Playing Favorites

Playing Favorites Infographic

This visual summarizes the leader myths, the reality of "Nepotism Lite," the transparency system that levels the field, and practical advice for people outside the informal in-group. Click the thumbnail to enlarge it.

Playing Favorites

The War Story

Everyone at Meridian Group knew that if someone wanted a choice project assignment, they needed to be on Derek's radar. Derek was not corrupt. He was sociable, well-intentioned, and genuinely enthusiastic about developing people. The problem was his working definition of "his people."

In practice, Derek's people were the four or five direct reports who grabbed lunch with him, laughed at his jokes, shared his taste in sports teams, and sounded a lot like Derek himself. Others, including Priya, Marcus, and several quieter contributors, kept delivering solid work while the interesting opportunities went somewhere else.

The AI strategy project went to Jake, who had been on the team only eight months. The client-facing presentations went to Courtney, whom Derek called "just a natural." When Priya asked about the criteria for project selection, Derek said something vague about "reading the team's strengths" and moved on.

Within eighteen months, Priya had accepted an offer with a competitor. Marcus stopped raising his hand for anything. Three exit interviews in a row mentioned lack of opportunity. Derek was puzzled. He thought the team had a great culture.

Name the Failure: Nepotism Lite

Corporate favoritism rarely looks like the cartoon version: the boss's nephew getting hired despite being unqualified or the CEO promoting a college roommate. That kind of favoritism is visible, scandalous, and sometimes illegal.

Nepotism Lite is subtler. It is the consistent, often unconscious pattern of directing opportunities, visibility, flexibility, mentorship, and grace toward a preferred subset of the team based on personal comfort, similarity, and social ease rather than merit.

It operates through small decisions that are individually explainable but collectively obvious:

• The same two or three people get high-visibility projects.
• Some employees get latitude when they make mistakes while others get immediate scrutiny.
• Informal feedback and mentorship flow to the in-group while others wait for formal reviews.
• Credit is attributed unevenly; favorites get public praise while others are folded into "team" wins.
• Flexibility, remote work, schedule grace, and other perks are easier for some people to access.

Each choice can be defended in isolation. Together they form a pattern, and patterns communicate more loudly than stated values about fairness.

Why It Persists: The Comfort of the Familiar

Favoritism persists because human beings are wired for in-group affinity. Leaders tend to trust people who remind them of themselves, enjoy people who are easy to be around, equate social ease with competence, and confuse visibility with output.

There is also a structural amplifier. The in-group has no incentive to say anything. The out-group has learned that naming the pattern may create risk. Senior leaders often do not see the pattern until attrition makes it undeniable.

What Favoritism Actually Costs

Strong non-favorite performers often leave first because they have options. Those who stay disengage. Innovation narrows because ideas travel through trust networks, and those networks become too small. Diversity initiatives stall because Nepotism Lite frequently correlates with demographic similarity inside the preferred group.

When a manager who plays favorites eventually leaves, they often leave behind a team that has forgotten how to advocate for itself. The formal org chart may look intact, but the team has already learned which voices count and which ones do not.

The Transparency System: Four Mechanisms That Level the Field

The antidote to favoritism is not forced equality. People's work is not identical, and development opportunities should not be allocated randomly. The antidote is structured transparency: make the criteria and distribution visible enough that favoritism has nowhere quiet to hide.

Mechanism 1: Write Down the Criteria Before You Decide

Opportunity allocation often happens inside a leader's head. Someone needs to lead a client presentation, a name surfaces, and the choice becomes final before the criteria are clear.

Before assigning a significant opportunity, write down the two or three criteria that matter: senior leadership visibility, technical skill, current workload, development need, customer exposure, availability, or readiness. Decide what matters before deciding who gets it.

"For this assignment, what matters most is: (1) ___, (2) ___, (3) ___. Based on these criteria, I am assigning it to ___ because ___."

If the last blank feels contrived, the leader may not have criteria yet. They may have a preference.

Mechanism 2: Track Opportunity Distribution Visibly

Keep a simple running log of who receives stretch assignments, client-facing opportunities, speaking slots, mentorship time, public recognition, and flexibility accommodations. Review it quarterly. The raw data does not need to be public to the team, but it must be visible to the leader.

Mechanism 3: Make Opportunity Accessible, Not Just Available

Announcing that anyone can raise their hand is not enough. Raising a hand requires confidence that the hand will be seen. In a team where selection patterns are obvious, many people stop volunteering because the outcome feels predetermined.

Accessibility is proactive. It means approaching quieter contributors and asking what they would need to feel ready for a visible assignment. It means rotating visibility based on readiness and growth, not only on social proximity. It means making the path legible.

Availability without accessibility is an opportunity that exists only on paper.

Mechanism 4: Audit Your Informal Attention

Much of Nepotism Lite lives in daily texture: who the leader stops to chat with, whose ideas get expanded in meetings, and who receives the benefit of the doubt when something slips.

At the end of each week, spend two minutes asking three questions:

• Who did I give substantive feedback or coaching to this week?
• Whose work did I recognize publicly or privately?
• Who have I not spoken with meaningfully in more than two weeks?

If certain names never appear in the first two questions but always appear in the third, that is not a coincidence. It is a pattern, and it belongs to the leader to correct.

The Deeper Issue: Similarity Bias and Who Gets Seen

Favoritism often correlates with demographic patterns because the in-group tends to reflect the leader's background, communication style, and cultural references. Most leaders are not intentionally excluding people. But intent does not erase impact.

A transparency system helps because it moves decision-making from intuition to criteria. Criteria can be examined. "I just have a feeling about Jake" cannot. When a leader must articulate why someone is getting an opportunity, they create space to ask whether the same reasoning would hold if the person were someone else.

A Word for the Out-Group: What to Do When the Field Is Not Level

Many readers have been on the receiving end of favoritism. These steps do not excuse the leader's responsibility, but they can help people protect their careers when the playing field is uneven.

• Make your work visible, specifically. Send brief written updates when you complete meaningful work so accomplishment does not depend on social proximity.
• Name what you want explicitly. "I would like to be considered for projects like X" is more actionable than hoping the manager notices.
• Build lateral relationships. Create visibility with peers, cross-functional partners, mentors, and leaders outside the direct chain.
• Name the pattern carefully and to the right person. If the pattern does not shift, a specific, behavioral conversation with the manager may be appropriate. If that fails, HR or a skip-level conversation may be necessary.

Not every favoritism problem is fixable from inside a team. Some managers lack the self-awareness to see the pattern even when it is named. In those cases, a lateral move or a different team may be the wiser career decision. Staying in a rigged game and playing harder rarely beats finding a different table.

Quick Reference: The Anti-Favoritism System at a Glance

The Bottom Line

Derek did not think he was playing favorites. He thought he was building a team. In a narrow sense, he was, but not the team he was supposed to be leading. He was building a team of people who were comfortable to be around while the rest of the actual team quietly concluded that the game was not worth playing.

Priya's exit interview made the pattern plain: she never felt like her work carried the same weight as other people's work. She could not figure out what she was doing wrong. The answer was that she was not doing anything wrong. The system was doing it wrong, and Derek was the system.

The transparency mechanisms in this issue will not make every decision frictionless. They will make decision-making legible to the team and to the leader. When criteria are visible and distribution is tracked, favoritism has nowhere quiet to live.

Download and Share This Issue

Use this issue as a leadership discussion aid, manager coaching reference, or team trust conversation starter when opportunity distribution, visibility, or informal access may be undermining fairness.

Download the Newsletter PDF

Coming Up in Issue 3

Promoting the Wrong People: The Peter Principle in Action. Your best salesperson just became a mediocre manager. Your top engineer is now drowning in one-on-ones she never wanted. Next issue explains why organizations keep rewarding performance with jobs that punish it, and how to recognize top talent without breaking the team.

Call to Action

Forward this issue to a leader who needs to make opportunity allocation clear enough that it can withstand being described out loud.

Newsletter replies and questions: [email protected]
Follow updates on X.com: @kaizen_6sigma