Don't Do What Your Parents Did: How to Avoid the 'Favoritism Trap'​ at Work

Image from Alhambrachamber.org

We have come a long way over the last few posts. Our journey started with the kind of managers Ramayan moms might have given this world - dutiful Ram, saviour Lakshman or politician Bharat. We then saw how they may play the Victim-Villain-Hero in everyday office situations. In the last post we zoomed out to the see the larger life trajectory with ‘life scripts’.

With this post, let’s try explore how ‘Managers’ may be prone to behaving like their own parents by picking favourites even at work. We will examine the possible impact of this on their ‘Team Members’, and how Managers can be more aware of the ‘favouritism trap’. To illustrate my point, let’s look at Ramayan’s mother Sumitra and her twins; “favoured” child Lakshman and “non-favoured” Shatrugan.  

Family scripts

First, let’s understand why Managers would mimic their parents at work. This is where ‘family scripts’ come in. These are a sequence of repeated actions that children learn from their parents in everyday situations; around the dining table, during home-work, handling kids’ disputes, and so on.

A child internalises these scenarios over time and replays them when in ‘similar’ circumstances. This could also explain why we behave more like our parents as we get older, irrespective of our relationship with them. We subconsciously ask and answer, “What would my mother or father do?”

Family scripts and children  

Children act and react as per their own internalised script. These tend to differ amongst siblings depending on each ones perception of how their parents treated them. Were they the ‘favoured’ child like Lakshman who Sumitra was proud of, or the ‘non-favoured’ child like Shatrugan who seems more incidental in the epic.  

Do parents really play favourites?  

Yes, invariably, and inadvertently! Although most parents deny it, there is increasing research to show the opposite. It only gets more apparent as kids get older and more perceptive, or maybe parents become more obvious with age. Let’s see how things pan out for either child.

The favoured child

This one usually gets more attention, praise, time, and perhaps less discipline. This could be because of various factors like; birth order (oldest or youngest tend to be favourites), gender (patriarchy’s sons), child’s disposition, academic promise, shared interests with the parent (mothers dressing up daughters, and fathers playing cricket with sons) and so on. Parents are more invested in making this child successful, and even make excuses for their shortcomings.  

Similarly, Ramayan glorifies Lakshman’s bravery and dedication to Ram and justifies his lapses, like his nose chopping temper (which set the ball rolling), and argumentativeness. Lakshman displays high levels of confidence, self-esteem, and performance, characteristic of a favoured child.

On the flip side, there is also a chance of these kids not being able to develop their individual personality since they are so busy trying to please others. Similarly, Lakshman doesn’t seem to have an independent identity outside Ram’s shadow.   

The ‘non-favoured’ child

This one tends to get lesser attention and approval, and more disciplining. Studies show such kids are more prone to depression, anxiety and low self-esteem as adults. They may seek ways of feeling special outside the family, like in class or at work.  

One a positive note, growing up away from the limelight allows their personalities to develop independently instead of always being the ‘family pleaser’.  

Shatrugan symbolises the ‘non-favoured’ child. He grows up largely ignored by both, his mother and the epic. Fleeting mentions in popular narratives indicate possible low self-esteem and little acknowledgement. In today’s times, one wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up depressed, or with a drinking problem.

On the plus side, he seems to have had the smoothest ride amongst the brothers and is known for being a fierce warrior. Depends on how you see it.  

Managers and the 'Favouritism Trap'  

Now, let’s look at Manager’s who are expected to lead and treat their Team Members fairly, like parents are.

Annual reviews with the team would be the big test. Teams showcase their achievements over the year and hope to get larger budgets going forward. This part is objective and measurable.

The ‘favouritism trap’ comes in when Managers have to prioritise and decide resource allocation. This is where unconscious bias or conscious preferences can creep in.  

Favouritism – Scenario 1 

The Manager backs the “favoured”, flagship brand in the portfolio. This could be because it’s easier to achieve targets, or because other favourable factors like; distribution, market-share, product popularity, consumer preference, and so on.

The other half of the equation is the ‘team member’ working on the brand. We have all witnessed favouritism first hand at some point in our professional lives. Managers typically try and justify this using the team members’ objective performance in a show of fairness.

On the emotional side, however, it could be because; they ‘connect’ with the person better, see their younger self in them, temperamental compatibility, or maybe because the person is just genuinely likable.  

Something similar happened when a popular, but mature food brand was ‘favoured’ over smaller brands. Other Team Members said it was easy to meet targets this way, shrugged and got on with their work. Additionally, the brand was being led by a ‘favoured’ Team Member.  

It all came to head when the flagship product ran into trouble and took the Manager down with it.    

Favouritism – Scenario 2

This is when a newer, smaller or weaker brand is favoured, or is declared the organisations future flag bearer (like the youngest child). By example, it is common amongst indulgent snacking brands to invest heavily in healthier alternatives to leverage changing consumer preferences.

Some additional factors that may work for the Team Member on the brand could be commonalities with the deciding Manager like; race, ethnicity, school attended, and so on.  

Non-favoured ones 

While all this plays out, there are the non-favoured ones keeping each other company in the background. They are aware of their negligible chances of garnering favour. Eventually they may stop trying, go into survival mode and start looking for other opportunities.  

Now, there are plenty reasons for being ‘non-favoured’. These could range from; temperament and compatibility with others at work, general capability, race, sexuality, gender, personal biases, etc. Sadly, it could also be because the Manager perceives the Team Member as a potential threat. Sad, but we all have at least one ‘sucky boss’ story.  

The price of being favoured

While the favourites get the limelight and budgets, they also need to ‘please the parent’. They would be obliged to work longer hours, over-reach, sacrifice personal lives, and anything else demanded of them. Additionally, they also face resentment and lose camaraderie from the non-favoured team members - like in soured sibling relationships.

How can Managers avoid the Favouritism Trap?

Like parents deny favouritism, Managers too tend to justify themselves with results. However, it becomes more subjective when it comes to the team member they favour. While optimising resources and achieving targets is important, so is creating a positive team dynamic.

Below, are my three bits for “Manager Parents” –

- Stop comparing – one can’t compare oranges to apples. Each product and Team Member are different. By example, a carbonated beverage and fruit juice from the same company work very differently. Their consumers, competition, imagery, consumption pattern, are all different. Hence, comparing marketing campaigns and outcomes with so many other variables is just unhealthy.

Take out – it’s good to praise, but not compare. Good work should not be praised by putting others down. This only breeds resentment.

- Stop team competitions – yes, you read that right! These are best saved for sports days. Since no two brands, or teams are equal, making them compete is like a swimming competition between a fish, cat and monkey (no offence meant). While all three can swim, their innate abilities and capabilities are vastly different. Similarly, a company may have three detergent brands. These would typically work to different strengths, and appeal to different audiences.  

Take out – push to perform, not compete – this is a win-win. A high performing team combined with a healthy work environment. 

- Don’t take sides – while humans are emotional and not objective, it is important to be fair as possible. Managers will find themselves in situations where they need to play referee. It could be personal disagreements, prioritising resources, disciplining, giving time, etc. Any perception or evidence of favouritism will only result in loss of respect and fester misgivings.

Take out – be fair and objective as possible. As humans we may end up going easier on our favourites, but clear efforts at fair-play are appreciated by everyone.

Conclusion – parental favouritism shapes a child’s ‘family script’. This is turn could affect their managerial styles. They may end up making biased decisions time and again when they fall back on how their parents treated them. However, it is important to be ‘self-aware’ of this favouritism trap.

Human tendencies cannot be helped, but being aware of them can help leaders in the long run. One needs to be mindful; to not compare different brands and teams, making them compete in unfair competitions, and try to be fair as possible.

In the next post, I will try to explore the Brand and Brand Manager relationship. In the meanwhile, try not to ponder too much over the price you may have paid for being the favourite, or the neglect you felt, both as a child and at work. Do let me know if there is a specific aspect of marketing you would like me to think about, or try solving for.