e-ISSN 3091-1850

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Employment Nepotism and Favoritism: Clientelism, Institutional Failure, and

Economic Implications

Nepotismo y favoritismo en el empleo: clientelismo, fallos institucionales e implicaciones económicas.

Arsim Gjinovci

iD Dren Gjinovci

Received: 23/05/26 / Accepted: 11/06/26 / Published online: 25/07/26

Abstract

Nepotism and corruption are interconnected phenomena that challenge

economic development, the rule of law, and the effective functioning

of public institutions. Nepotism typically manifests through the

employment or advancement of relatives and close associates at the

expense of professional merit. This study analyzes factors associated

with nepotism and corruption in Kosovo and examines their perceived

effects on recruitment, career advancement, institutional functioning,

and economic conditions. A mixed-methods design combines a

descriptive employee survey with analysis of peer-reviewed literature,

institutional reports, and policy documents. The available survey

results are reported as percentages because the retained study materials

do not specify a complete respondent count suitable for inferential

analysis. The findings indicate widespread perceptions that family and

personal connections influence hiring and promotion, weaken

transparency and merit-based practices, and affect organizational trust

and fairness. Secondary evidence also links weak meritocratic

institutions with lower administrative quality and greater corruption

risk. The study recommends stronger merit-based recruitment and

promotion, transparent human resource procedures, ethical training,

institutional accountability, and civil-society oversight.

Keywords employment, clientelism, economic implications, nepotism,

corruption.

Resumen

El nepotismo y la corrupción son fenómenos interconectados que

plantean desafíos para el desarrollo económico, el Estado de derecho y

el funcionamiento eficaz de las instituciones públicas. El nepotismo

suele manifestarse mediante la contratación o promoción de familiares

y personas cercanas en detrimento del mérito profesional. Este estudio

analiza factores asociados con el nepotismo y la corrupción en Kosovo

y examina sus efectos percibidos sobre la contratación, el avance

profesional, el funcionamiento institucional y las condiciones

económicas. Se empleó un diseño mixto que combina una encuesta

descriptiva a empleados con el análisis de literatura científica, informes

institucionales y documentos de política pública. Los resultados

disponibles de la encuesta se presentan mediante porcentajes, ya que

los materiales conservados del estudio no especifican un número

completo de participantes que permita realizar análisis inferenciales.

Los hallazgos indican una percepción extendida de que las conexiones

familiares y personales influyen en la contratación y promoción,

debilitan la transparencia y la meritocracia y afectan la confianza y la

justicia organizacional. Se recomiendan procesos meritocráticos

transparentes, formación ética, mecanismos de rendición de cuentas y

supervisión institucional y social.

Palabras clave empleo, clientelismo, implicaciones económicas,

nepotismo, corrupción.

How to cite

Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci, D. (2026). Employment Nepotism and Favoritism: Clientelism, Institutional Failure, and Economic Implications. Journal of Management and

Human Resources, 4(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21607755

Corresponding author

Arsim Gjinovci

[email protected]

iD https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3308-0216

University of Prishtina, Republic of Kosovo

Human Resources, 4(2), 12-16. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21607755

J.Manage.Hum.Resour.(JulyDecember2026)4(2):1216

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21607755

Introduction

Nepotism refers to preferential treatment based on family or close

personal ties rather than objective qualifications or merit (Jones,

2012). Historically associated with appointments of relatives to

positions of authority, the concept now encompasses employment,

promotion, and organizational decisions in which kinship or personal

connections override transparent criteria. Favoritism is broader and

may involve friends, political allies, or other preferred groups. In

contemporary organizations, both practices are relevant to human

resource management because they can affect recruitment, promotion,

performance evaluation, perceived fairness, and employee trust

(Vveinhardt & Bendaravičienė, 2022; Pearce & Wang, 2024).

Corruption and nepotism frequently intersect in weak institutional

environments because discretionary authority, low accountability, and

limited transparency create opportunities for non-meritocratic

decisions. Classic research has linked corruption with lower

investment and economic growth (Mauro, 1995), while more recent

evidence shows that meritocratic public-service recruitment and

professional civil-service practices are associated with stronger

government performance and lower corruption (Oliveira et al., 2024;

Patterson, 2024). These relationships are especially relevant in

transitional settings, where politicization and informal networks may

compete with formal recruitment and promotion rules.

The organizational consequences extend beyond formal hiring

decisions. Employees who perceive favoritism may report lower trust,

commitment, willingness to speak up, and satisfaction (Pearce &

Wang, 2024). Research on nepotism has also identified negative

relationships with workplace commitment and turnover-related

outcomes when employees perceive that organizational promises of

fairness have been violated (Lim et al., 2023; Shatila et al., 2024).

Perceived nepotism can reduce job satisfaction through distributive

and procedural injustice, although supervisory trust may mitigate

some of these effects (Rasheed et al., 2026).

From a human resource management perspective, merit-based

recruitment and promotion protect both organizational capability and

perceived justice. A systematic review of 96 empirical studies found

that meritocratic appointment, advancement, impartiality, and

professionalism are consistently associated with better government

performance and lower corruption (Oliveira et al., 2024). Similarly,

research on civil-service management shows that merit-based

selection can make public employment more attractive to capable

candidates (Yang, 2024). These findings support the view that

transparent and competency-based HR systems are not merely

procedural safeguards but strategic mechanisms for institutional

effectiveness.

Kosovo provides a relevant context for examining these issues

because public-sector reform, institutional trust, and the consolidation

of merit-based administration remain important governance

challenges. The European Commission's Kosovo Report 2024

continues to emphasize the need to strengthen public administration,

accountability, and institutional effectiveness (European

Commission, 2024). Previous Kosovo-focused research has also

documented concerns regarding political influence, non-merit-based

employment, and the consequences of nepotism and corruption for

public administration and economic performance (Gjinovci, 2016;

Gjinovci, 2018; Gjinovci & Gjinovci, 2025a).

The relationship between clientelism and employment

opportunities is also supported by comparative literature. Clientelistic

arrangements may transform access to public employment into an

exchange based on political or personal loyalty rather than

qualifications, generating inequality in employment opportunities

(García Godos Peñaloza & García Godos Peñaloza, 2023). Evidence

from public personnel research likewise shows that friendship

favoritism can be especially damaging to organizational trust and

commitment even where formal rules exist (Pearce & Wang, 2024).

Nepotism should nevertheless be analyzed carefully rather than

treated as a uniform causal mechanism. Some studies report

context-dependent outcomes and show that organizational justice can

alter how nepotism relates to employee behavior and performance

(Khairy & Elzek, 2024). Accordingly, the present study focuses on

employees' perceptions of non-meritocratic practices and combines

those perceptions with external institutional and academic evidence

rather than claiming that descriptive survey percentages alone

establish national causal effects.

Within this framework, the study examines how nepotism,

favoritism, and corruption are perceived to affect employment,

promotion, transparency, resource distribution, organizational culture,

and institutional functioning in Kosovo. It also considers the broader

economic implications discussed in the corruption and meritocracy

literature, while distinguishing between findings derived from the

survey and conclusions supported by secondary sources.

The study aims to analyze the perceived impact of nepotism and

corruption on employment, professional advancement, and human

resource management in Kosovo, and to relate these perceptions to

institutional performance and economic implications documented in

the literature. Its contribution lies in integrating organizational HR

concerns—recruitment, promotion, fairness, and employee

development—with evidence on meritocratic public administration

and institutional accountability.

Methodology

This study employs a mixed-methods design that combines

descriptive survey evidence with a qualitative review of

peer-reviewed literature, policy documents, and institutional reports.

The quantitative component explores employee perceptions of

nepotism, favoritism, recruitment transparency, promotion, and

organizational fairness in Kosovo. Because the retained study

materials provide percentages but do not specify a complete

respondent count, the survey evidence is treated as descriptive and no

inferential statistical claims are made. The qualitative component is

used to contextualize the survey patterns and compare them with

independent evidence on meritocracy, corruption, public

administration, and human resource management.

Primary data were collected through a structured questionnaire

administered to employees from public and private organizations in

Kosovo. The available documentation indicates purposive recruitment

across different sectors, hierarchical levels, and geographic areas;

therefore, the sampling approach is described as purposive rather than

probabilistic. The retained results include three preliminary items on

advancement criteria (education, professional experience, and

merit/contribution) and 10 core statements (B1–B10) addressing

employment, promotion, transparency, favoritism, organizational

policies, resource distribution, and social pressure. Since the original

records available for this revision do not specify the final number of

valid respondents, no sample size is reconstructed or inferred.

The 10 core statements (B1–B10) were grouped into four thematic

dimensions:

Nepotism in employment and promotion (B1, B2, B3);

Transparency and equal treatment (B4, B5, B6);

Policy effectiveness and resource distribution (B7, B8, B9);

Social pressure and organizational culture (B10).

Responses were collected on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging

from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, with Neutral as the

midpoint. The instrument was pilot-tested with 20 respondents. The

pilot was used to assess clarity, comprehension, and the sequence of

the items, and minor wording and ordering adjustments were made.

No reliability coefficient or formal psychometric validation statistic is

reported because such results are not available in the retained study

materials.

Quantitative results were summarized using the percentages

available in the study records. The analysis is descriptive and focuses

J.Manage.Hum.Resour.(JulyDecember2026)4(2):1216

on patterns of agreement and disagreement across the advancement

items and statements B1–B10. The tables reproduce the percentages

reported by the study; where a percentage total is incomplete, the

discrepancy is explicitly identified rather than recalculated without

raw data. No correlation, regression, or significance testing is

reported because the available information does not support such

analyses.

The qualitative component reviewed peer-reviewed research and

institutional sources relevant to nepotism, favoritism, clientelism,

meritocratic recruitment, corruption, and public-sector human

resource management. Independent recent evidence was prioritized to

contextualize the Kosovo findings, together with selected verified

prior studies by the authors that directly address the national context.

Institutional evidence included the European Commission's Kosovo

Report 2024. This component was used to distinguish perceptions

observed in the survey from broader institutional and economic

relationships established in external research.

Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous.

Respondents were informed of the study purpose, confidentiality of

their responses, and their right to withdraw. Data were used for

academic purposes. The retained manuscript materials do not provide

a formal ethics-committee approval number or exemption;

accordingly, no approval identifier is claimed. If institutional ethics

approval or exemption was obtained, it should be added to the journal

record before final publication.

The study has several limitations. First, the available records do not

specify the final number of valid respondents, preventing assessment

of sampling precision and inferential analysis. Second, the purposive

recruitment strategy and reliance on self-reported perceptions limit

generalizability. Third, the pilot assessed clarity and comprehension

but the available records do not provide psychometric reliability or

validity coefficients. Finally, the study is geographically focused on

Kosovo. These limitations mean that the survey results should be

interpreted as descriptive perceptions and triangulated with external

evidence rather than treated as estimates of prevalence for the entire

Kosovo labor market.

Results and discussion

The descriptive results indicate strong perceptions that

employment and advancement are not consistently governed by

merit-based criteria. The interpretation below is limited to the

percentages reported in the available survey records and does not

imply statistical significance or national prevalence.

Table 1 presents respondents' perceptions of three preliminary

advancement criteria: education, professional experience, and individual

merit/contribution. The available results show that 85% disagree that

advancement is based on education, while 10% agree and 5% are

neutral.

Table 1. Comparison of employee advancement based on education,

experience, and merits

Advancement Criteria Agree (%) Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Comments

Advancement based on education 10 85 5

Education is not

sufficiently valued

in promotions.

Advancement based on professional

experience

10 80 10

Experience is

often overlooked

when promoting

staff.

Advancement based on merit and

contribution

15 75 10

Employee contribu

tions are not fully

recognized.

For professional experience, 80% disagree that it is considered in

advancement, 10% agree, and 10% are neutral. These responses

suggest that experience is perceived as insufficiently recognized in

promotion decisions.

For merit and contribution, 75% disagree that advancement is

based on this criterion, 15% agree, and 10% are neutral. Taken

together, the three items indicate a strong perceived weakness of

objective advancement criteria among the surveyed participants.

These perceptions are consistent with independent evidence

showing that meritocratic recruitment and advancement are

associated with better government performance, professionalism, and

lower corruption (Oliveira et al., 2024; Patterson, 2024). They should,

however, be interpreted as perceptions of the surveyed participants

rather than as proof that meritocracy is absent across the entire

Kosovo labor market.

Table 2 is an analytical synthesis of the secondary literature and

institutional documents reviewed in the study; it is not a direct output of

the employee questionnaire. It summarizes how corruption and nepotism

are linked in the literature with investment, public administration,

justice, public services, and institutional trust.

Table 2. Analytical synthesis of corruption and nepotism in public and

economic sectors

Sector

Corruption-related

pattern in literatur

Nepotism/favoritis

m-related pattern

Reported institutio

nal implication

Economy

Lower investment

and greater uncertain

Non-merit-based

hiring and allocation

of opportunities

Potential constraints

on productivity and

growth

Public Administration

Abuse of discretion

and weak accountabi

lity

Political or

family-based

appointments

Reduced professiona

lism and administrati

ve capacity

Judicial System

Political interference

and integrity risks

Preferential access

or influence may

affect perceived

fairness

Lower institutional

trust and legal

certainty

Public Services

Higher costs and

weaker service

accountability

Non-merit-based

recruitment or

promotion

Lower perceived

service quality and

employee fairness

In the economic literature, corruption is associated with lower

investment and weaker growth, while non-merit-based hiring can

reduce the efficient allocation of human capital (Mauro, 1995;

Oliveira et al., 2024). These relationships provide a broader context

for the organizational perceptions reported in the survey.

In public administration, politicized or family-based appointments

can weaken professionalism and institutional capacity. Merit-based

recruitment, by contrast, is associated with stronger public-sector

performance and lower corruption risk (Oliveira et al., 2024; Yang,

2024).

In justice and public services, the literature links corruption and

weak accountability with reduced trust and institutional effectiveness.

These broader relationships derive from secondary evidence and

should not be attributed directly to the survey percentages reported in

this study (Albanese & Artello, 2019; European Commission, 2024).

Accordingly, Table 2 should be read as contextual evidence

supporting the institutional relevance of the survey findings, not as a

causal estimate derived from the questionnaire.

Tables 3–5 present the 10 core statements B1–B10. The results

show high reported agreement with statements describing family

influence, personal connections, limited transparency,

non-merit-based favoritism, weak preventive policies, unfair resource

distribution, and pressure to cultivate personal connections.

Table 3. Perceptions regarding the extent of nepotism in employment

processes, managerial decision-making, and promotions within

organizations

Statement Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%)

Strongly agree

(%)

B1. Family preferences influence

employment

10 0 40 50

B2. Managerial decisions favor personal

connections

15 0 40 45

B3. Promotions occur due to family

connections

5 10 35 45

For B1, 90% agree or strongly agree that family preferences

influence employment, while 10% disagree. For B2, 85% agree or

strongly agree that managerial decisions favor personal connections,

while 15% disagree. For B3, 80% agree or strongly agree that

promotions occur because of family connections and 10% are neutral.

The source table reports 5% as disagree and totals 95%; because raw

counts are unavailable, the missing 5% is not reallocated. The pattern

nevertheless indicates a high perceived role of family and personal

connections in recruitment and promotion.

J.Manage.Hum.Resour.(JulyDecember2026)4(2):1216

Table 4 addresses transparency, workplace treatment, and

non-merit-based favoritism. For B4, 80% agree or strongly agree that

recruitment is not always transparent. For B5, 80% agree or strongly

agree that employees with family connections receive better treatment.

For B6, 85% agree or strongly agree that non-merit-based favoritism is

evident. These descriptive findings are consistent with research showing

that perceived favoritism is associated with lower trust, commitment,

and organizational fairness (Pearce & Wang, 2024; Rasheed et al., 2026).

Table 4. Transparency, treatment, and non-merit-based favoritism

(B4–B6)

Statement Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%)

Strongly agree

(%)

B4. Recruitment is not always

transparent

10 10 40 40

B5. Employees with family connections

are treated better

5 15 35 45

B6. Non-merit-based favoritism is

evident

15 0 40 45

Table 5 extends the analysis to organizational policies, resource

distribution, and social pressure. The results show that 75% agree or

strongly agree that connected candidates can advance without the

necessary qualifications (B7) and that policies do not effectively prevent

family-based favoritism (B8). For B9, 85% agree or strongly agree that

nepotism affects the fair distribution of resources, while for B10, 85%

agree or strongly agree that employees feel pressure to create personal

connections for career advancement.

Table 5. Nepotism, policy gaps, and influence on resource distribution

(B7–B10)

Statement Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%)

Strongly agree

(%)

B7. Candidates with connections

advance without qualifications

10 15 35 40

B8. Policies do not prevent family-based

favoritism

15 10 40 35

B9. Nepotism affects the unfair

distribution of resources

10 5 40 45

B10. Employees feel obliged to create

personal connections

15 0 50 35

These findings suggest that respondents perceive nepotism as

extending beyond individual hiring decisions to organizational

policies, distributive fairness, and workplace culture. Similar

mechanisms have been documented in recent research linking

nepotism to psychological contract violation, job satisfaction,

commitment, and turnover intentions (Lim et al., 2023; Shatila et al.,

2024; Rasheed et al., 2026).

The survey evidence is therefore most appropriately interpreted as

a coherent pattern of perceived non-meritocratic practices. It does not

establish causal effects or population prevalence, but it identifies

areas of HR governance—recruitment, promotion, transparency,

resource allocation, and organizational culture—that warrant stronger

institutional safeguards.

The results indicate that surveyed employees perceive merit-based

advancement as substantially weakened. This interpretation aligns

with broader empirical literature showing that meritocratic

recruitment and advancement are positively related to government

performance, service quality, professionalism, and lower corruption

(Oliveira et al., 2024). Recent evidence also shows that merit-based

selection can attract more capable candidates to public service (Yang,

2024).

The findings also suggest that favoritism may become normalized

when formal rules are not matched by transparent enforcement.

Research in public personnel administration shows that workplace

favoritism can undermine trust, organizational commitment,

willingness to speak up, and pay satisfaction (Pearce & Wang, 2024).

In this sense, the Kosovo responses are consistent with the

organizational-justice literature, which emphasizes the importance of

transparent and consistently applied HR procedures.

At the macro-institutional level, the survey itself cannot establish

effects on investment or economic growth. Those implications are

supported instead by external evidence: corruption has long been

associated with lower investment and growth (Mauro, 1995), and

recent comparative research links meritocratic civil-service

recruitment with lower corruption and stronger institutional outcomes

(Oliveira et al., 2024; Patterson, 2024). The contribution of the

present study is to connect these broader institutional relationships

with employees' reported perceptions of recruitment and advancement

practices in Kosovo.

Figure 1 summarizes five high-agreement themes drawn from the

descriptive survey results: perceived family influence in employment,

personal connections in advancement, lack of transparency,

non-meritocratic practices, and social pressure. The figure is descriptive

and does not represent a test of statistical significance.

Figure 1. Relationship between nepotism, corruption, institutional

performance, and economic outcomes.

Conclusions

The study indicates that surveyed employees perceive nepotism,

favoritism, and personal connections as important influences on

employment and career advancement in Kosovo. High levels of

agreement across the available descriptive items point to concerns

about recruitment transparency, merit-based promotion, equal

treatment, resource distribution, and organizational culture. These

perceptions are consistent with independent research showing that

favoritism and nepotism can undermine organizational trust,

satisfaction, commitment, and fairness, while meritocratic recruitment

and professional civil-service systems are associated with stronger

institutional performance and lower corruption. Because the retained

study records do not specify the final respondent count and do not

support inferential analysis, the findings should not be generalized as

prevalence estimates for the entire Kosovo labor market. The results

nevertheless support practical recommendations for transparent

recruitment and promotion criteria, documented HR decisions,

conflict-of-interest controls, ethics training, effective complaint

mechanisms, and external accountability. Future studies should report

complete sample information, use validated measures, and apply

probability sampling or well-defined comparative designs to test the

relationships identified here.

References

Albanese, J. S., & Artello, K. (2019). The behavior of corruption: An

empirical typology of public corruption by objective and method.

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 20(1), 1–12.

European Commission. (2024). Kosovo Report 2024. European

Commission.

Fazriyani, F., & Prahyawan, W. (2025). Human resource management in

corruption prevention: A systematic review. Banking & Management

Review, 13(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.52250/bmr.v13i1.871

García Godos Peñaloza, L. M., & García Godos Peñaloza, C. S. (2023).

Clientelismo político y desigualdad en oportunidades de empleo.

Desafíos, 14(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.37711/desafios.2023.14.2.40

Gjinovci, A. (2016). The impact of nepotism and corruption on the economy

and HR. Economic and Environmental Studies, 16(3), 421–434.

Gjinovci, A. (2018). Influence of politics on selection of the boards and

managing director in public organizations. Knowledge Horizons –

Economics, 10(3), 32–38.

Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci, D. (2025a). Structural barriers to development:

How nepotism and corruption undermine public administration and

economic growth. Ekonomicko-manazerske spektrum, 19(2), 125–135.

https://doi.org/10.26552/ems.2025.2.125-135

J.Manage.Hum.Resour.(JulyDecember2026)4(2):1216

Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci, D. (2025b). Limited career prospects and

non-merit-based employment practices: Implications for employee

motivation and career development. Review of Economics and Finance,

23, 252–260. https://doi.org/10.55365/1923.x2025.23.23

Jones, R. G. (Ed.). (2012). Nepotism in organizations. Routledge.

Khairy, H. A., & Elzek, Y. (2024). The impact of nepotism and workplace

gossip on job performance in travel agencies and hotels in Egypt: The

moderating role of organizational justice. Journal of Human Resources in

Hospitality & Tourism, 23(1), 52–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2

023.2253673

Lim, W. M., Srivastava, S., Jain, A. K., Malik, N., & Gupta, S. (2023).

When employees feel betrayed: The mediating role of psychological

contract violation on nepotism and workplace commitment in the hotel

industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 108, 103381.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103381

Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 110(3), 681–712. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946696

Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2015). The quest for good governance: How societies

develop control of corruption. Cambridge University Press.

Newburn, T. (1999). Understanding and preventing police corruption:

Lessons from the literature (Police Research Series Paper 110). Home

Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.

Oliveira, E., Abner, G., Lee, S., Suzuki, K., Hur, H., & Perry, J. L. (2024).

What does the evidence tell us about merit principles and government

performance? Public Administration, 102(2), 668–690.

https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12945

Patterson, A. C. (2024). Civil service organization as a political determinant

of health: Analyzing relationships between merit-based hiring,

corruption, and population health. Social Science & Medicine, 348,

116813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116813

Pearce, J. L., & Wang, C. (2024). Favoritism in the federal workplace: Are

rules the solution? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 44(3),

516–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X231155359

Rasheed, R., Roques, O., & Rashid, A. (2026). Perceived nepotism and job

satisfaction: A moderated mediated model of supervisory trust,

procedural, and distributive injustice. International Journal of Public

Administration, 49(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2025.24

59746

Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999). Corruption and government: Causes,

consequences, and reform. Cambridge University Press.

Shatila, K., Yela-Aránega, A., & Sánchez-Marín, G. (2024). Nepotism and

turnover intention in Middle Eastern family firms: Examining the

mediating influence of individual and organizational factors. European

Journal of Family Business, 14(2), 172–187.

https://doi.org/10.24310/ejfb.14.2.2024.19747

Vveinhardt, J., & Bendaravičienė, R. (2022). How do nepotism and

favouritism affect organisational climate? Frontiers in Psychology, 12,

710140. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710140

Yang, W. (2024). Management of civil services and the supply of civil

servants. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12987

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author contribution

Conceptualization: Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci, D. Data curation:

Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci, D. Formal analysis: Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci,

D. Investigation: Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci, D. Methodology: Gjinovci,

A., & Gjinovci, D. Supervision: Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci, D. Validation:

Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci, D. Visualization: Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci, D.

Writing—original draft: Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci, D. Writing—review

and editing: Gjinovci, A., & Gjinovci, D.

Data availability statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are

available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Statement on the use of AI

The authors acknowledge the use of generative AI and AI-assisted

technologies to improve the readability and clarity of the article.

Disclaimer/Editor’s note

The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are

solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of Journal

of Management and Human Resources.

Journal of Management and Human Resources and/or the editors

disclaim any responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting

from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products mentioned in the

content.

J.Manage.Hum.Resour.(JulyDecember2026)4(2):1216