Nothing compares 2 u: The hot favourite

Like Hansel in Zoolander, sometimes a particular employee is “so hot right now”. Yep, they’re the favourite. And it’s more than just because they’re really really ridiculously good looking.

There’s nothing inherently wrong about liking some colleagues more or getting along with some more than others.

But what if your boss cannot see past them? In the song Nothing Compares 2 U, by Sinead O’Connor, one person is held up against everyone else.

Is it a problem now?

Potentially yes.

If a favourite is seen as getting all the great projects, promotions, training, and salary, then this can result in a number of issues.

Team dynamic issues

Suddenly, rather than merit or good performance, the favourite is getting special treatment due to their relationship with the boss.

Other team members can become demotivated as they feel they are not valued, even if they perform well. This can result in resentment between colleagues and damages collaboration and trust. The idea of fairness or organisational justice is eroded because the system is rigged. An overlooked non-favourite may feel like they are forced to resign and claim constructive dismissal, if they are consistently overlooked, undermined or treated unfavourably as compared to the favourite.

This behaviour can also be a problem for the “favourite”. Colleagues resent or exclude them, and their successes are dismissed as favouritism rather than being recognised on merit, undermining their authority and ability to do their role.

This dynamic can also affect productivity, as high performers may leave if they are not receiving recognition, while other employees simply do the minimum, as it makes no difference anyway (or quiet quit, as the saying goes).

This also has implications for leadership – the team loses respect for the leader so their authority and credibility are affected. Further, if the favourite underperforms, then this reflects badly on the boss too.

Legal implications

When favouritism moves from being poor management to decisions that disadvantage others, then this can also result in legal claims.

If the favouritism is based on a protected attribute, such as sex, age, race, religion, disability or sexual orientation, and results in someone being passed over for promotion or even dismissed, this can result in potential discrimination claims under Federal or State laws, and/or adverse action claims under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The burden of proof in relation to adverse action claims shifts to the employer to disprove that the adverse action was improper.

If non-favourites are excluded or not provided with the tools and information to perform their roles, this can also result in bullying claims. The Fair Work Commission can issue orders to stop bullying where it creates a risk to health and safety.

Similarly, work health and safety laws require employers to manage psychosocial hazards. Unfair organisational justice, unfair treatment and exclusion can result in potential breaches of work health and safety laws and can be prosecuted by regulators.

What can employers do?

Clear policies and guidance would assist. These may include anti-discrimination and fairness policies to ensure that decisions are made on clear merit-based criteria. Key decisions such as promotions, pay reviews and training need to follow set criteria and be documented, and ideally have more than one manager for approval.

Performance management should have objective, measurable targets and be applied consistently across the team. Similarly, any key decisions such as recruitment and promotions should involve processes with clear, set questions and the same scoring criteria for all candidates and have more than a single manager deciding outcomes. Ideally, promotions should be advertised internally, rather than the “tap on the shoulder.”

Managers need to be trained on unconscious bias and favouritism. Managers need to be aware that their performance is judged on how they manage their entire team, not just some members of their team. Leaders modelling fair behaviour set the tone more powerfully than any policy.

Finally, a speak up culture should be encouraged so that employees can raise concerns early. Anonymous employee surveys that raise such concerns should not be dismissed. Any formal complaints should be taken seriously and acted on as quickly as possible. This may include formal workplace investigations or culture reviews.

Taken together, clear processes which remove discretion or favouritism combined with genuine accountability can assist in ensuring that managers are treating their teams fairly and not pining over their favourites, especially if they leave. Do that, and unlike Sinead O’Connor, you won’t be left singing that nothing compares 2 u.

Remotely Legal can assist employers and boards on all aspects of employment law, including advising on difficult people issues, reviewing policies and assisting with enterprise bargaining.  Remotely Legal can train your boards and management teams on how to deal with incidents and investigations.  Remotely Legal can also be your fully outsourced HR and people legal team.

RL Investigations, part of Remotely Legal, are a team of highly experienced and qualified lawyers and investigators, who can function as your independent, external investigation team providing fast, comprehensive and reliable investigation reports, workplace culture reviews and suggestions for organisational improvement. RL Investigations can also help your internal HR or investigation team to improve their investigations and assist decision makers in considering the right factors when making key decisions.

This blog is general advice only.  Please obtain legal advice in relation to your specific circumstances.  This blog was written by a human so please seek permission if you wish to copy any of it.