and Kentaka Aruga. 2020. Potential Economic Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on South Asian Economies: A Review. World 1: 283–99. [CrossRef] Jackson, Ronald II, Darlene K. Drummond, and Sakile Camara. 2007. What Is Qualitative Research? Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 8: 21–28. [CrossRef] Jaskiewicz, Peter, Klaus Uhlenbruck, David B. Balkin, and Trish Reay. 2013. Is nepotism goog or bad? Types of nepotism and implications for knowledge management. Family Business Review 26: 121–39. [CrossRef] Joffe, Alexander H. 2004. Nepotism for All Times. Society 41: 74–79. [CrossRef] Jones, Robert G., and Tracy Stout. 2015. Policing Nepotism and Cronyism Without Losing the Value of Social Connection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 8: 2–12. [CrossRef] Kar, Nilamadhab, Brajaballav Kar, and Shreyan Kar. 2021. Stress and coping during COVID-19 pandemic: Result of an online survey. Psychiatry Research 295: 113598. [CrossRef] Katsabian, Tammy. 2020. The Telework Virus: How the COVID-19 Pandemic Has Affected Telework and Exposed Its Implications for Privacy and Equality. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3684702 (accessed on 23 March 2021). [CrossRef] Keles, Hatice Necla, Tugba Kural Ozkan, and Muhammet Bezirci. 2011. A Study on the Effects of Nepotism, Favoritism and Cronyism on Organizational Trust in the Auditing Process in Family Businesses in Turkey. International Business & Economics Research Journal 10: 9–16. [CrossRef] Kraus, Sascha, Thomas Clauss, Matthias Breier, Johanna Gast, Alessandro Zardini, and Victor Tiberius. 2020. The economics of COVID-19: Initial empirical evidence on how family firms in five European countries cope with the corona crisis. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26: 1067–92. [CrossRef] Risks 2021,9, 59 33 of 35 Krizanova, Anna, George Lăzăroiu, Lubica Gajanova, Jana Kliestikova, Margareta Nadanyiova, and Dominika Moravcikova. 2019. The Effectiveness of Marketing Communication and Importance of Its Evaluation in Online Environment. Sustainability 11: 7016. [CrossRef] Kumar, Dinesh. 2018. Academic nepotism—All that glitters is not gold. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism 6: 186–87. Lebow Jay, L. 2020. Family in the Age of COVID-19. Family Process 59: 309–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Li, Tsz Wai, Tatia Mei-chun Lee, Robin Goodwin, Menachem Ben-Ezra, Li Liang, Huinan Liu, and Wai Kai Hou. 2020. Social Capital, Income Loss, and Psychobehavioral Responses amid COVID-19: A Population-Based Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 8888. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Lin, Shu-hui, and Sching-yang Hu. 2007. A Family Member or Professional Management? The Choice of a CEO and Its Impact on Performance. CORPORATE Governance 15: 1348–62. [CrossRef] Liu, Chengwei, Dawn L. Eubanks, and Nick Chater. 2015. The Weakness of Strong Ties: Sampling Bias, Social Ties, and nepotism in family business succession. The Leadership Quarterly 26: 419–35. [CrossRef] Ma, Yu-Fen, Wen Li, Hai-Bao Deng, Lei Wang, Ying Wang, Pei-Hong Wang, Hai-Xin Bo, Jing Cao, Yu Wang, Li-Yun Zhu, and et al. 2020. Prevalence of depression and its association with quality of life in clinically stable patients with COVID-19. Journal of Affective Disorders 275: 145–48. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Mazza, Mario Gennaro, Rebecca De Lorenzo, Caterina Conte, Sara Poletti, Benedetta Vai, Irene Bollettini, Elisa Maria Teresa Melloni, Roberto Furlan, Fabio Ciceri, Patrizia Rovere-Querini, and et al. 2020. Anxiety and depression in COVID-19 survivors: Role of inflammatory and clinical predictors. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 89: 594–600. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Mechili, Enkeleint A., Aurela Saliaj, Fatjona Kamberi, Charis Girvalaki, Ela Peto, Athina E. Patelarou, Jorgjia Bucaj, and Evridiki Patelarou. 2020. Is the mental health of young students and their family members affected during the quarantine period? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic in Albania. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 13. [CrossRef] Moasa, Horia. 2020. Post-pandemic HR Trends in Romania and Beyond. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Bra¸sov 13: 59–66. [CrossRef] Ibrahim, Mahdani, Maulana Alimin, and Banta Karollah. 2020. Does Human Resource Management Practices Moderate The Relationship Between Nepotism and Attitude? AFEBI Management and Business Review 5: 31–40. [CrossRef] Salari, Nader, Amin Hosseinian-Far, Rostam Jalali, Aliakbar Vaisi-Raygani, Shna Rasoulpoor, Masoud Mohammadi, Shabnam Rasoulpoor, and Behnam Khaledi-Paveh. 2020. Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Globalization and Health 16: 57. [CrossRef] Oducado, Ryan Michael, Judith Rabacal, Rome Moralista, and Khen Tamdang. 2021. Perceived Stress due to COVID-19 Pandemic Among Employed Professional Teachers. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation 15: 305–16. [CrossRef] Okyere-kwakye, Eugene, Khali Md. Nor, and Ghani Md. Nor. 2010. Nepotism and tribalism in teams: An initial investigation. Africa Journal of Business Management 16: 3508–12. Onoshchenko, OIga, and Colin C. Williams. 2014. Evaluating the role of blatin finding graduate employment in post-Soviet Ukraine the “dark side” of job recruitment? Employee Relations 36: 254–65. [CrossRef] Padgett, Margarett Y., and Kathryn Morris. 2005. Keeping it “All in the Family:” Does Nepotism in the Hiring Process Really Benefit the Beneficiary? Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 11: 34–45. [CrossRef] Padgett, Margarett Y., Robert J. Padgett, and Kathryn A. Morris. 2015. Perceptions of Nepotism Beneficiaries: The Hidden Price of Using a Family Connection to Obtain a Job. Journal of Business and Psychology 30: 283–88. [CrossRef] Pearce, Jone L. 2015. Cronyism and nepotism are bad for everyone. The research evidence. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 8: 41–44. [CrossRef] Pelletier, Kathier, and Michelle C. Bligh. 2008. The Aftermath of Organizational Corruption. Employee Attributions and Emotional Reactions. Journal of Business Ethics 80: 823–44. [CrossRef] Pereda, Noemí, and Diego A. Díaz-Faes. 2020. Family violence against children in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic: A review of current perspectives and risk factors. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Menthal Health 14: 40. [CrossRef] Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 2005. Working alone: What ever happened to the idea of organizations as communities? Stanford Graduate School of Business Research Paper Series. 1906. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=804544 (accessed on 20 December 2020). [CrossRef] Popczyk, Wojciech. 2017. Family Social Capital versus Nepotism in Family Business. RSEP International Conferences on Social Issues and Economic Studies. Available online: https://rsepconferences.com/my_documents/my_files/5_WOJCIECH_POPCZYK.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2020). [CrossRef] Prime, Heather, Mark Wade, and Dillon T. Browne. 2020. Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist 75: 631–43. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Qaisar, Iqbal. 2016. Preferential Treatment: An Empirical Study in Education Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Management, Accounting & Economics 3: 490–93. Raišien ˙ e, Agota Giedr ˙ e, Violeta Rapuano, Kristina Varkuleviˇci ¯ ut ˙ e, and Katarína Stachová. 2020. Working from Home—Who Is Happy? A Survey of Lithuania’s Employees during the COVID-19 Quarantine Period. Sustainability 12: 5332. [CrossRef] Risks 2021,9, 59 34 of 35 Rehman, Usama, Mohammad G. Shahnawaz, Neda H. Khan, Korsi D. Kharshiing, Masrat Khursheed, Kaveri Gupta, Drishti Kashyap, and Ritika Uniyal. 2021. Depression, Anxiety and Stress among Indians in Times of Covid-19 Lockdown. Community Mental Health Journal 57: 42–48. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Riggio, Ronald E., and Karan Saggi. 2015. If We Do Our Job Correctly, Nobody Gets Hurt by Nepotism. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 8: 19–21. [CrossRef] Safina, Dinara. 2015. Favouritism and Nepotism in an Organization: Causes and Effects. Procedia Economics and Finance 23: 630–34. [CrossRef] Salter, Frank, and Henry Harpending. 2013. J.P. Rushton’s theory of ethnic nepotism. Personality and Individual Differences 55: 256–60. [CrossRef] Šamánková, Dita, Mark Tereza Preiss, and Tereza Pˇríhodová. 2018. The Contextual Character of Moral Integrity. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. [CrossRef] Serafini, Randal A., Samuel K. Powell, Justin J. Frere, Alexandra Saali, Hannah L. Krystal, Vedika Kumar, Chittampalli Yashaswini, Josimar Hernandez, Kate Moody, Anne Aronson, and et al. 2021. Psychological distress in the face of a pandemic: An observational study characterizing the impact of COVID-19 on immigrant outpatient mental health. Psychiatry Research 295. [CrossRef] Sidani, Yusuf M., and John Thornberry. 2013. Nepotism in the Arab World: An Institutional Theory Perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly 23: 69–96. [CrossRef] Soava, Georgeta, Anca Mehedintu, Mihaela Sterpu, and Mircea Raduteanu. 2020. Impact of Employed Labor Force, Investment, and Remittances on Economic Growth in EU Countries. Sustainability 12: 141. [CrossRef] Sostero, Matteo, Santo Milasi, John Hurley, Enrique Fernandez-Macias, and Martina Bisello. 2020. Teleworkability and the COVID19 crisis: A new digital divide? JRC Working Papers Series on Labour. Education and Technology. Available online: https: //ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc121193.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2020). Sroka, Włodzimierz, and Jolita Vveinhardt. 2018. Nepotism and favoritism in the steel industry; A case study analysis. Forum Scientiae Oeconomica 6: 31–45. [CrossRef] Sroka, Włodzimierz, and Jolita Vveinhardt. 2020. Nepotism and favouritism: How harmful are these phenomena? Forum Scientiae Oeconomica 8: 79–91. [CrossRef] Stake, Robert E. 2010. Qualitative Research. New York/London: The Guilford Press. Stawicka, Anna, and Robert Stawicki. 2020. Pandemia Covid-19. Sytuacja w wybranych krajach europejskich. Kancelaria Senatu RP. Biuro Analiz, Dokumentacji i Korespondencji. Opracowania tematyczne OT–680. Available online: https://www.senat.gov.pl/ gfx/senat/pl/senatopracowania/186/plik/ot-680.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2020). Steingrüber, Sarah, Kirya Monica, Jackson David, and Saul Mullard. 2020. Corruption in the time of COVID-19: A double-threat for low income countries. Available online: https://www.u4.no/publications/corruption-in-the-time-of-covid-19-a-double-threatfor-low-income-countries (accessed on 20 December 2020). Sułkowski, Łukasz. 2009. Interpretative Approach in Management Sciences. Argumenta Oeconomica 23: 127–49. Sulkowski, Lukasz. 2017. Social capital, trust and intercultural interactions. Intercultural Interactions in the Multicultural Workplace. In Intercultural Interactions in the Multicultural Workplace. Contributions to Management Science. Edited by Rozkwitalska Małgorzata, Sułkowski Łukasz and Slawomir Magala. Cham: Springer, pp. 155–71. [CrossRef] Sunny, Atiqur Rahman, Sharif Ahmed Sazzad, Shamsul Haque Prodhan, Md Ashrafuzzaman, Gopal Chandra Datta, Ashoke Kumar Sarker, Mizanur Rahman, and Mahmudul Hasan Mithun. 2021. Assessing impacts of COVID-19 on aquatic food system and small-scale fisheries in Bangladesh Atiqu. Marine Policy 126: 1–8. [CrossRef] Teremetskyi, Vladyslav, Yevheniia Duliba, Volodymyr Kroitor, Nataliia Korchak, and Oleksandr Makarenko. 2021. Corruption and strengthening anti-corruption efforts in healthcare during the pandemic of Covid-19. Medico-Legal Journal 89: 25–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Toshihiro, Okubo. 2020. Spread of COVID-19 and telework: Evidence from Japan. Covid Economics Vetted and Real-Time Papers 32: 1–26. Treisman, Daniel. 2000. The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study. Journal of Public Economics 76: 399–457. [CrossRef] Usher, Kim, Navjot Bhullar, Joanne Durkin, Naomi Gyamfi, and Debra Jackson. 2020. Family violence and COVID-19: Increasedvulnerability and reduced options for support. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 29: 549–52. [CrossRef] Vatavali, Fereniki, Zoi Gareiou, Fotini Kehagia, and Zervas Efthimios. 2020. Impact of COVID-19 on Urban Everyday Life in Greece. Perceptions, Experiences and Practices of the Active Population. Sustainability 12: 9410. [CrossRef] Vveinhardt, Jolita, and Loreta Petrauskaite. 2013. Intensity of Nepotism Expression in Organizations of Lithuania. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research 66: 129–44. [CrossRef] Vveinhardt, Jolita, and Włodzimierz Sroka. 2020. Nepotism and Favouritism in Polish and Lithuanian Organisations: The Context of Organisational Microclimate. Sustainability 12: 1425. [CrossRef] WHO. 2020. WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19—11 March 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefingon-covid-19---11-march-2020 (accessed on 26 December 2020). Wated, Guillermo, and Juan I. Sanchez. 2015. Managerial Tolerance of Nepotism: The Effects of Individualism–Collectivism in a Latin American Context. Journal of Business Ethics 130: 45–57. [CrossRef] Risks 2021,9, 59 35 of 35 Williams, Colin C., and Olga Onoshchenko. 2014. Evaluating the prevalence and nature of blat in post-Soviet societies. A case study of the education sector in Ukraine. International Journal of Social Economics 41: 749–59. [CrossRef] Williams, Mary L., and Dennis Laker. 2010. Nepotism: Can it Affect the Bottom Line? Paper presented at the 33th Annual Meeting NABET: Northeastern Association of Business, Economics, and Technology, Location Religions 2020, 11, 47 26 of 26 of Conference Kutztown, Philadelphia, PA, USA, October 19–20; pp. 230–36. Available online: http://nabet.us/Archives/2010/NABET%20 Proceedings%202010.pdf#page=238 (accessed on 23 December 2020). Wu, Julia Yonghua. 2020. Impact of natural disasters on New Zealand regional family businesses: Perspectives of baby boomer family business owners. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy. [CrossRef] www.ircenter.com. 2020. Wpływ COVID-19 na zachowania mieszka´nców Europy. Available online: https://ircenter.com/wplywcovid-19-na-zachowania-mieszkancow-europy-raport/ (accessed on 23 December 2020). Xue, Jia, Junxiang Chen, Chen Chen, Ran Hu, and Tingshao Zhu. 2020. The Hidden Pandemic of Family Violence during COVID-19: Unsupervised Learning of Tweets. Journal of Medical Internet Research 22: e24361. Available online: https://www.jmir.org/2020/1 1/e24361/ (accessed on 23 December 2020). [CrossRef] [PubMed] Zhang, Hongwei. 2020. The Influence of the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic on Family Violence in China. Journal of Family Violence. [CrossRef] [PubMed]