Favoritism at Work

Introduction

In an ideal world, success is the byproduct of hard work, performance, and skill. However, in many modern organizations particularly within the unique cultural landscape of Sri Lanka decisions are not always merit based. Often, employees are treated differently due to personal relationships, school ties, or internal politics. This is workplace favoritism, and it is a silent predator of organizational health.

What is Favoritism?

Favoritism occurs when managers grant special treatments such as promotions, choice assignments, or rewards to certain employees based on personal bias rather than objective performance. While it may seem like a localized issue, research indicates it can cause systemic damage to both the individual and the collective.

The Sri Lankan Reality

In Sri Lanka, where interpersonal relationships and hierarchy are pillars of the social structure, favoritism can often be normalized. This is often seen through:

• Preferring employees from the same hometown or social circle.
• The "Old Boys’ Club" mentality where school loyalty outweighs professional KPIs.
• A culture that rarely questions authority, allowing biased decisions to go unchallenged.

 Why It Hurts?

 To understand the damage, we must look at two core psychological theories. Favoritism
 can be clearly explained using.

Equity Theory- Proposed by J. Stacy Adams,

This theory suggests that employees compare their input (effort, skills) with outputs (rewards, recognition). When employees feel that others are receiving unfair advantages, they experience dissatisfaction and demotivation. This is quite common in workplaces where favoritism exists.

Another important concept is Organizational Justice, which focuses on fairness in the workplace. It includes:

• Distributive justice (fair rewards)
• Procedural justice (fair processes)
• Interactional justice (respectful treatment)

In Sri Lanka, helping a "known person" is often seen as a social duty or a sign of loyalty to one's community. This creates a conflict where a manager may feel they are being a "good person" by helping a friend, while simultaneously being a "bad manager" by violating procedural justice.

Sri Lanka has a high "Power Distance" index. This means subordinates are culturally conditioned to respect authority without question. Therefore, even when favoritism is obvious, the "fear of retaliation" or cultural norms prevent the feedback loops necessary to stop it. This turns a localized bias into a systemic organizational habit.

When favoritism occurs, all three types of justice are affected. Employees begin to feel that the system is unfair, which reduces trust in management.

Research strongly supports these ideas. A recent study found that beliefs of favoritism reduce employee trust, commitment, and willingness to contribute to the organization. Similarly, another study shows that favoritism leads to lower job satisfaction, increased cynicism, and weaker organizational performance. In some cases, employees may even consider leaving the organization. A 2025 study confirms that favoritism increases turnover intention, especially when employees feel that rewards are not distributed fairly.

In Sri Lanka, this can be seen in both private and public sector organizations. For example, an employee who consistently performs well may be overlooked for promotion, while another employee with closer ties to management is promoted. Over time, this creates frustration, reduces motivation, and weakens team spirit.

However, it is important to understand that favoritism does not always happen intentionally. Sometimes, managers trust employees they are familiar with, which can lead to unconscious bias. Research also suggests that strong emotional attachment to the organization can make employees ignore or justify unfair practices.

To reduce favoritism, organizations must take practical steps. First, they should implement transparent HR policies, especially in recruitment, promotions, and performance evaluation. Second, managers should be trained to recognize and control personal bias. Third, organizations should encourage open communication so employees can raise concerns without fear.

 Conclusion

Addressing favoritism is not just an ethical requirement; it is a business necessity. By moving away from personality based management toward a culture of transparency and ethical leadership, Sri Lankan organizations can unlock the true potential of their workforce and build a more productive, loyal, and innovative environment.

References

• Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E.L. and Daniels, S.R. (2021) ‘Justice at the workplace: A review of fairness theories and their impact on employee outcomes’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(3), pp. 321–345.

• Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H., 1984. Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach's value survey. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 15(4), pp.417-433.

• Islam, T., Ali, M. and Ahmed, I. (2022) ‘Understanding the impact of perceived favoritism on employee outcomes: The mediating role of organizational justice’, Journal of Management Development, 41(5), pp. 412–428.

• Khan, M.A. and Noor, S. (2023) ‘Favoritism in organizations: Causes, consequences and mitigation strategies’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(2), pp. 567–584.

•  Marescaux, E., De Winne, S. and Sels, L. (2021) ‘HR practices and employee performance: The role of fairness and trust’, Human Resource Management Journal, 31(1), pp. 262–279.

• Nguyen, P.V., Tran, K.T. and Nguyen, T.T. (2024) ‘Workplace relationships and their influence on perceived fairness and employee engagement’, Employee Relations: The International Journal, 46(1), pp. 89–105.

• Rasool, S.F., Wang, M. and Tang, M. (2022) ‘How toxic workplace environment effects employee engagement: The mediating role of organizational support and employee well-being’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), pp. 1–15.

• Sarfraz, M., Qun, W. and Abdullah, M.I. (2025) ‘Impact of workplace favoritism on turnover intention: The role of organizational justice’, Journal of Business and Management Research, 14(1), pp. 45–60.