Let’s talk about favoritism:
Yes, he’s still out there and he’s a leadership and moral killer. It is natural for leaders to have people they enjoy working with more than others, but this can never be a justification for special privileges or failure to consistently apply account capabilities. It is a very sensitive concern for employees when it exists in the culture and needs to be addressed and eliminated.
The manager often fails to acknowledge injustice or is misunderstood by employees. For example, differences in job functions require differences in policy. Sales teams live with different expectations and policies than production teams. While injustice and equality are not synonymous, the perception of injustice even in these cases stems from the same fundamental cause: the unequal distribution of freedom.
When people go to work, they give up certain freedoms and generally accept them without complaint. They cannot leave their workplace if they want to walk or visit a friend, have lunch whenever they want, maybe listen to music or attend their children’s school functions if they want to, etc. These freedoms are given up as part of the bargain for a living. However, if some are asked to give up their freedoms when others in the same work area are allowed to keep them, it is an injustice that people will rebel against and, if allowed by management, it will be experienced as favoritism. .
During a recent training, the problem of perceived unfairness arose because office staff could get to work after normal start time without consequences, but production workers were responsible for tardiness. We first established that the job functions were different and were duly supported by this difference in policy. One leader expressed frustration at the degree of concern and agitation his production workers were expressing about this and said, “What’s the problem? If someone comes a few minutes later, let them go. Why all this drama?” As a leader, of course, he was not expected to set a clock, and therefore he was not experiencing what his production staff were, which made this a touchy subject for them: the unequal loss of freedom in responsibility. for punctuality.
Legitimate differences in policies can be perceived as unfair and create the same discomfort as actual injustice, unless a strong business reason for doing so is provided and repeated. The resolution in this case was for the leader to explain to his staff the reasons behind differences due to job function and that all employees have the right to expect workers within similar work areas to be equally responsible for the policies that best They support working in that area.
Sometimes the leader does not acknowledge acts of injustice when he allows them and would be surprised to hear his employees accuse him of favoritism. In one case, smokers were allowed more breaks than non-smokers to attend to their physical cravings. In fact, this is unfair, but the manager was conditional on smokers needing more smoke breaks as normal and therefore did not consider it an act of favoritism, which his non-smoking employees reasonably did. As a result, he was unhappy and did not respond to complaints about smokers receiving more than twice as many breaks as the others and considered their discomfort to be negligible. Favoritism may be invisible to us, but dazzling to those who experience it.
Then there is the manager who actually has favorites whom he knowingly allows more privileges than others. This can be based on the relationships that were developed before being promoted to a leadership position or on special friendships that grow as a leader. It can also occur when the leader avoids dealing with an employee who intimidates him and allows behaviors that he would not tolerate from employees with whom he is most comfortable. Anyway, I think that willful injustice with the desire to be unfair to disadvantaged employees is very rare.
When favoritism occurs, I would suggest that employees should have open communication channels to jump the chain of command and be able to speak to HR or their boss’s boss. Their identities must be kept confidential from the accused manager, but they must be willing to identify themselves in their complaint so that the leadership can manage the use of this communication channel given the potential for false accusations. Leaders should investigate these reports carefully. If the evidence confirms favoritism, they should set clear expectations for ethical leadership behaviors by the manager and then follow up with both the manager and the reporting employee to ensure continued change. Of course, they must vigorously protect the whistleblower from repercussions from anywhere.
Leaders can be unfair even when they don’t mean to. It would be so much easier if the unjust manager were a grumpy storybook villain we could easily spot conspiring to bestow opulent gifts on his favorites while breaking the hearts and wills of others. We all have to be more vigilant in observing injustice in our own actions because what we may see as reasonable on our side may be unfair to others. Let’s make sure that a lack of awareness doesn’t allow for a favoritism that we would never intentionally bring to our employees.
Exercise: Ask for feedback from trusted employees who are close and not so close to you. Ask them about their experience with your leadership and, in this case, about any signs of favoritism. Do not immediately respond to their comments or explain any of their behavior. No matter what they say, be receptive, curious, dig deep with questions to fully understand, take notes, and thank them. Give yourself time to digest their words and contemplate their validity that might not be immediately apparent. Then inform them by identifying the areas of change that you will be committing to as a result of their feedback. Be brave, what you can learn through this kind of humility will become the backbone of your integrity.
Copyright 2008 Rick Piraino