Favoritism causes us to question if we belong. It gradually chips away at any key outcome we're trying to achieve: engagement, culture, performance, and even health and well-being. The experience of favoritism is nearly universal. But determining and targeting the root cause is key However, understanding and targeting its unique root causes is key.
The Hidden Costs of Favoritism in the Workplace
The feeling of exclusion is uniquely painful whether you're five years old or sixty. It's the perception that your strengths and contributions either weren't valued or were overlooked. It comes as no surprise that favoritism, in any form, throws a wrench in our progress. In the short term it squashes leading indicators, like our effort, intentions to stay, and performance. Then at scale it suppresses lagging indicators like retention, engagement performance, and innovation. In short, it affects every piece of our organizational ecosystem.
Photo by Lyubomyr (Lou) Reverchuk on Unsplash
When we perceive others as favored it immediately affects our motivation. We start down a negative spiral of questioning if our outputs and effort matches what we're receiving in return. As this happens deadlines may go missed, production times increase, relationships are stifled, and innovation slows.
Long term, perceptions of favoritism spread and drive higher turnover rates, as employees seek opportunities elsewhere where they feel their contributions will be recognized and rewarded fairly. We'll make a caveat here that it's natural to feel we're not the "preferred one," or that a decision fell short of fair, from time to time. That's why favoritism falls under the umbrella of what organizational psychologists, and others, call incivility. When experienced frequently, these low-intensity behaviors leave us questioning if the behavior was intentional (I don't belong and my efforts and talents do not matter) or just a normal event or accident. What are some events that over time could contribute to favoritism?
- We're not invited to a meeting, training, or opportunity and we're left questioning the reasons why
- We're denied resources, rewards, or the working conditions we requested (e.g., our preferred job tasks, schedule, assignments, bonuses and compensation)
- Our contributions go unacknowledged in team meetings and conversations
- We perceive we're held to a higher standard or level of accountability than our peers
Favoritism often gets the spotlight and called out as cronyism, nepotism, bias, or just plain unfairness. Even if we aren't directly affected, perceiving unfairness at work chips away at our buy-in to the organization's culture and mission. We start to question if leaders truly believe in something when they make so many decisions to the contrary. Not only do we start to doubt the values our organization espouses, but start to question our trust in leadership.
Lets think about a team where several of its members perceive favoritism. As they question who they can trust they reduce their effort accordingly. Collaboration and communication wanes as employees become reluctant to share ideas or work together. They fear that their contributions will not be given due credit. Over time, the lack of connection breaks down team cohesion. Mistakes become more frequent with less effort to prevent them from happening again.
We know nothing happens in a bubble. We share our experiences, and emotions, with others. We see this when we support organizations seeking to improve engagement, retention, and key performance indicators. Employees frequently talk about seeing favoritism, even if it hasn't impacted them personally. Root causes like lack of trust, unclear leadership, and poor communication quickly spread. To truly address favoritism, we need to understand what's causing these perceptions. So let's get into it.
The root causes of favoritism
Lack of clear direction and communication
We have good news and bad news. The good: most of what employees call out as favoritism wasn't an intentional. The bad: it still carries the same consequences. Most of the time poor communication and a lack of clear direction from leadership are to blame. If we don't understand why we're not receiving the same results and recognition for our performance as our peers, I may determine that decisions are made based on personal bias or choosing favorites. If we don't understand the criteria for promotions, scheduling, standards, rewards, or assignments, it's understandable we'll reach the conclusion that decisions are based on personal preferences rather than merit.
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash
The bright side is that favoritism caused by poor communication has more straightforward solutions.
- How clearly (and frequently) are expectations, goals, and performance metrics, communicated? Leaders must consistently convey expectations through intentional communication. We need to think strategically about daily communications, meetings, reports, and digital platforms, to ensure that all employees are on the same page.
- Are employees left to figure a lot on out there own through manuals, handbooks, and their peers? This ambiguity can result in some employees receiving more guidance and support simply because they have closer relationships with their supervisors and others 'in the know.' Others, who may not have the same level of access or rapport can feel neglected and undervalued.
- How expected and frequent is follow-up communication on priorities and progress? Frequent communication helps in reinforcing these expectations, allowing employees to adjust their efforts and strategies accordingly. Moreover, it fosters an environment of openness where employees feel informed and engaged, reducing the likelihood of misunderstanding.
Wondering what leadership blind spots could block your team's progress? Take our free assessment for clear direction on how to be a stronger leader.
Now, how often could lack of direction be the root cause of perceptions of unfairness and favoritism?
A few key data points tell us how frequently this happens -
- Alarmingly, only about half of the workforce feels confident they know what is expected of them.
- Nearly half believe their organization's methods for evaluating performance are unclear and unfair.
- We also know over two-thirds of us aren't getting enough feedback at work and want more direction, communication, and guidance from leadership.
When favoritism as a common complaint and key driver of low engagement and retention, it's most often that a lack of clarity, and cronyism or preferential treatment, is the cause. But these simple preventable mistakes carry a significant cost to both our workforce and achieving key results.
Lack of clear criteria and shared understanding of performance
We covered communication , but that's hard to execute if a definition of success, or criteria for how decisions are made, don't exist. When we lack a clear understanding of what performance looks like we can't communicate that consistently. This lack of objective criteria opens the door to partiality, as personal biases and preferences inadvertently influence judgments and decision-making. Even if we're not letting our own bias cloud decision-making, employees notice zig-zag changes in how we make decisions. How strong and embedded within your operations are these key frameworks?
- Goals and Objectives. What are the behaviors and key outcomes each team is working towards? If you have a strategy for the quarter, or even the year, do employees know how they are accountable to supporting the team in reaching it? By defining explicit performance metrics and expectations, we create a transparent framework that guides decision-making and evaluations. This makes it easy for employees understand the criteria for success, reducing frustrating ambiguity and the potential for subjective judgments. When goals are well-communicated and consistently applied, they foster an environment of fairness where contribution, rather than personal relationships, drives recognition and advancement.
- Cultural Core Beliefs and Values. Everything grows from your beliefs, values, and how you define success. Shared understanding is a powerful and basic way to reduce perceptions of unfairness. When we support organizations with culture we often support leaders in thinking about promises to and from employees. Once that's in place, promises to other stakeholders, like customers, vendors/partners, and community, are articulated.
- Competencies. What are the dimensions of performance for each major job group? Job groups could be clusters of roles, like individual contributors in a corporate setting, or production operators in manufacturing. Competencies put on paper the bundles of skills, ability, knowledge, and behaviors that define performance. Competency models outline the specific skills and behaviors required for each role, ensuring that all employees are evaluated against the same standards. This helps in setting clear expectations and provides a roadmap for professional development, allowing employees to understand what is needed to advance within the organization.
- Objective assessments for hiring and promotion. If performance is defined and competencies are in place, you're ready to build consistent and objective methods to assess potential in hiring and promotion. These further contribute to fairness by ensuring that recruitment decisions are based on candidates' abilities and potential rather than personal connections or biases. Assessments ensure employees possess the skills, abilities, and interests needed to thrive within the job and the culture. These assessments can include a variety of tools, such as skills tests, behavioral interviews, and situational judgment tests, which provide a comprehensive view of a candidate's suitability for a role.
- Structured Performance Feedback. When consistently executed, these programs offer a systematic approach to assessing employee performance. By using standardized criteria and regular feedback sessions, these reviews help eliminate subjective judgments and ensure that evaluations are based on actual performance rather than personal preferences. This not only enhances transparency but also builds trust among employees, as they can see that their efforts are being recognized and rewarded fairly.
- Open Communication. Providing channels for employees to voice concerns increases the odds we can find and resolving instances of favoritism. This can be achieved through regular feedback sessions, surveys, and leadership involvement for employees to express their concerns without fear of retaliation. Skip-level conversations, with the leader of the employee's immediate supervisor engaging them in conversation, often brings areas of concern forward. On a more scaled and formal level, 360-degree feedback captures the experiences and input across all types of connections and relationships with leaders. By actively listening to employees and taking their feedback seriously, organizations can address issues of favoritism promptly and effectively, ensuring that all employees feel valued and heard.
Photo by Memento Media on Unsplash
When we hear about preferential treatment or favoritism, most of the time missing communication and direction are at fault. So, what about when it is truly driven by a personal bias or preference not grounded in what's the health of the organization?
Mitigating True Favoritism
Tackling true favoritism, and personal preference in work teams, usually requires more than one solution. Why not start with education? Focused training and development for new leaders in how to make evidence-based decisions and communicate them to the team. We can't be aware of our potential for bias without understanding ourselves first. Leadership assessments, situational cases, and other support builds leadership self-awareness and equips them with the skills to recognize and manage their biases. New leaders may not recognize the slippery path to bad decisions. While tenured leaders know how important decisions and stress can lead us to choose who 'is most like us,' new leaders lack this experience.
Education and training can also support team-based decision-making and inclusion. The power of the perspectives of others can reduce the risk of a misguided decision. By demanding a culture of continuous learning and self-reflection, organizations empower leaders to create a more equitable environment. This approach also enhances transparency and accountability, as decisions are made collectively rather than unilaterally.
Lastly, assessments for hiring and promotion can highlight vulnerabilities in decision-making. For example, a potential leader high in agreeableness, a validated and often positive personality trait, may be more vulnerable to form personal bonds with employees that lead to less-than-productive cliques and unequal treatment. Leaders who underestimate risk, or struggle to understand and manage multiple perspectives at once, may also be prone to "go with what they know." While these qualities don't automatically prohibit a new hire or promotion, a well-designed assessment and structured interview process will equip leaders with an understanding of the strengths and opportunities of new leadership. Then individual assessment and interview results can inform new leader training and coaching.
To sum it all up, mitigating favoritism starts with awareness. By implementing these strategies, organizations can create a more inclusive and equitable environment that values diversity and promotes fairness.
Consequences of favoritism: legal and beyond
We've been talking about favoritism with the assumption that's it not rooted in protected characteristics like race, gender, or age. Clearly, decisions linked to a legally protected class places business is at risk of significant legal repercussions. In 2024, for example, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the case of a female St. Louis police officer, Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow. The officer was transferred from an intelligence unit to patrol but retained her rank and pay. The city argued the transfer wasn't discriminatory - there was no loss of pay, demotion, or firing. However, the Supreme Court asserted that a job change that causes even some unwanted harm or change to the terms and conditions of employment can be challenged.
Even when behaviors or decisions appear to lack any connection to a protected class, it may have one indirectly. For example, Officer Muldrow was replaced in the intelligence unit by a man. IT may only take allegations to lead to severe legal consequences for the organization. This could take the form of official legal action or employees and stakeholders questioning the human and moral goodness of an organization they once trusted.
Our motivation here is to highlight the harm, to both the humans at work and the organization, that stems from favoritism and the poor decisions surrounding it. It's often grounded in something preventable: missing or misguided systems, fast and faulty decision-making, and teams missing the resources, training and support they need to be successful.
If you took thirty seconds to think across the people you influence, what's one realistic change that would meaningfully increase perceptions of fairness and create easier and better decisions by leaders? What would happen if you made that change? If you don't?
