How favoritism divides a team

Different paths to the same manager

One person can walk into the office without an appointment and discuss an idea over coffee. Another may wait a week for a short meeting. One learns in advance that a new project will be created, while another learns about it after the roles are filled. The boss can think that they're just working well with an experienced employee. But the team is watching not only whom the manager likes, but also what follows from that preference. If personal closeness translates into access to opportunities, it becomes part of how work is organized, even when no one formally designed it that way. Leader–member exchange (LMX) research examines the quality of the relationship between a leader and individual employees. A separate question is how differences among those relationships affect within a team. A good relationship between a boss and one person and the proper functioning of the whole group are not the same question. A review by Martin and colleagues clarifies that distinction and the different meanings of differentiation. It cautions against assuming that developing a few selected relationships will automatically spread the benefits across the team. Martin et al., 2018However, not every difference in contact is unfair. A new person may need more frequent consultation, and an experienced employee may need more independence. Someone running a difficult project will talk to a manager more often than others for a while. The problem starts when the reason for preferential treatment remains unclear, and access to support depends primarily on personal closeness. So it's worth asking not only whether everyone gets the same amount of time, but whether everyone gets the conditions that are appropriate to their responsibilities. Equal treatment does not require an identical meeting schedule. It means being able to obtain the necessary information, a fair assessment and opportunities for development without belonging to the manager’s social circle.

Equal treatment does not require identical contact

A new person may need more frequent consultations, and an expert may need more autonomy. Imagine two employees with similar responsibilities. One responds quickly to a manager’s spontaneous ideas, while the other needs time to analyze them. A project manager will talk to a supervisor more often than someone working on a task on their own. These differences may be functional and do not have to be unfair, but you need to be able to explain their connection to the work. If the rationale is just that it's easier to get along with them, it's worth checking to see if the organization isn't rewarding similarity in style instead of the actual contribution and needs of the task. One responds quickly to the spontaneous ideas of the boss, the other needs time to analyze. If the first one regularly receives more interesting projects because they appear more enthusiastic, the difference in communication style can be mistaken for willingness to develop. The solution does not have to be the same number of minutes of contact. More important is giving both people a genuine opportunity to express interest, present an idea and receive feedback in a form that lets them demonstrate their competence.

The team tries to work out the rule

People observe what leads to privileges, because they make decisions about their own behavior based on that. If more trust is associated with knowledge, responsibility, and predictable criteria, you can see a path to a similar position. If it's associated with personal closeness, the path becomes unclear. An employee may conclude that effort is pointless or that seeking personal approval is the better investment. This is a practical account of the problem, not a claim that every group responds identically. A meta-analysis by Yu, Matta and Cornfield looks at the differentiation of relationships in terms of group performance, taking into account different mechanisms and conditions. It doesn't justify the simple saying that all differences always hurt or always help. It's important for a leader to look at the whole setup: the quality of the relationships, the basis of inequality, and the collaboration between employees. It's also a reason not to judge a situation solely on the basis that the person most trusted is doing well. Yu et al., 2018. For employees, it is also important to note the small signals that are visible during joint conversations. Does a manager allow one person to interrupt and immediately admonish the others? Is a similar mistake described once as an opportunity to learn and another a lack of responsibility? Such comparisons can affect the perception of the entire evaluation process. It is not enough to ensure that the manager values everyone. Decisions need to be explained by reference to the task, circumstances and agreed criteria. At the same time, the employee does not know all the confidential conditions of the other person's situation. Therefore, the conversation should be about your own access to support and observable principles rather than requiring disclosure of details about a colleague. Process transparency can be improved without violating anyone’s privacy.

How to tell whether personal preference is driving decisions

The supervisor can look at a few recent decisions: who was offered a development assignment, whose idea received attention, who he helped remove the obstacle, and who he presented to an important partner. It's not about a mechanical equalization of all the benefits. It's about noticing the pattern and seeing if it can be explained by professional criteria. It's also worth considering people who rarely initiate contact. A lack of spontaneous conversation is not reliable evidence of limited ambition, engagement or need for support. An employee who feels outside the circle of trust can name a specific need: 'I would like to get information about projects before a decision is made.' This is usually more useful than just making a general accusation of favoritism. If the problem is about constantly unequal opportunities, it is worth asking for clear criteria and reviewing how those criteria are applied the next time. A one-off assurance that “I treat everyone the same” will change little without observable practice.

A professional minimum for everyone

The team needs a common foundation: access to the information needed to do the job, the ability to raise a problem, substantive feedback and respect. Personal chemistry may vary, but these elements should not depend on it. Regular conversations help, as do, open reporting on opportunities and documenting important arrangements outside private channels. It is also important to clearly define the role of the most trusted people. They should not become informal gatekeepers to the boss unless it is their responsibility and transparent operating principles. A good test of change is whether people who are less similar to the leader are beginning to take advantage of real opportunities. Just inviting them to an extra coffee meeting will not equal access to projects. It's worth looking at who gets the information in advance, who is offered development assignments, and whether the selection criteria are understandable. You can also ask employees what kind of contact they need instead of imposing one style of relationship building. Someone who dislikes unstructured conversation may benefit from a short, prepared meeting. The manager's responsibility is to create multiple ways to collaborate, and he doesn't have to feel the same affection for everyone, but he should notice when personal ease of contact begins to determine career opportunities.

A leader can have different relationships with people and continue to build a fair team. A condition is to check that personal closeness doesn't turn into an informal system of sharing opportunities. The key question is, does everyone understand the rules and have a real opportunity to get the support they need for their work?

Using Empatyzer to build fair relationships within a team

Empatyzer can help a manager look at relationships that require more conscious attention from them. A comparison shows the differences between two people's available profiles, and it can make it easier to understand why a spontaneous style of contact does not work equally well for everyone. The Your leadership style feature provides an additional starting point for reflecting on the manager’s own tendencies. In Talk to Em about a specific person, the manager can then prepare questions about the support, autonomy and form of contact the employee needs. The goal is to match communication, not to justify unequal treatment of an employee's attributes. Empatyzer does not audit decisions about promotions and does not automatically detect favoritism. The manager still has to check the actual division of tasks and opportunities. The tool can support a conversation with a person whose perspective they have rarely sought, and help formulate principles of cooperation in a way that is understandable to the whole team.