I did know a VP once that used favoritism to train their team. At a certain level of leadership the team that reports to that level has pretty much self selected for "ambition."
As explained to me, by showing favoritism to people who exhibited "best practices" and not to people who didn't, the VP could promote "good behaviors" and train the others on what was expected.
I've never been in a leadership role where I think that would have worked for me, and I'm much more of a 'say what you mean' kind of person. As a result I stick with telling people with what is expected of someone in their role and how it is measured.
Can I put maybe a less nefarious take on this? There's a lot to be said for promoting / supporting those members of a team who are well-aligned with the mission and approach. Make it really clear that John / Jane are doing the things that we believe will get us to our goals -- praise them in public, for example. To my thinking, it actually helps make clear the rules of the game, IE: these are the behaviors / actions / speech as a leader that I want to see demonstrated within my team. It doesn't have to just be about ambition or "favoritism" per se.
I think it depends on a lot of factors... for example, I've been on teams where it's clear that the direction of the team and its manager were different from my career goals or needs - so time to go. I've been on teams in which it did veer toward unbridled favoritism, and then it was also time to get out. On the other hand, I've certainly seen plenty of situations in which it is simply a good leader / manager trying to get everyone pointed in the right direction by using the actions / words of the team as reinforcement for what they want to see more. It's almost Pavlovian in that regard, Ie: the manager tells you what make's their bell ring / give him or her their cookie, etc.
This will certainly identify what the leader sees as good and bad, which can signal to people who disagree with their priorities that it is time to find a new job.
So if you are a great leader, sure, this will lead ok results.
If you are a bad leader, this will guarantee churn.
My experience is that leaders who try this strategy fall in the latter category more often than not. So I've only see it fail, personally.
The key is that favoritism worked in a team without or with less structure. I'd submit that favoritism is a form of structure and I would expect a poorly structured team to outperform an amoeba.
Does every company really have this many mind games going on? I mean sure, there’s politicking (and maybe more of it at the top levels of the top companies), but I’d say your average director at your average company just wants to develop a good product and go home at the end of the day like everyone else.
At a certain size this level of politicking absolutely happens. Your average director has a number of peers that will often be playing some level of political games that they’ll have to deal with or get overrun. You don’t get to director or higher levels by keeping your head down.
Also known as leading by example? What if the "favorite" employee is simply +1'ing the change and culture leadership wants and already executes itself?
I'm curious why the title has to take on this negative tone.
As always, it's good to actually read the article. No surprise the headline isn't neccesarily the best summary of the results:
"In teams that were already well-structured, either because some employees were placed in positions of authority or because some employees had more advanced skill sets, performance dipped when leaders played favorites. In less clearly structured teams, however, having a biased boss typically led to better outcomes, with improved coordination and performance across the entire team."
To me this reads as two sides of the same coin. In well-structured teams hierarchy is formalized, in less structured teams it's 'informalized' when playing favourites?
Also, it can be a bad strategy. The focus of the headline is baity; I'd summarize the research with "leadership favoritism can provide structure for flat hierarchies"
> deciding whose opinions take precedence during planning sessions, leaders inevitably wind up treating some employees better than others.
Weird to me this is framed only from the social aspect (e.g. hierarchy, pecking order). It makes sense to consistently weigh some opinions more than others.
Yeah, statements like "Whether it's assigning the most comfortable cubicles or the best parking spots" tell me that these people have never worked in a corporate environment.
As explained to me, by showing favoritism to people who exhibited "best practices" and not to people who didn't, the VP could promote "good behaviors" and train the others on what was expected.
I've never been in a leadership role where I think that would have worked for me, and I'm much more of a 'say what you mean' kind of person. As a result I stick with telling people with what is expected of someone in their role and how it is measured.