Favouritism at Work: What It Does to Those Left Out

There is an injustice at work that people rarely voice, because it is hard to describe without sounding jealous. It isn't the workload, or the harshness, or even hostility. It is the fact that within the same team, for comparable work, the same things do not happen to everyone.

And it is probably the configuration that erodes people most durably.

In the article that follows, I explore disengagement and the sense of injustice at work. If you recognise yourself in this theme, the tests on the platform help you take stock.

Why it is more destructive than harshness

A hard manager who is equally hard with everyone leaves one simple principle intact: what I do determines what happens to me. You can dislike that manager and keep working, because effort retains a function.

Favouritism breaks that link. When the quality of the work no longer determines who gets which projects, who is given leeway on deadlines, or who is in the meetings that matter, effort becomes pointless. And when effort becomes pointless, it goes out — not by decision, but because nothing sustains it any more.

That mechanism, not fatigue, explains the withdrawal of people who used to be the most invested. They haven't become lazy; they have stopped finding any return on what they do.

How it forms, almost always without a decision

This is the point most articles on the subject miss: favouritism is almost never chosen. It builds up from ordinary small mechanisms.

Physical proximity. Those seated near the manager, or who take coffee at the same time, get informal information sooner. Information received three days earlier lets you position yourself; three days later, it only lets you follow. Similarity. Same school, same background, same references, same way of speaking. Familiarity produces comfort, comfort produces trust, and trust produces opportunities — without anyone deciding anything. Social ease. Those who speak up easily in meetings, who can narrate what they do, who ask, get more. It isn't deliberate injustice: it is a visibility bias, and it systematically penalises quieter people or those newer to the role. Availability at informal moments. Thursday drinks, the long lunch, the shared commute. People with caring responsibilities, part-time hours, or simply a clean boundary between work and private life are excluded mechanically.

Work psychology describes this as the formation of an in-group and an out-group within the same team. The first gets information, autonomy and visible projects; the second gets execution. The split forms quickly, often in the first weeks, and is then very stable — each person behaving in line with the place they have been assigned, which confirms it.

What is legitimate, and what isn't

Not every difference in treatment is favouritism, and confusing the two weakens the argument.

Legitimate is a gap based on criteria stated in advance, applicable to everyone, and verifiable: seniority, measured results, a specific required skill, actual availability over a period. Giving a strategic project to the person who has already run two comparable ones is a management decision, not a preference. Not legitimate is a gap whose criterion cannot be stated. The test is simple and unforgiving: if the manager were asked to explain in writing, to the whole team, why this decision, would the answer hold? If the only honest answer is "because I get on with him better", there is no criterion.

⚠️ An entirely different category

If the difference in treatment tracks a protected characteristic — origin, sex, age, health, disability, pregnancy, family situation, sexual orientation, religious belief, union activity, among others — you are no longer in the register this article describes. That case falls under its own legal regime, with its own rules and its own contacts, including national equality bodies.

The people to approach are then an equality body, an employment lawyer, the labour inspectorate and employee representatives. This article does not say whether your situation falls there: that assessment belongs to those professionals, and to them alone.

Establish rather than feel

The main obstacle in these situations is not feeling entitled to raise it. Saying "he has favourites" immediately invites the suspicion of jealousy, and that is enough to silence most people for years.

The way out is not rhetorical but methodological: move from feeling to dated comparable fact.

A comparable fact is two situations of the same kind, two different treatments, two dates:

4 March — request for exceptional remote work for a medical appointment, refused in writing ("not possible during closing period"). 11 March — same request, same closing period, from A., granted the same day.

That is not a judgement. It is an observation, and it is verifiable.

A record of this kind, kept over three to six months, produces something feeling never will: a series. A series can be discussed; an impression cannot. That is exactly the function of a tool like ScanMyJob — putting dated facts in order, without concluding on your behalf.

The three most common reactions, and their cost

Compensatory overwork. Working harder, better, faster, to make the gap untenable. This strategy almost always fails, for a logical reason: if the criterion behind the gap isn't performance, increasing performance can't reduce it. It is the most direct route to burnout, because it demands rising effort for zero return. Horizontal rivalry. Hostility shifts towards the favoured colleagues, who usually asked for nothing. It destroys the alliances you would need, and leaves what produces the gap untouched. Silent withdrawal. Stopping proposing, asking, being visible. It is understandable, and it accelerates exactly what you feared: less visibility, fewer opportunities, gap confirmed.

What can be tried

Ask for the criteria, in writing, for the future. Not "why him and not me", which invites a defensive justification, but: "What criteria are projects of this kind allocated on? I'd like to know what to work on to be eligible." The question is constructive, and the answer — or its absence — is informative. Make your work visible without waiting. A written progress update, sent at a fixed time, corrects part of the visibility bias. This isn't self-promotion theatre: it compensates for the fact that good work, on its own, isn't seen. Find a second sponsor. A mentor, a cross-functional project lead, a peer in another department. Depending on a single appraisal is the real fragility. Set a deadline. Six months is reasonable. If by then no criterion has been stated and no change observed, the question to deal with is no longer favouritism: it is whether to stay or go.

What this article does not do

It does not say your manager plays favourites — it describes a mechanism and offers a method for establishing facts. It characterises nothing legally. And it draws no conclusion about anyone's intentions: most managers who produce these gaps never decided them, which changes nothing about what they cost, but changes what can be done about them. That is the subject of the blind spots of management.