We would like to express our gratitude to all those who gave us the possibility to complete this work. The project wouldn’t have been completed without their help and support. We fulfill our duty of thanking them, to whom we are highly indebted.
We are deeply indebted to our Faculty Prof. A. K. Sinha whose help, stimulating suggestions and encouragement helped us in all the time of research for and writing of this work.
We thank our colleagues, friends, faculty and other well wishers for their encouraging words and support while doing this project. We also thank our friends who took out their precious time to participate in our survey
We also want to thank the IME Department and this institute for providing this learning and also assisting in infrastructure and administrative work. We are grateful to all the professors for their guidance and support at each step. Their insights and teachings have played a critical role in developing this report.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the project is to find out the attributes that is considered as favoritism in the workplace. A different person has different perceptions about favoritism, for someone if one factor is considered as favoritism for other it is not being considered. It’s about the perception, whether it is being considered as favoritism or not. Every attributes creates different scenario in different industry, in such scenario people over working in that industry has different perception over the attributes, whether that attributes fosters favoritism or not. Here in this report we try to locate the attributes that facilitates favoritism and their existence industry wise.
Executive Summary
Working in a group, liking, fondness or dislike happens between peers or between seniors or juniors. It is universal truth that fondness or disliking rises within the group or between the group and outsider. It is a human being characteristic of liking or disliking someone.
In such a way favoritism rises when we favor some one because of our fondness towards him or her. The practice of giving unfair preferential treatment to one person or group at the expense of another is called favoritism.
Favoritism or discrimination in the workplace transforms the workplace in to an unhealthier situation, where everyone keeps busy themselves in politicking the matters. If somewhere some issue arises then without seeing the criticality of the issue the employees keeps busy themselves in escalating the topic and try to accumulate point on that topic. Favoritism brings into the system unfairness, unequal distribution of work versus remunerations.
Lack of transparency in the system brings favoritism in the workplace. If the selection procedure, selection criteria, appraisal criteria becomes transparent then the system will more dynamic and unhealthier subject like favoritism will not come into the picture. High numbers of employees i.e., number of employees present is more than required for the project, past experience are the major reasons for favoritism.
By this research project we try to depict about the situations that indicates the signal of favoritism in the workplace. Each situation is connected with one attributes, sometimes the attributes connectedly making another situations.
Favoritism present in the workplace, it is universal. People working together in a group for one object, fondness and disliking is different from each other, every person has different perception according to his/her taste or behaviors. So, it is general that people working together in a group conflict will arise, because the interest may rear-end to each other.
From this research paper, we try to locate the various attributes present in various industries which signify the presence of favoritism. We have applied t-test. From this t-test we try to find out the relationship whether the sample data mean is significant or not. From the sample data mean we can portray the population data mean if the simple data is significant, that is the level of significance value,.
From the level of significance value, the sample data significance we will come to know, from that the inside scenario of the industry can be mapped in a simple way.
Objective:
To identify the attributes that foster the occurrence of favoritism in the workplace and their existence in different types of industry.
Introduction:
Work is most important part of our life because it not only moulds our career but also precious hours of investment go into it. Everyone wants fair deal from life and their work; however problem arises when one faces bias in the workplace.
In a team everyone is working hard to get the project completed on time, however in the distribution of the benefits of the success is unequal; preference is given to one person only. In the workplace, favoritism refers to when someone appears to be treated better than others not necessarily for reasons related work performance. The end result is that they appear to be treated better than others, and for no valid reasons.
Favoritism can occur in pretty much any office environment large or small. The presence of favoritism in workplace has not only affected the working environment but the moral of the employees too.
Favoritism shown to their relatives as their nephews’ by giving them positions because of their relationship rather than their competencies. Such type of favoritism is called nepotism. Cronyism is defined as giving preference to politicians’ particularly to cronies (close friends of long standing), especially as evidenced in the appointment of hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications. Favouritism means the provision of special privilege to friends, colleagues and acquaintances, in the areas of employment, career and personnel decisions. Cronyism is a more specific form of favouritism referring to partiality towards friends and associates. Nepotism is a narrower form of favouritism.
Favouritism can be in many forms from which we can depict its existence in those organisations. It may be in the form of favourite one getting promoted faster than others not because of his/her abilities, being paid more to do the same job as others, being given more leeway to come and go during the as these please that sort of thing.
Due to favouritism, someone who is apple’s eye of supervisor get all benefits however the one who is not dear to supervisor feel cheated, rejected or betrayed. Such discrimination in the workplace transforms the lives into an unpleasant and complex network of human interactions. Dejected person feels sometimes less confidence and due to this his/her personal life can become unbalance.
Due to favouritism job satisfaction among employees may decrease as a result job stress, job dissatisfaction may get increased and as a result switch over rate, attrition rate may get increased. The employees who feel them capable of, who believe on themselves about their ability they never look back to the supervisor or request to the supervisor for doing something.
Favouritism is due to the mismanagement of supervisor or lack of ethical behaviour in the workplace. One of the basic themes in ethics is fairness, stated this way by Aristotle:” equals should be treated equally and unequal’s unequally”. Favouritism and its form nepotism, Cronyism all interfere with fairness because they give undue advantage to someone who does not necessarily merit this treatment.
In the public sphere, favouritism undermines the common good. When someone is granted a position because of connections rather than because he or she has the best credentials and experience, the service that person renders to the public may be inferior. This process may undercut the transparency.
In the job hunting of public /private’s domain, connections, networking, family oriented network helps to get the job easier. Almost everyone wants it should be easier in the case of job hunting process, so that one can get easily places in their favourite domain. Competence is the main reason for appointing someone in some level. According to the level the qualifications, experience is being decided. For executive level position, the person should be well qualified, vast experiences but the lower down the ladder, the more likely for someone’s brother in law to be slipped into job which he is not qualified, then favouritism raises. Reasonable people differs about the appointment of friends and family members in high level position, brings unfairness into the system and the workplace become unhealthy. All matters in the workplace become politicising, employees become more concentrated towards the gossiping less toward the fruitful work. Executives will concentrate on the paying attention on showing unwanted affinity to the top level executives and the one who does not want to do such kind of things may bifurcate from such kind of situation and start searching of new kind of opportunities in other organisations, where it is less. Such kind of behaviour brings losses to the organisation both human resource and profit and the market rapport.
Winning at any cost seems very contemporary. Some blatantly say that the easiest and fastest way to be in the top is politicking; in such situation equality cannot be adhered to the best performer. End result favouritism lifts up.
Different industry has different scenario and their working style. Their industry objective needs different behaviour from other industry. For example the work culture in the manufacturing kind of industry is different is different from the IT industry. The qualification, experience needed in the manufacturing kind of industry is different from the IT industry. Therefore, people perception is different for different kind of industry. The kind of perception depends one situation indicates favouritism or not, for someone one condition hoists favouritism and for someone it is absolutely different.
Studying the survey data answered from the questionnaires bring the perception difference among the employees of various industry, we can conclude the view points.
Hypothesis:
H1: From the sample data we can depict the population data about there is major effect of influential person into getting a new job.
H2: From the sample data we can portray population data about “Same Ethnic, cultural background helps in promotion”.
H3: From the sample data we can portray the population data about “Existence of Gender discrimination in workplace”.
H4” From the sample data we can portray the population data about “Effect of influential person in getting promotion”.
H5: From the sample data we can portray the population data about “Existence of Autocratic Rule in workplace”.
H6: From the sample data we can portray the population data about the “Good relationship with supervisor helps in appraisal method in the workplace”.
H7: From the sample data we can portray the population data “Effect of influential person within the organisation”.
H8: From the sample data we can portray the population data “Favouring friends /friendship happens into the organisation “.
H9: From the sample data we can portray the population data “there is existence of harassment in the workplace”.
H10: From the sample data we can depict the population data “there is existence of showing off of unwanted affinity/ buttering in the workplace”.
H11: From the sample data we can portray the population data “Personal relation with supervisor helps in the workplace”.
H12:From the sample data we can portray the population data “Personal relation with peers helps in the workplace”.
H13:From the sample data we can portray the population data “Time spent into the organisation matters in the workplace”
Method:
One tailed t-test is being used.
Research Type: Descriptive Research.
Descriptive research is a type of conclusive research that has major objective the description of something-usually market characteristic. [Quoted from MR Book-by NKM]
It is preplanned and structured
In this research, it synthesizes- * Different type of attributes that depicts the favouritisms. * Different perception among employees across various industries.
Collection of Data: The data will be collected in the following ways: * Secondary Data: * Through Magazines * Online Surveys and Discussions * From social networking websites
Questionnaires:
As the objective of the project implies, the questionnaires tries to capture the employee’s perception or view points for some condition or situation. The condition or situation that depicts favouritism is taken from journal or online feedback or complaints.
Situations: Questions:
Effect of influential person into getting a new job Q.1 & Q.2
Same Ethnic, cultural background helps in promotion Q.3 & Q.4
Existence of Gender discrimination Q7,Q8,Q.18,Q.34,Q35.
Effect of influential person in promotion Q.9, Q.10, Q.33
Existence of Autocratic Rule Q.11
Good relationship with supervisor in appraisal method. Q.12,Q24,Q25.
Effect of influential person within the organisation Q.13,Q.15,Q.16,Q5,Q6
Favouring friends /friendship into the organisation Q.17,Q33.
Harassment Q19,Q20,Q26,Q27,Q28.
Buttering Q30
Personal relation with supervisor Q21,Q22,Q23,Q25,Q31,Q32,Q34,Q35.
Personal relation with peers Q.29
Time spent into the organisation Q14.
Procedure:
* Primary Research * Research instrument: Structured questionnaire with close ended questions. Using the funneling approach i.e. general to specific questions. * Target population
Element: employed in the targeted industry tye. Sampling unit: The same as element Sampling Technique: Non Probability sampling (Convenience Sampling)
* Data collection procedure: Online * Scales to be used: Interval/ ordinal. * Statistical method to be used: t-test. * Responses obtained: 30. * Data collected Organisations: Siemens,Sandisk,Louis Vile,IBM,Capegemini.
Results And Discussions:
1-Determine the key situations (factors)
For analyzing the results of our survey, the 35 questions are associated to 13 key situations as described below: Situations | Questions | A | To get into a new job, networking of influential person helps | 1,2 | B | Same Ethnic, cultural background helps in getting higher post. | 3,4 | C | Existence of Gender discrimination | 7,8,18,34,35 | D | Getting good hike, it is necessary to have influential person in higher post within the organisation | 9,10,33 | E | Existence of Autocratic rule | 11 | F | Good relationship with supervisor in appraisal method/distribution of perks. | 12,24,25 | G | Effect of influential person,within the organisation | 13,15,16,5,6 | H | Favoring to friends/friendship into the organization | 17,33 | I | Harrassement | 19,20,26,27,28 | J | Buttering | 30 | K | Personal relation with supervisor | 21,22,23,25,31,32,34,35 | L | Personal relationship with peers | 29 | M | Time spent into the organization | 14 |
2-Analysis of the significance of the data
We have analyzed the relevance of our data for the top 3 of the most important factors from each types of industries of our sampling : Electrical, Fashion, IT and Manufacturing.
Top situations causing favoritism according to different perception of people working in different industries:-
Top Factors/Situations exist in different industries responsible for favoritism:-
We further sampled these top 10 situations for both factors along with their industries to see if this sample data is significant to show population mean.
Sampling Technique used: One sample T-test
Sampling Software used: SPSS Ver. 18
Reason of choosing sampling technique: One Variable is Interval (Linkert Scaling), 2nd variable is categorical.
Objective of sampling: To understand, if there is any significance difference between sample mean and population mean. * Electrical company * Factor F: Good relationship with supervisor in appraisal method/distribution of perks.
One-Sample Statistics | Relationship with supervisor | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 12 | 3.0000 | 1.59545 | .46057 | Yes It exist in my organization | 12 | 1.3333 | .65134 | .18803 |
One-Sample Test | Relationship with supervisor | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 6.514 | 11 | .000 | 3.00000 | 1.9863 | 4.0137 | It exist in my organization | 7.091 | 11 | .000 | 1.33333 | .9195 | 1.7472 |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For personal relationship with supervisors Vs Favoritism has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
For personal relationship with supervisors Vs “it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
* Factor C: Existence of Gender discrimination
One-Sample Statistics | Gender Discrimination | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 20 | 3.0000 | .97333 | .21764 | It exist in my organization | 20 | 2.1000 | .55251 | .12354 |
One-Sample Test | | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 13.784 | 19 | .000 | 3.00000 | 2.5445 | 3.4555 | It exist in my organization | 16.998 | 19 | .000 | 2.10000 | 1.8414 | 2.3586 |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For Gender discrimination Vs Favoritism has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
For Gender discrimination Vs “it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
* Factor D: Relatives/Friends in higher post for promotion within organization
One-Sample Statistics | Relatives/Friends in higher post for promotion within organization | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 12 | 2.8333 | 1.33712 | .38599 | It exist in my organization | 12 | 1.8333 | .71774 | .20719 |
One-Sample Test | Relatives/Friends in higher post for promotion within organization | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 7.340 | 11 | .003 | 2.83333 | 1.9838 | 3.6829 | It exist in my organization | 8.848 | 11 | .010 | 1.83333 | 1.3773 | 2.2894 |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For Relatives/Friends in higher post for promotion Vs Favoritism has level of significance = 0.003 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
For Relatives/Friends in higher post for promotion Vs “it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.010 (>0.05).
It means hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is insignificant with population mean. * Fashion Industry * Fashion A: To get into a new job, networking of influential person helps | One-Sample Statistics | Get new job, Need influential people | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 12 | 1.9167 | .79296 | .22891 | It exist in my organization | 12 | 2.0000 | .73855 | .21320 | | One-Sample Test | Get new job, Need influential people | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 8.373 | 11 | .000 | 1.91667 | 1.4128 | 2.4205 | It exist in my organization | 9.381 | 11 | .000 | 2.00000 | 1.5307 | 2.4693 |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For to get into a new job, networking of influential person helps Vs Favoritism has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.For get into a new job, networking of influential person helps Vs “it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean. * Factor B: Same Ethnic, cultural background helps in getting higher post. One-Sample Statistics | | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 12 | 2.6667 | 1.43548 | .41439 | It exist in my organization | 12 | 2.5000 | .52223 | .15076 | One-Sample Test | | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 6.435 | 11 | .000 | 2.66667 | 1.7546 | 3.5787 | It exist in my organization | 16.583 | 11 | .000 | 2.50000 | 2.1682 | 2.8318 | |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For Same Ethnic, cultural background helps in getting higher post Vs Favoritism has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
For Same Ethnic, cultural background helps in getting higher post Vs “it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05). It means sample mean is significant with population mean.
* Factor D: Relatives/Friends in higher post for promotion within organization One-Sample Statistics | Relatives/Friends in higher post | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 12 | 2.0000 | .95346 | .27524 | It exist in my organization | 12 | 1.7500 | .75378 | .21760 | One-Sample Test | Relatives/Friends in higher post | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 7.266 | 11 | .000 | 2.00000 | 1.3942 | 2.6058 | It exist in my organization | 8.042 | 11 | .000 | 1.75000 | 1.2711 | 2.2289 |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For Relatives/Friends in higher post for promotion within organization Vs Favoritism has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
For Relatives/Friends in higher post for promotion within organization Vs “ it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05). It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean. * IT industry * Factor D: Favoring to friends/friendship into the organization One-Sample Statistics | Favoring to friends/friendship | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 16 | 2.0000 | 1.26491 | .31623 | It exist in my organization | 16 | 2.2500 | .77460 | .19365 |
One-Sample Test | Favoring to friends/friendship | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 6.325 | 15 | .000 | 2.00000 | 1.3260 | 2.6740 | It exist in my organization | 11.619 | 15 | .000 | 2.25000 | 1.8372 | 2.6628 |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For Favoring to friends/friendship into the organization Vs Favoritism has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
For Favoring to friends/friendship into the organization Vs “it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05). It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean. * Factor A: To get into a new job, networking of influential person helps One-Sample Statistics | Networking of influential person | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 16 | 1.8750 | 1.02470 | .25617 | It exist in my organization | 16 | 2.1875 | .65511 | .16378 |
One-Sample Test | Networking of influential person | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 7.319 | 15 | .000 | 1.87500 | 1.3290 | 2.4210 | It exist in my organization | 13.357 | 15 | .000 | 2.18750 | 1.8384 | 2.5366 |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For To get into a new job, networking of influential person helps Vs Favoritism has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05). It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
For To get into a new job, networking of influential person helps Vs “it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05). It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean. * Factor K: Personal relation with supervisor One-Sample Statistics | Personal relation with supervisor | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 64 | 2.6719 | 1.26057 | .15757 | It exist in my organization | 64 | 2.1250 | .65465 | .08183 |
One-Sample Test | | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 16.957 | 63 | .000 | 2.67188 | 2.3570 | 2.9868 | It exist in my organization | 25.968 | 63 | .000 | 2.12500 | 1.9615 | 2.2885 |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For Personal relation with supervisor Vs Favoritism has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
For Personal relation with supervisor Vs “it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
* Manufacturing industry * Factor H: Relatives/Friends in higher post for promotion within organization One-Sample Statistics | | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 14 | 2.6429 | 1.39268 | .37221 | It exist in my organization | 14 | 2.4286 | .75593 | .20203 |
One-Sample Test | | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 7.100 | 13 | .000 | 2.64286 | 1.8387 | 3.4470 | It exist in my organization | 12.021 | 13 | .000 | 2.42857 | 1.9921 | 2.8650 |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For Relatives/Friends in higher post for promotion within organization has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
For Relatives/Friends in higher post for promotion within organization Vs “it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
* Factor E: Existence of Autocratic rule One-Sample Statistics | Relatives/Friends in higher post | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 7 | 2.5714 | .97590 | .36886 | It exist in my organization | 7 | 2.2857 | .48795 | .18443 |
One-Sample Test | Relatives/Friends in higher post | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 6.971 | 6 | .000 | 2.57143 | 1.6689 | 3.4740 | It exist in my organization | 12.394 | 6 | .000 | 2.28571 | 1.8344 | 2.7370 |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For Existence of Autocratic rule Vs Favoritism has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean. For Existence of Autocratic rule Vs “it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
* Factor G: Effect of influential person, within the organization
One-Sample Statistics | Effect of influential person | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | It is Favoritism | 35 | 2.9714 | 1.33913 | .22635 | It exist in my organization | 35 | 2.3714 | .68966 | .11657 |
One-Sample Test | Effect of influential person | Test Value = 0 | | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | | | | Lower | Upper | It is Favoritism | 13.127 | 34 | .000 | 2.97143 | 2.5114 | 3.4314 | It exist in my organization | 20.343 | 34 | .000 | 2.37143 | 2.1345 | 2.6083 |
Here we are comparing sample mean with population mean. For Effect of influential person, within the organization Vs Favoritism has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean.
For Effect of influential person, within the organization Vs “it exist in organization” has level of significance = 0.000 (<0.05).
It means null hypothesis has got rejected and sample mean is significant with population mean. * Conclusion: The figures of the T-Test guarantee the relevance of our sampling to population for both factors “Is it favoritism” and “Existence in organization”.
3- Results for “Is there Favoritism?”
The top 3 of the situations where people find the more favoritism in all kinds of organizations are exposed below: Range | Questions | Situations | Mean | 1 | 17 | Favoring to friends/friendship into the organization | 2.25 | 2 | 10 | Getting good hike, it is necessary to have influential person in higher post within the organization | 2.28 | 3 | 13 | Effect of influential person, within the organization | 2.32 |
Analysis: The results show us the top 3 most crucial situations where people feel favoritism. The figures of the last column, between 2.25 and 2.32 means that the answer is between “yes, there is favoritism” and “neutral” [Cf. Methodology]
When we go further, we can see huge differences between the industries: * In Electrical Industry Range | Questions | Situations | Mean | 1 | 18 | Existence of Gender discrimination | 1.75 | 2 | 12 | Good relationship with supervisor in appraisal method | 2.00 | 3 | 24 | Good relationship with supervisor in distribution of perks. | 2.00 |
Analysis: Generally, Electrical industry is populated by male workers due to hard conditions of work. This reason may help to explain the range of gender discrimination at the top 1 in conditions of favoritism for that type of industry. * In Fashion industry Range | Questions | Situations | Mean | 1 | 16 | Effect of influential person, within the organization | 1.16 | 2 | 31 | Personal relation with supervisor | 1.25 | 3 | 29 | Personal relationship with peers | 1.6 |
Analysis: Fashion industry is an area where relation are very important. Then we find obviously all factors relative to influence in this type of industry. * In IT industry Range | Questions | Situations | Mean | 1 | 17 | Favoring to friends/friendship into the organization | 1.625 | 2 | 1 | To get into a new job, networking of influential person helps | 1.75 | 3 | 34 | Personal relation with supervisor | 1.875 |
Analysis: As IT Boom in India, Plenty of population moving towards IT due to many opportunities, In order to join as new employee, reference by friends and relatives acts as an important role during recruitments. After opting job, People feel high competitive environment. They work for long hours, still not sufficient to get promotion because your peers are also almost equally capable to opt that, So at time of promotion, Good relations with supervisors acts as a catalyst.
* In Manufacturing Industry Range | Questions | Situations | Mean | 1 | 10 | Getting good hike, it is necessary to have influential person in higher post within the organization | 2.57 | 2 | 11 | Existence of Autocratic rule | 2.57 | 3 | 13 | Effect of influential person within team | 2.57 |
Analysis: In Manufacturing everything is very hierarchized. Due to this, Less skills more hard work is required. Due to less skills requirements, less educated people are also getting these opportunities on less salaries. So to get promotion and other benefits which you usually can’t get while just achieving targets (as motive of manufacturing company is to save money, give less gifts to employees), Influential personal at higher post plays very significant role.
Discussion: As a conclusion we can conclude that each type of industry has its kind of favoritism due to a particular environment. Although we also find few common factors among these industries.
4- Results for “Does it happen in your organization?”
Here is interesting question, “Does this situation exist in the organizations”, we notice that the situation G “Effect of influential person, within the organization” is always in the top 3 for all the organizations. It is the most common situation of favoritism in the professional work life.
It is followed by the situation F “Good relationship with supervisor”.
Conclusions:
Workplace now –a day’s become competitive, full of competitions, competitions from the competitors,i.e, other organisations or among the employees. Everyone wants to do best to get best so that their main objective get fulfilled. It is an ideal condition that everyone is getting remunerations and other perks as per according to the productivity that they are doing for the organisation. “Organisation benefits is the benefits of employees” is the general thought that interacted in the orientation session of the newcomer in the organisations.
However with the passé’ of time, this thought becomes different for everyone one and as per their perception they are going to behave in the organisations.
Through analysis and research, this paper brings forth the following insights: - * For electrical based industry the sample data can depict the population data about Good relationship with supervisor helps in appraisal method/distribution of perks. * For electrical based industry “sample mean is significant with population mean for Gender discrimination” * For fashion industry “sample mean is significant with the population mean for get into a new job, networking of influential person helps”. * For Fashion industry” sample mean is significant with the population mean for same Ethnic, cultural background helps in getting higher post”. * For IT industry “ sample mean is significant with the population mean for favoring to friends/friendship into the organization”. * For IT industry “ sample mean is significant with the population mean for to get into a new job, networking of influential person helps”.
Limitations of the Study:
Every research is incomplete without its own limitations. In this research too there were some limitations. They are: * Results are just an indication of the present scenario and may not be applicable in the future. * The sample was geographically limited and the age range was narrow. Data collected in other industry may produce different results. * The size of the sample is small i.e. 30.
The representative response is not current in all cases; preferably the response is as per the experience wondered few months back.
Recommendations:
* Is it for real: Sometimes you are made to believe that favouritism exists but the truth can be much different? The reason can be because of nature of jobs, profiles etc. But somehow we tend to believe that we are not given equal importance and that our Boss and management are not happy with us, actually the situation is different. * Why there is a Bias: Even if favouritism persists, then what is the main reason for that? When performance and efficiency of the employees are concerned, people do get inclined towards those who can beat others. Yes, performers are preferred and they would continuously be pampered across. * What Best You can Do: The best solution against favouritism is to increase the level of performance and let the numbers speak for you. Things get noticed and there is no way it is easier for management or your boss to ignore your performance and give the credit to someone else.
