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 |
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). |
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 entity |
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 overconfidence |
Employees, co-operators |