À propos de cet article

Citez

IDI and FGI interviewee characteristics

No. Code Position Establishment Headquarters Size [based on employment] Form of ownership Scope of activity Type of activity
IDIs
1. G1 Owner 2007 Katowice Middle Priv. comp. Global GD
2. G2 Owner 2012 Katowice Middle Priv. comp. Global GD
3. G3 Game designer 2010 Wroclaw Middle Priv. comp. Global GD
4. G4 Owner 2005 tódź Micro Private sole Global GD
5. G5 Owner 2015 tódź Micro Private sole Global GD
6. G6 Owner 2005 Kamionki Micro Private sole Global GD
7. G7 Animation director 1991 Wroclaw Big Priv. comp. Global GD & GP
8. G8 Owner 2014 tódź Micro Private sole Global GD
9. G9 Owner 2014 Poznan Micro Priv. comp. Global GD
10. GIO Game designer 2007 Poznan Micro Private sole Global GD
11. Gil Owner 2018 tódź Micro Private sole Global GD
12. G12 Owner 2013 Plewiska Micro Private sole Global GD
13. R1 Owner 2011 Wroclaw Middle Public company Global GD
14. R2 Senior developer 1999 Wroclaw Big Priv. comp. Global GD
15. R3 Senior developer 2011 Bielsko- Biala Small Private sole Europe GDS
16. DI Publishing director 2012 Warsaw Small Priv. comp. Global GD, GP & GDS
17. D2 Company president 2015 Warsaw Small Priv. comp. Global GD
FGI
1. R1 Owner 2012 Katowice Micro Private sole Global GD
2. R2 Owner 2020 Katowice Small Priv. comp. Global GD
3. R3 Owner 2019 Kraków Micro Priv. comp. Global GD
4. R4 Developer 2004 Kraków Micro Private sole Global GD
5. R5 Board member, managing director 2001 Wroclaw Small Priv. comp. Global Other
6. R6 Owner 2016 Toruñ Micro Spin off Global GD & GDS

Typology of the negative effects of social relationships

No. Type of negative effect Characteristics
1. Lower level of innovativeness Remaining closed to resources (information, innovation, capital, etc.) and entities from the outside, which causes lack of diversity, reducing the inflow and use of new ideas – lack of a “fresh look” and the so-called “collective blindness.”
2. Lower adaptability Adaptation to familiar partners resulting in lower adaptability.
3. Incurring alternative costs Loss of opportunities, e.g., for introducing a new product, lowering prices, etc., due to doing business with an unknown partner.
4. Limiting economic efficiency Suppression of economically effective activities, including entrepreneurship, due to the replacement of economic rationality with loyalty – the desire to fulfil expectations or abide by hidden rules.
5. Negative phenomena, e.g., nepotism The desire to meet expectations toward the other party leading to nepotism.
6. High costs associated with the development and maintenance of strong ties Costs of capital employed, time, engagement and other resources etc.
7. The costs of breaking the existing strong ties (domino effect) High risk and costs of unforeseen changes in the enterprise or partner organization resulting from strong dependence on the partner (e.g., adaptation costs and costs related to looking for a new partner).
8. Interpersonal conflict Quarrels or negative emotions (e.g., anger, humiliation) caused by being tired of the relationship and/or better knowledge about the partner and his/her faults.
9. Greater susceptibility to opportunistic activities of partner(s) Ties based on trust increasing the susceptibility of entities to partake in opportunistic activities (fraud); the more trust in a partner, the greater the potential benefit of his/her opportunism (active or passive).

Negative results of social relationships perceived by VGDs

No. Negative consequences of SRs Characteristics Type of SR participant
1. Negative atmosphere at work (due to IC and nepotism) IC:

IC resolution resulting from too strong SR requiring time and effort, which negatively affects the functioning of the team

IC absorbing employees’ attention on negative emotions, which does not serve productivity and creativity

IC resulting from strong SR, which can cause burnout and the desire to change jobs

IC resulting from the inability of the team to intervene in a strong relationship between a supervisor and an employee

Employees
Unequal treatment of employees or accusations of favoritism toward those with whom a supervisor has strong SR (nepotism):

Greater leniency with regard to mistakes made by a person with whom a supervisor has a strong relationship

Hiring friends

Making decisions under the influence of and for the benefit of people with whom a superior has a strong relationship

Higher pay for a person with whom a supervisor has a closer relationship relative to other people in the same position, or the distribution of the company’s salary pool taking into account an additional person hired because of strong SR with a supervisor

Employees
2. Employee turnover Dismissal of well-liked employees entailingthe departure of others Employees
3. Buying up employees High familiarity with the community making it easier to reach and ’poach’ potential new employees Employees
4. Breakdown of business cooperation and/or high costs associated with cooperation

Termination of cooperation due to the mixing of private and business relations

In a situation of dissatisfaction with cooperation with people with whom strong SR are maintained, dilemmas about the future of the relationship

The high cost of ending cooperation with a person with whom SR are maintained (due to the frequent lack of formal agreements)

Co-operators
5. High cost of building, maintaining, and breaking off SR

The cost of attending events, e.g., industry conferences, team-building outings, to maintain relationships that have already been established

Costs associated with the large amount of time spent on an ongoing basis to maintain close relationships

Costs outweighing the benefits of building a community of strong SR in the VGI

Difficulties and costs associated with fighting for one’s own priorities

Fear of incurring costs in the form of damaging relationships in the future (domino effect)

Difficulty of entering some communities, more-or-less deliberately isolating others, and being closed to outsiders

Disturbed work–life balance, which also leads to costs (for the company and in one’s personal life) and may ultimately negatively affect the functioning of the company (domino effect)

Co-operators, employees
6. Reducing economic rationality and efficiency [bearing alternative costs]

Lowering the margin in transactions with a friendly entity (bearing alternative costs)

Choosing the offer of friendly entities, even though from an economic point of view they are not optimal for the company (bearing alternative costs)

Making economic decisions as other friendly entities do – the herd phenomenon – even though these decisions are not optimal for the enterprise

Co-operators

The difficulty of making certain decisions that are necessary for the good of the organization, such as admonishing or firing an employee

Lack of objectivity, which can lead to inefficient operations in the company

Employees
7. Limiting innovativeness and lowering adaptability 1. Reducing the need for innovative activities when access to them is facilitated by contacts with a friendly entity2.Being closed to other relationships and the new opportunities that they bring (low adaptability) Employees, co-operators
8. Risk of disclosure of important and confidential information Greater risk of passing on information that is confidential in nature, often even by accident Different external entities
9. Opportunistic behavior 1. Possibility of suffering losses due to overconfidence2. The difficulty of enforcing penalties against a trusted person with whom strong SRs are maintained Employees, co-operators