Dear Joan:

I work for a large company that has favoritism issues and a committee was formed to resolve it. We met four times and submitted our charter for the team. Then, with the announcement of some big organizational changes (the company was split), we were told to put everything on hold. We have some questions:

Could favoritism be a form of discrimination?
What can be done when it goes on and everyone can see it?
I believe favoritism violates ethic policies. What can be done?
Management level favoritism, what can be done?


Answer:

A fish rots from the head down. Management favoritism is one way the deterioration can start. Why a committee was formed to resolve it is perplexing to me. Since favoritism is a management action, in which some employees receive unequal treatment, I don't see how a committee was ever going to solve it.

Favoritism needs to be dealt with by senior management and HR For example, if a few people always seem to get higher performance reviews, more money, better projects and/or better perks, and objective evidence points to the fact that their real work output doesn't warrant it, complaints will typically be made and an investigation should ensue.

Even if complaints are not made, most HR professionals who are involved with a department will unearth favoritism without much effort. The symptoms are pretty obviousthe same people are in the boss's office chatting, perhaps they socialize outside of work, or, their work doesn't get the same level of scrutiny. Or, when a position opens up, the boss wants to put her loyal employee in the job, rather than opening it up to more qualified candidates.

In most large companies like yours, this sort of rot starts to smell and it attracts an army of HR attention. Companies don't want to be sued by someone who felt they were not given the same opportunities, money, perks or jobs that a favored person was given.


If your company felt that the committee approach was best for solving rampant favoritism, it suggests that either senior management:


Didn't realize there was a problem and wanted evidence, instead of random, vague complaints, and was hoping the group could produce some objective data.

Didn't care much about the complaints, and was hoping the committee approach would cause the whole thing to die a natural death and go away

Had big organizational issues going on with the split of the company and was using the committee as an attempt to put their finger in the dyke, while bigger fish were being fried.

Or, senior management is blind to the problem because they are part of the problem.

If your company is really serious about inconsistent treatment, it needs to confront the worst offenders and clearly spell out the rules of balanced and fair treatment. Then those leaders need to be monitored and measured, to make sure their decision-making is based on the best interests of the company, the team, the customer and the individual. This can be done through a variety of HR facilitated activities.

HR can interview the team members and work with the manager to be more consistent, for example, in the way policies are administered.

Talent reviews can be done, with all the peer managers together, to hear everyone's input about the performance and effectiveness of their collective employee group.

Upward evaluations and 360-degree feedback processes can be used to get input about the boss's practices in a confidential way.

Peer input into performance reviews will often surface the observations from other managers regarding inconsistent leadership styles.

Let's hope that once the organization settles down from its current reorganization, the senior leaders will take a serious look at the culture and make some changes for the better.


Joan Lloyd is an executive coach, management consultant, facilitator and professional trainer/speaker.  Email your question to Joan at info@joanlloyd.com.  Joan Lloyd & Associates, (800) 348-1944, Visit www.JoanLloyd.com Joan Lloyd & Associates, Inc.