How Can HR Tackle Favoritism and Ensure Fair Appraisals Without Delays?

Handling Favoritism at Work

Seeking your expert advice on handling favoritism at work. How can HR ensure fair treatment for all when every key decision-maker (6 Directors) has their own favorites? They are ready to deviate from any policy for their favorite employee without much concern about its impact on the organization’s culture, the examples we are setting as an organization, and the lessons people are learning from such deviations. It’s a small organization of approximately 550 employees, where we can’t afford the long-term impacts of such deviations. Our Directors don't appreciate it if the same favoritism is displayed by the GM/Managers-HOD.

Ensuring Fair Appraisals

Our Directors want us to sit in the annual appraisal of all employees because they want to ensure nobody plays favorites and nobody underestimates those who performed well just because they don’t have a good relationship with their reporting seniors. In short, we don’t trust the assessment of our HODs (who have also provided valid reasons for this). HR, being a neutral party, is supposed to keep this favoritism out of the system. However, sitting in on all appraisals is too time-consuming and results in a delay of approximately 5 months in the distribution of increment letters. We have 2 HR personnel for annual appraisals.

What should we do to ensure that, as an organization, we are fair with our people, don’t set wrong examples, and at the same time, give increment letters on time?

Personal bias, especially from those in positions of power, poses a significant challenge in every appraisal process and remains a harsh reality that must be acknowledged. This issue is particularly prevalent in traditional systems. To address this problem effectively, a structured approach is crucial. This includes establishing Key Result Areas (KRAs) with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) at the outset of the year, conducting periodic appraisals, and culminating in year-end evaluations based on the predetermined targets. Careful consideration must be given to the selection of KRAs, which should be derived from the unit's growth plan for the year, closely aligned with the strategic or corporate plan.

Despite these measures, the risk of personal bias influencing the process cannot be entirely eliminated, but it can be significantly minimized. As the adage goes, the individuals involved ultimately determine the credibility of the system, and no system, on its own, can guarantee the integrity of those individuals.

Thank you.

Dear Akansha, In the given situation of contradictory behavior displayed by your Directors, showing favoritism to some and not expecting the same from HODs, coupled with a lukewarm response to setting KRAs/KPIs, as well as a lengthy appraisal process, are your challenges. There is no easy answer unless you bite the bullet. To break the vicious circle, the time has come to put your foot down and tell the Directors the vitiating impact their 'not walking the talk' behavior is creating on the minds of everybody. People hate hypocrisy, and someday it will hit the organization badly. I am aware that it is not easy to convey such unpleasant thoughts to Directors. But then the choice is to let the rut continue or hold it by the horns.

As for the apparent disinterest shown by HODs for KRAs/KPIs, please examine whether its linkage to monetary reward is the contributing factor that is making them lose faith, and also that no KRAs are given to them.

Regards, Vinayak Nagarkar HR Consultant

Dear Aakansha,

Your explanation states that your directors have their 'own favourites' and those are to be looked at fairly, though not to look good. How do you consider there can be a fair show? Already, Mr. KK & Mr. Divakar have given some suggestions for a flawless Performance Appraisal to judge 'good as good' and 'bad as bad'.

As you have the scores of employees with you, put the scores in order and place them before the chairman of the committee to seek suggestions.

Dear Akansha, Having worked in different industries and countries, I feel that this is a common problem faced by HR across many organizations. As mentioned by other distinguished members, when Directors change policies for their favorites, what can you actually do? What is more important for you at this moment is to reduce the delay in conducting appraisals. Keep working with HODs and Business Heads and gain their trust. Once you have their approval, you will be able to implement the necessary changes. Ensure that all employee KRAs are linked to the business targets; this will help align the thought process towards achieving business objectives.

Regards, Dolphy Goveas Jakarta

You have shared plenty of details. In my opinion, there is not much of a choice. You may try to convince the directors, provided they are willing to listen. Try to talk to them on a one-to-one basis. Most probably, they may say that they know everything. Some may not even be willing to talk. If they stick to their decisions, you have to flow with the tide. If your conscience does not permit, you may have to find another job. However, such practices may exist in other companies as well. The best course of action is to bide your time and work with the top management, hoping for positive outcomes.

Regards, V. Raghunathan
Chennai

How HR Can Ensure Fair Treatment in the Presence of Favouritism

Tactful handling of the situation is the only way. Directors are the top bosses, and if they have favorites and do not want others to have favorites, it becomes a Herculean task for HR. HR is a neutral agency and should try to be as professional as possible. However, your hands are tied. Performance reports come from the HOD, and your role is limited to that extent.

"Nobody should underestimate those who performed well only because they don't have a good relationship with their reporting seniors."

Directors have favorites, and so they suspect any other person who is liked by the HOD as being their favorite. This is a complex situation that can only be handled by HR in a neutral manner. Neither support any candidate nor oppose; speak only as per performance reports over the years. HR should speak out that with only two people, it is difficult to sit during performance appraisals and avoid creating delays. The Directors are showing immaturity in their actions, and unfortunately, HR cannot correct them. If the atmosphere is so stifling, you can look for alternative jobs in another organization. But favoritism is a trait of many of us, apparently a national character. Be practical and diplomatic in such situations and do not voice any opinion unless backed by evidence of performance or non-performance of any employee who may be a favorite of those in power.

The favoritism at work and performance evaluation is not uncommon in any industry, whether big or small. Favoritism can be minimized in performance evaluations by objectively setting Key Performance Areas (KPA)/Key Result Areas (KRA) at the beginning of the year and reviewing them at regular intervals, but not too frequently. The frequency of reviews can vary depending on the nature of the business.

Whether we like it or not, there is a certain amount of favoritism in all organizations; only the degree varies. When it comes to job openings in the open domain, most positions these days are filled through networking. Similarly, Key Result Areas (KRA)/Key Performance Indicators (KPI), once established without monetary value, can be demeaning to the employees in question as they often perceive personal appraisals as solely for financial incentives.

Most heads/bosses tend to assess their subordinates based on the "Hot Stove principle," judging individuals based on the most recent incident rather than consistently evaluating their performance throughout the year. Every company, at some point, compromises on various issues, including statutory compliance. Sometimes, it is necessary to adapt and go with the flow.

Understanding Favoritism in the Workplace

Favoritism is a norm everywhere, whether in a corporate setting, a government unit, or a proprietorship. Everyone wants the benefits and goodness to go to people they prefer and like, and that preference and liking influence your performance rating, not the other way around. Admittedly, favoritism is a matter of perspective. What one person sees as favoring, another could view as fair or justified. It is a subjective judgment, and humans are seldom perfect in being objective about it.

Navigating Favoritism at the Top

If favoritism occurs at the top, it is rarely beneficial to seek or approach HR. Most of the time, HR serves as the conduit and largely plays a role in legitimizing these favoritisms. When entering employment, one should acknowledge these realities. It is preferable to learn to navigate through them and find ways to benefit if one wishes to have a successful career, or to stay firm in your commitment to perform your due diligence in work assignments and responsibilities while overlooking these distractions. Trust in your karma.

Dear colleague,

It is surprising to read the post written in a flippant, casual manner and suggesting to support favoritism in the private sector as a way of life. In fact, such happenings need to be curbed rather than allow it to continue by accepting it as unchangeable. It is not in good taste and I find it difficult to share this view.

Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant

Dear Akansha, there are two problems I see.

Favouritism

It's a tough problem for which there is no easy solution—hence why favoritism is still with us. But there are methods that you, as an HR professional, can use to tackle favoritism.

1) Start by ensuring an open and transparent communication policy on equal opportunities and openly advertise available roles.

2) You could try to quantify the negative impacts of favoritism in terms of bad hiring decisions, reduction in overall team engagement, and lowered productivity. Move from an emotional argument to an analytical and data-backed argument to highlight the monetary impacts of favoritism to HODs, pushing them to adopt a more meritocratic process.

3) Two HR for 550 employees is not ideal; however, to minimize favoritism in appraisals, one way is to increase the number of people who take the final decision on appraisals. These people should be non-aligned and from other divisions. They can question the results based on merit and facts rather than favoritism. There are no single decision-makers now.

Buy-in of HODs for the Appraisal System

1) You should have open-ended feedback from the HODs on what they like and don't like about the system. Consider their feedback. Ideally, the appraisal system should be co-created with the HODs. This will automatically generate buy-in for this process.

2) The top management has to communicate the criticality of this process to their business.

3) KRA allocation should also be co-created and should trickle down to the last level. (E.g., the sum total of the KRA of the sales team should add up to the KRA of the Head of Sales).

4) The KRAs of the HODs should also include successfully adhering to the HR processes such as the appraisal process. This should hold equal weight compared to their other functional KRAs.

This should help you get through seriousness with respect to KRA and review mechanisms.

There are many other methods; however, everything cannot be explained in text. I run a training and counseling company, and we consult on employee wellness and organizational process growth. You can get in touch for further help.

Thanks

Best Regards,
Riti Sinha
Founder, Pharos Hub www.pharoshub.in

Dear Seniors, With reference to my post dated 30th Jan 2018 on removing the culture of favoritism and struggling with Key Result Areas (KRAs), I would like to share that we have taken corrective measures based on the inputs provided by you. Having clearer, sharper, and more focused KRAs is a good way to achieve this, and that is precisely what we have implemented. The quality parameters of all key persons' KRAs are validated by us. One thing that connects all Directors and the HR Team is the passion for taking the company's performance to the next level, and I am leveraging this opportunity. Our goal is the same; only our approaches to reaching it differ.

I would like to inform you that now the top management is more open to listening (there may always be 1-2 exceptions, but I am least bothered about that). Thank you for all your inputs. The cycle time of appraisals has also been reduced in this session; we have brought it down from 150 days to 42 days. I am glad to share this with you because without your inputs, it would have been a big challenge for me.

Best Regards, Aakansha-HRD