Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational Cronyism: A Scale Development and Validation from the Perspective of Teachers

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Organizational cronyism refers to favoring some employees within an organization based on non-performance-related factors. Although it is highly likely to encounter many attitudes and behaviors meeting this description within public and private institutions, there are limited studies on this issue. Thus, the purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable scale to assess the perception of cronyism among organizational members. To this end, an item pool was formed based on current literature as well the views of teachers and expert recommendations. The validity–reliability of the scale was tested via two sample groups. As a result of the study, a scale with 3 dimensions and 15 items as well as psychometric qualities was developed to assess employee perceptions of cronyism. The scale dimensions comprise: in-group bias, paternal cronyism, and reciprocal exchange of favor in accordance with the way the method was addressed in the literature. The analyses of nomological validity of the scale showed that perception of cronyism is an important predictor of trust in managers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aktan, C. C. (1992). Political corruption and kleptocracy: 1980-1990 Turkey experience. İstanbul: Alfa Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asunakutlu, T. (2010). Foundations of favoritism: Similarity and dissimilarity. In R. Erdem (Ed.), Favoritism in terms of management and organization (pp. 3–26). İstanbul: Beta Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asunakutlu, T., & Avcı, U. (2010). An investigation of the relationship between nepotism and job satisfaction in family business. Süleyman Demirel University The Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 15(2), 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aycan, Z. (2001). Paternalism: Three empirical studies related to management and leadership approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 1(1), 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydoğan, İ. (2012). The existence of favoritism in organizations. African Journal of Business Management, 6(12), 4577–4586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aytaç, Ö. (2010). Sociological foundation of favorist relations. In R. Erdem (Ed.), Favoritism in terms of management and organization (pp. 3–26). İstanbul: Beta Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, K. L., & Moon, S. M. (2006). Factor structure of the psychotherapy supervisor development scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 39(3), 130–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begley, T. M., Khatri, N., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2010). Networks and cronyism: A social exchange analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27, 281–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2003). The phenomenology of principal mistreatment: teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4), 367–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2006). Teachers’ perspectives on principal mistreatment. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(4), 123–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. (2006). Leader–Member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 246–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büte, M. (2011a). The relationship between the effects of nepotism on the employees and human resource practices: A research on Turkish public banks. Atatürk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 15(1), 383–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büte, M. (2011b). Perceived nepotism and its relation to job satisfaction, negative word of mouth and intention to quit. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 10(36), 187–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, B. (1999). Chinese chief executive officers’ employee categorization and managerial behaviour. In H. S. R. Kao, D. Sinha, & B. Wilpert (Eds.), Management and cultural values: the indigenization of organizations in Asia (pp. 233–251). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S. R., & Hardy, C. (1999). Studying organization: Theory and method. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus (2000). London: HarperCollins Publisher.

  • Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43(5), 721–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dictionary of Word Origins (1990). Bloomsbury, UK.

  • Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A review. Human Relations, 43, 1133–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunar, A. J. (1984). The Truman scandals and the politics of morality. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erben, G. S., & Güneşer, A. B. (2008). The relationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational commitment: Investigating the role of climate regarding ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4), 955–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). The impact of collectivism and in-group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1097–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2000). Behavior in organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. D., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate date analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Softwares of the minds, Revised and extended (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt Brace and World Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, C. (2011). Is cronyism always negative? A model of organizational appointment based on structure of Guanxi. In 18th international conference on management science & engineering, 13–15 September 2011, Roma, İtaly.

  • Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2004). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (7th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2004). Organizational justice in schools: No justice without trust. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4), 250–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates: Some support for the N:q hypothesis. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 128–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, K. (2006). Antecedents, processes and outcomes of collective (group-level) politics in organizations. In E. Vigoda-Gadot & A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics (pp. 53–74). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, G. (1992). Organizational behavior: Understanding life at work. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. A. (2009). Gender dissimilarity and leader-member exchange: The mediating effect of communication apprehension. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 2(1), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keleş, H. N., Özkan, T. K., & Bezirci, M. (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), 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khatri, N. (2011). A taxonomy of supervisor-subordinate exchanges across cultures. IIMB Management Review, 23, 71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khatri, N., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of cronyism in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khatri, N., Tsang, E. W. K., & Begley, T. M. (2006). Cronyism: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K. I., & Organ, D. W. (1982). Determinants of leader-subordinate exchange relationships. Group & Organization Management, 7(1), 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leunberg, F. C. (2010). Leader-member exchange theory: Another perspective on the leadership process. International Journal of Management, Business and Administration, 13(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modelling using GFI and AGFE. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(2), 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins, P.S. (2010). Cronyism. Bonn: IZA. Discussion paper no: 5349.

  • Mayo, E. (1945). The social problems of an industrial civilisation. Andover: The Andover Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melchior, M. B., & Melchior, A. (2001). A case for particularism in public administration. Administration & Society, 33(3), 251–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendras, H. (2008). Elements of sociology (B. Yılmaz, Trans.). İstanbul: İletişim Publishing.

  • Milgram, L., Spector, A., & Treger, M. (1999). Nepotism. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oktay, C. (1983). Turkish political system against rising claims and government bureaucracy. İstanbul: İstanbul University Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford Dictionary of English (2010). UK: Oxford University Press.

  • Özsemerci, K. (2003). Corruption in Turkish public administration: Causes, losses and suggestion. Ankara: Sayıştay Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. L. (1991). From socialism to capitalism: The effects of Hungarian human resource practices. Academy of Management Executive, 5(4), 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. L., Branyiczki, I., & Bigley, G. A. (2000). Insufficient bureaucracy: Trust and commitment in particularistic organizations. Organization Science, 11(2), 148–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2006). Leader member exchange, paternalism and delegation in Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 264–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, C., & ve Topel, R. H. (1996). Favoritism in organizations. Journal of Political Economy, 104(5), 958–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, J. B. P., & Sinha, D. (1995). Role of social values in Indian organizations. In H. S. R. Kao, D. Sinha, & N. Sek-Hong (Eds.), Effective organizations and social values. New Delhi: Sage Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger, J. L., Colarelli, S. M., Dimotakis, N., Jacob, A. C., & Arvey, R. D. (2012). Effects of kin density within family-owned businesses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(2), 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sümer, N. (2000). Structural equation models. Turkish Psychological Articles, 3(6), 49–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M. G., & Bundy, R. F. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripathi, R. C. (1990). Interplay of values in the functioning of Indian organisations. International Journal of Psychology, 25, 715–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingrod, A. (1968). Patrons, patronage and political parties. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 10(4), 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Y. T., Ngo, H. Y., & Wong, C. S. (2006). Perceived organizational justice, trust, and OCB: A study of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises. Journal of World Business, 41(4), 344–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y. & Bei, H. (2009). The antecedents of organizational cronyism. In International conference on management and service science, 20–22 September 2009, Beijing, China.

  • Zhang, K., Song, L. J., Hackett, R. D., & Bycio, P. (2006). Cultural boundary of expectancy theory-based performance management: A commentary on DeNisi and Pritchard’s performance improvement model. Management and Organizational Review, 2(2), 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Fırat University, 23119, Elazığ, Turkey

    Muhammed Turhan

Authors
  1. Muhammed Turhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammed Turhan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turhan, M. Organizational Cronyism: A Scale Development and Validation from the Perspective of Teachers. J Bus Ethics 123, 295–308 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1839-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1839-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation