favoritism

sharonm

I just finished an internal EEO complaint pertaining to favoritism. The allegation was that this employee's manager treated him unfairly by emphasizing all of his errors, while ignoring the errors of one of his peers because she was the manager's "favorite". Other peers in the workgroup agreed that this particular employee was treated more favorably by management. When my manager read my final report which substantiated that there was favoritism in the workplace and that the complainant was treated unfairly, he said that there was nothing wrong with favoritism in the workplace, that he had favorites, and it wasn't discrimination. I know the ramifications that favoritism can cause in the workplace. Do you think this was an "out of line" comment for a upper level HR manager to say, or do you agree, it's no big deal to have favorites?

Don D

I think he's right that favoritism is 'no problem in the workplace' if all the employees are 35 year old white, male, catholic, physically able heterosexuals. Otherwise, I agree with you that's its always problematic. Maybe what he was attempting to say was 'it's o.k. to have favorites as long as you don't treat them differently'. Congratulations for having the gusto to write up that manager appropriately. x:-)

Hatchetman

It sounds as if the manager is taking an analytical approach to the report. Firstly, you mention that it's an EEOC internal complaint -- which I take to mean that it is some form of illegal discrimination alleged to be taking place (e.t., sex, race, relion,d isability, etc.). But you don't mention anything in your post that you found that. You just mention favoritism.

Secondly, "favoritism" can cover a wide area. Most managers and sueprvisors do have favorites. Usually they are people in the work environment who have shown that they can do work competently, effciently and quickly. They are good employees. Perhaps, that what the manager is identifying as having favorites. I don't think he is automatically saying that friendships, regardless of the employee's abilities, are the biggest determinants supervisors assigning work or in giving other considerations that are within their discretion. After all, we do want an employee's complete record to be looked at when considering discipline, so why not look at it in positive arenas too (of course, forms of illegal discrimination will always be a possibility)?

Favoritism on its face may cause morale problems in the workforce. But if it is done with a clear "job-related" basis, then that morale problem should be minimal.

Don D

Rereading your post, since you said it was EEO I'm assuming that the complaining employee is a member of a protected class. Secondly, you stated the supervisor was 'emphasizing all of his errors' and I'm taking that to mean he was complaining of being unfairly criticized in front of others, and he was supported by statements of others in the work group (otherwise, if it weren't open criticism, how would they know?). It seems to me that the investigation was appropriate because (1) It was internal, therefore pre-EEOC, (2) the complainant is probably a member of a protected class, (3) he feels his conditions of employment (perhaps open discipline) are affected, and (4) he has the support of co-workers. I hope your investigation will satisfy the employee and you'll not have a formal EEOC complaint. The whole key to me seems to be a member of a protected class perceiving his conditions of employment to be affected because of his class status. And whether or not that was correct or could be disproved in an investigation, that's still his perception and needs to be answered. If his perception IS CORRECT, you've got other things lying in wait aroung the corner with this supervisor. But, I'm often wrong, and this may have been just someone unhappy over discretionary work assignments or going to lunch with others to his exclusion. It may all self-solve by the manager being admonished for open criticism/discipline. x:-)