June 26, 2024
©fizkes via Canva.com
Is Playing Favorites All That Bad?
“Don’t play favorites” is commonly espoused wisdom, but a university study finds some positives in certain circumstances in the practice.
“Favoritism is a double-edged sword,” said Haoying (Howie) Xu, an assistant professor of management at Stevens Institute of Technology and lead study author, in a statement. “It can be harmful to team dynamics, but in the right circumstances it can also help organizations to succeed.”
The study analyzed the dynamics of employees and supervisors of 200 different Chinese companies across different industries, encompassing over 1,100 employees.
Teams that were already well structured were found to perform worse and were more likely to have disagreements and conflict when bosses played favorites. Researchers reasoned that under more structured organizations, employees properly aligned in positions of authority based on their skill sets helped drive performance levels.
On the other hand, less structured teams with a biased boss ended up doing better across the entire study because leadership biases create structure and help employees work together more effectively.
“When teams lack obvious hierarchies, it helps if the boss sends clear signals about who’s on top and who is expected to take a more subordinate role,” said Xu. “The key point is that playing favorite has clear positive and negative effects, so leaders need to ensure they’re paying attention to how their favoritism is affecting their team.”
In a follow-up Harvard Business Review article, Xu and two other contributing writers noted that Xu’s research shows playing favorites can inspire others on the team. They wrote, “If the ‘boss’s favorite’ is perceived as expressing authentic rather than hubristic pride, researchers found that witnessing favoritism could actually motivate other employees to improve and build stronger relationships themselves.”
However, much of the research on favoritism has focused solely on its negative impacts on the workplace, with much of the advice focused on reducing favoritism.
A study from Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University based on a survey found that employees “not only deemed favoritism as a form of workplace injustice/unfairness, but also reacted to favoritism behaviors with negative emotions toward the organization, less loyalty to the company, less job satisfaction, stronger intentions to quit the job, less work motivation, and more emotional exhaustion.”
In an interview with Harvard Business Review, Ginka Toegel, professor of organizational behavior and leadership at IMD Business School in Lausanne, Switzerland, said that when unfavorites “feel undervalued, underappreciated, demotivated,” they “perceive the work environment as toxic” and the company risks reputational damage and heavy turnover costs.
Toegel wrote in an HBR article, “Tremendous opportunity lies in learning to better manage your out-group. Even a modest increase in consideration, coaching, and appreciation can boost productivity, well-being, and cohesion.”
BrainTrust
David Biernbaum
Founder & President, David Biernbaum & Associates LLC
Georganne Bender
Principal, KIZER & BENDER Speaking
Jamie Tenser
Retail Tech Marketing Strategist | B2B Expert Storytelling™ Guru | President, VSN Media LLC
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Does favoritism pack some value in certain cases or is it generally a major disrupter to an organization’s performance?
Can playing favorites be eradicated within an organization or should the goal be having it managed given its link to human nature?
What advice would you have about reducing favoritism for managers?
Poll
Loading …
Employees should be treated equally and fairly. Opportunities must be offered to everyone, rules should be equally applied, training and resources must be accessible by all. However, performance will never be equal. Some people will shine more than others, some have more talent, others work harder. It is reasonable for management to help those that want to get on to do so. It’s really about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
I think we have a clear semantics problem: tho I didn’t read the study, Tom’s piece leaves me with the distinct impression that it defined “playing favorites” as as being what most of would call giving stucture to or simply organizing.(“John, you’re the leader here.”) But that isn’t how I – and I’m thinking most of us – think of the term; it’s equated with arbitrariness and discrimination. Certainly that doesn’t have an upside. And at the risk of seeming like a xenophobe, I’m leery about applying lessons from (what seems to be entirely) a group of Chinese companies outside that country.
Thanks, Tom! We desperately needed another log in the management vs labor fire!
The article admits that the topic of favoritism is often studied with a negative bias which means that the favoritism is not objective. In that case, the unfavored would have to be oblivious or uninterested not to be demoralized and unmotivated.
In the case of an environment where people are justly and objectively rewarded for performance then wouldn’t favoritism be just like the higher salaries commanded by elite athletes and the favoritism we all show in buying their jerseys more than the “unfavored” (or paying thousands of dollars for Swift tickets)?
So, don’t reduce favoritism if it’s an objective consequence of performance (and not over the top). However, if it isn’t “objective,” make it your life’s mission to abolish it wherever you have the power to do so. Almost as simple as solving world hunger and achieving world peace!
Does anyone else remember the motivational tool that was popular in the 80s that became infamous? Companies would host fancy dinners at the end of each quarter. The team that did well would enjoy expensive steak dinners, but those who didn’t meet expectations were served paper plates of beans and franks. It was supposed to be funny but it backfired, demotivating both teams.
I don’t care what the survey says, playing favorites is never a good idea.
The term “playing favorites” has a rather awful semantic downside, which taints the research being discussed here. Nobody likes a teacher’s pet. But it can be healthy to celebrate high achievers for their efforts and contributions to team success. Merit matters.
As a cranky old boomer, I must admit that I have uttered a few wry remarks about “participation trophies” and other superficial, non-competitive acknowledgements. I think recipients of such hollow praise are being robbed of motivation.
When someone on the team stands out – in a good way – for their efforts, it is OK to give them a pat on the back. It is always appropriate to celebrate team wins. If someone struggles or underperforms, it’s best to address this in private and search for pathways to help them meet their fullest potential.
What is never right is a manager who openly calls out a personal favorite staffer, or even worse, compares others to them.
In the private sector, where the game-objective is to make profits, it’s human nature to favor the people that I feel are helping me accomplish my objectives.
The obvious objective is to make money but secondary objectives might be who makes me comfortable, who services me the best, who do I feel I can talk to, rely on, count on, etc.
As someone who has led consumer goods businesses for decades, I will never deny that I had, and still have, favorites. For me its mostly based on performance, loyalty, and trust.
Avoiding favoritism is a good policy for teachers, umpires, IRs agents, judges, and police officers, but not so much in private sector businesses. -Db
Thoughtful comment.
Interesting. I think this is the truth. It is human nature to have favorites. You have to be fair to all, but it doesn’t change human nature.
Employees must be treated equally. Period.
My experience with groups is that leaders naturally emerge. So do those who think they’re wiser than others by talking too much. A good manager ensures the voices of those who can contribute and elevate the discussion are given the opportunity to do so. Some may think that’s bias. I call it leadership.
A good manager learns what motivates individuals and uses that knowledge to help each employee succeed. Nothing good comes from an employee believing that one is helpless to improve one’s standing/position which is often the outcome of favoritism. Acknowledging accomplishments and challenging for growth are very powerful and positive management tools – praise and raise the bar.
Celebrating star employees’ achievements can help the whole team understand what the organization values. Yet when leaders consistently allocate their attention and appreciation in a lopsided manner, the less favored disengage and boost attrition rates.
Is somebody’s 1st among equals status based on performance, or is it in spite of performance…??? If it’s earned based on performance, it’s not favoritism, it’s…earned. Pretty simple. The person worked hard, set a good example, got results, and became a go-to subordinate for the boss. People will accept that, and hopefully take a lesson for their own behavior and performance. If somebody is given that same go-to status in spite of their lackluster performance, that’s favoritism. The boss and their go-to designate will immediately lose respect. Morale will decline. Performance will decline. Turnover will increase. Favoritism is not hard to spot. In fact, it’s easy to see from a mile away. The persons showing and receiving the favoritism are rationalizing…lying…to themselves, and everybody else. Fire the boss showing favoritism…sooner than later.
When you’re talking parenting, favoritism is unwelcome even though it exists in many families. However, in a business setting, “favoritism” is not to be confused with rewarding high performers — with bigger raises, promotions, more responsibility and so forth. When these rewards lapse into personal likes and dislikes…that’s another story, and bound to cause dysfunction on the team.
Favoritism is not a good look for retailers or any other organization. It has a connotation of an uneven playing field, not being fair and can create a frustrating and even toxic work environment. Favoritism may even result in higher turnover.
A better way is to aspire to be a data driven organization in the metrics related to employee performance. Using data or evidence of successful progression of a skill set to recognize employees is a great way to demonstrate the importance of learning and growing skills. Most employees are motivated with recognition based on legitimate things that they have done.
Playing favorites is a slippery slope where many managers play but not very well.
It’s clear that favorites create friction in structured teams but managers of structured teams are still engaged in the game.
Favoritism is a glaringly obvious behavior that is harmful to teams and breeds distrust with managers. If you are not a favorite, it may seem that no matter what you do, it won’t be good enough. How can employees perform well in that environment? Managers are liable for this practice but bear no responsibility for the repercussions. In structured organizations, this is often a trickled down practice from the c-suite to middle management. Due to human tendencies, it’s not likely to change anytime soon.
If employees find themselves on a favorites-dominate team, they should not take it personal and accept that’s the manager’s style, and not a reflection of the employees skill or ability. Then, look for another team where the dynamics are more agreeable to each individual’s success.
More Discussions
Does McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski Deserve the Grilling Over His Big Arch Promo?
Does McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinksi deserve the social media criticism over his Big Arch promo?Will Target’s Latest Turnaround Plan, Under New CEO Michael Fiddelke, Revive Growth?
Michael Fiddelke has a gargantuan task set for him. Will his efforts succeed?Will a Hybrid Pharmacist Role Help Solve Labor Issues for Walgreens?
Will a Hybrid Pharmacist Role Help Solve Labor Issues for Walgreens?
Employees should be treated equally and fairly. Opportunities must be offered to everyone, rules should be equally applied, training and resources must be accessible by all. However, performance will never be equal. Some people will shine more than others, some have more talent, others work harder. It is reasonable for management to help those that want to get on to do so. It’s really about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
I think we have a clear semantics problem: tho I didn’t read the study, Tom’s piece leaves me with the distinct impression that it defined “playing favorites” as as being what most of would call giving stucture to or simply organizing.(“John, you’re the leader here.”) But that isn’t how I – and I’m thinking most of us – think of the term; it’s equated with arbitrariness and discrimination. Certainly that doesn’t have an upside. And at the risk of seeming like a xenophobe, I’m leery about applying lessons from (what seems to be entirely) a group of Chinese companies outside that country.
Thanks, Tom! We desperately needed another log in the management vs labor fire!
The article admits that the topic of favoritism is often studied with a negative bias which means that the favoritism is not objective. In that case, the unfavored would have to be oblivious or uninterested not to be demoralized and unmotivated.
In the case of an environment where people are justly and objectively rewarded for performance then wouldn’t favoritism be just like the higher salaries commanded by elite athletes and the favoritism we all show in buying their jerseys more than the “unfavored” (or paying thousands of dollars for Swift tickets)?
So, don’t reduce favoritism if it’s an objective consequence of performance (and not over the top). However, if it isn’t “objective,” make it your life’s mission to abolish it wherever you have the power to do so. Almost as simple as solving world hunger and achieving world peace!
Does anyone else remember the motivational tool that was popular in the 80s that became infamous? Companies would host fancy dinners at the end of each quarter. The team that did well would enjoy expensive steak dinners, but those who didn’t meet expectations were served paper plates of beans and franks. It was supposed to be funny but it backfired, demotivating both teams.
I don’t care what the survey says, playing favorites is never a good idea.
The term “playing favorites” has a rather awful semantic downside, which taints the research being discussed here. Nobody likes a teacher’s pet. But it can be healthy to celebrate high achievers for their efforts and contributions to team success. Merit matters.
As a cranky old boomer, I must admit that I have uttered a few wry remarks about “participation trophies” and other superficial, non-competitive acknowledgements. I think recipients of such hollow praise are being robbed of motivation.
When someone on the team stands out – in a good way – for their efforts, it is OK to give them a pat on the back. It is always appropriate to celebrate team wins. If someone struggles or underperforms, it’s best to address this in private and search for pathways to help them meet their fullest potential.
What is never right is a manager who openly calls out a personal favorite staffer, or even worse, compares others to them.
In the private sector, where the game-objective is to make profits, it’s human nature to favor the people that I feel are helping me accomplish my objectives.
The obvious objective is to make money but secondary objectives might be who makes me comfortable, who services me the best, who do I feel I can talk to, rely on, count on, etc.
As someone who has led consumer goods businesses for decades, I will never deny that I had, and still have, favorites. For me its mostly based on performance, loyalty, and trust.
Avoiding favoritism is a good policy for teachers, umpires, IRs agents, judges, and police officers, but not so much in private sector businesses. -Db
Thoughtful comment.
Interesting. I think this is the truth. It is human nature to have favorites. You have to be fair to all, but it doesn’t change human nature.
Employees must be treated equally. Period.
My experience with groups is that leaders naturally emerge. So do those who think they’re wiser than others by talking too much. A good manager ensures the voices of those who can contribute and elevate the discussion are given the opportunity to do so. Some may think that’s bias. I call it leadership.
A good manager learns what motivates individuals and uses that knowledge to help each employee succeed. Nothing good comes from an employee believing that one is helpless to improve one’s standing/position which is often the outcome of favoritism. Acknowledging accomplishments and challenging for growth are very powerful and positive management tools – praise and raise the bar.
Celebrating star employees’ achievements can help the whole team understand what the organization values. Yet when leaders consistently allocate their attention and appreciation in a lopsided manner, the less favored disengage and boost attrition rates.
Is somebody’s 1st among equals status based on performance, or is it in spite of performance…??? If it’s earned based on performance, it’s not favoritism, it’s…earned. Pretty simple. The person worked hard, set a good example, got results, and became a go-to subordinate for the boss. People will accept that, and hopefully take a lesson for their own behavior and performance. If somebody is given that same go-to status in spite of their lackluster performance, that’s favoritism. The boss and their go-to designate will immediately lose respect. Morale will decline. Performance will decline. Turnover will increase. Favoritism is not hard to spot. In fact, it’s easy to see from a mile away. The persons showing and receiving the favoritism are rationalizing…lying…to themselves, and everybody else. Fire the boss showing favoritism…sooner than later.
When you’re talking parenting, favoritism is unwelcome even though it exists in many families. However, in a business setting, “favoritism” is not to be confused with rewarding high performers — with bigger raises, promotions, more responsibility and so forth. When these rewards lapse into personal likes and dislikes…that’s another story, and bound to cause dysfunction on the team.
Favoritism is not a good look for retailers or any other organization. It has a connotation of an uneven playing field, not being fair and can create a frustrating and even toxic work environment. Favoritism may even result in higher turnover.
A better way is to aspire to be a data driven organization in the metrics related to employee performance. Using data or evidence of successful progression of a skill set to recognize employees is a great way to demonstrate the importance of learning and growing skills. Most employees are motivated with recognition based on legitimate things that they have done.
Playing favorites is a slippery slope where many managers play but not very well.
It’s clear that favorites create friction in structured teams but managers of structured teams are still engaged in the game.
Favoritism is a glaringly obvious behavior that is harmful to teams and breeds distrust with managers. If you are not a favorite, it may seem that no matter what you do, it won’t be good enough. How can employees perform well in that environment? Managers are liable for this practice but bear no responsibility for the repercussions. In structured organizations, this is often a trickled down practice from the c-suite to middle management. Due to human tendencies, it’s not likely to change anytime soon.
If employees find themselves on a favorites-dominate team, they should not take it personal and accept that’s the manager’s style, and not a reflection of the employees skill or ability. Then, look for another team where the dynamics are more agreeable to each individual’s success.