Favoritism in the Federal Workplace: Are Rules the Solution?

• Published date: 01 September 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X231155359
• Author: Jone L. Pearce,Carrie Wang
• Date: 01 September 2024

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X231155359

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2024, Vol. 44(3) 516 –543

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X231155359

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Favoritism in the Federal

Workplace: Are Rules

the Solution?

Jone L. Pearce1 and Carrie Wang1

Abstract

We develop and test a more comprehensive theory of the sources and effects of

workplace favoritism by drawing on a large, agency-wide sample of U.S. Federal Aviation

Administration employees. We report how members of various underrepresented

groups differ in their perceptions of a variety of sources of favoritism. We find that

their perceptions of friendship favoritism are an important source of perception of

workplace favoritism for all employees. We show that perceptions of favoritism

are negatively associated with employee trust in their organizations and coworkers,

commitment to their organizations, willingness to speak up, and pay satisfaction,

with friendship favoritism significantly dominating over most other sources.

Further, we find that team leaders, supervisors, managers, and executives, with

their greater knowledge of organizational processes, report less favoritism. This

and previous research provide practical guidance on how greater transparency may

reduce employee perceptions of favoritism in the federal workforce while avoiding

discredited formalistic constraints.

Keywords

favoritism, merit, diversity, transparency, bias

Introduction

In recent years, scholars have questioned the neutrality of formal bureaucratic prac-

tices purporting to provide an unbiased assessment of an employee’s merit (HR)

(e.g., Portillo et al., 2020) and have called for less biased human resources practices

1University of California, Irvine, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jone L. Pearce, The Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, 4293 Pereira Dr,

SB2 # 442, Irvine, CA 92697-3125, USA.

Email: Jlpearce@uci.edu

1155359ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X231155359Review of Public Personnel AdministrationPearce and Wang

research-article2023

Pearce and Wang 517

(e.g., Brewer & Walker, 2013; Hays & Sowa, 2006; Kearney & Coggburn, 2016) in

order to foster an equitable workplace. These scholars have been joined by policy

makers who have called for less cumbersome and more flexible HR practices in

federal employment. Thus, the traditional formal government HR practices are

changing in response, reflecting Mengistu and Vogel’s (2003) claims that bureau-

cratic practices necessarily shift as societal preferences and values change. As gov-

ernment employees consider equity to be a central value in how they construct

meaning in their workplaces (Coggburn et al., 2020; Sowa, 2016), these ongoing

changes potentially foster uncertainty about important human resources manage-

ment (HRM) practices and whether the changes do in fact reflect more equity in HR

decision-making. Al-Aiban and Pearce (1993) argued that meritocracy is also a core

value for Americans, and citizens expected their governments to represent their core

values more than businesses do. Furthermore, governments do critical life and death

work that requires competence. Both are important reasons why governments took

the lead in seeking ways to have merit, not favoritism, govern equitable personnel

decisions (Inghram, 1995).

The importance of fostering equity and competence by limiting favoritism in fed-

eral employment is evident in the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which

oversees policies to “consider current and former federal employees for positions on

the basis of personal merit,” which is defined as “their experience, education, skills,

and performance record” (https://www.dol.gov/general/jobs/understanding-the-fed-

eral-hiring-process). Recently, the definition of merit in U.S. federal employment has

shifted from an early focus on eliminating political interference in the hiring and pro-

motion of employees to now include the goal of “provid[ing] a federal workforce

reflective of the Nation’s diversity” (PL95-454, section 3, 2301 (b)(1)) and providing

equitable access to job opportunities for everyone. However, there is evidence that this

goal is undermined by many traditional formal HR practices (see Bishu & Kennedy,

2019, for a review).

Federal employment practices have a long history rooted in traditional formal poli-

cies and practices such as competitive examinations, which on the surface seemed to

promote merit but research demonstrated otherwise. While the goal of unbiased merit

remains a central value in government service (Coggburn et al., 2020), recent scholars

have documented how a history of racism (Portillo et al., 2020) and gender bias

(Smith-Doerr et al., 2019) was built into formal practices in promotions and pay that

had only the veneer of unbiased objectivity. Evidence presented in court cases has

demonstrated that practices, such as standardized tests, were shown to not be predic-

tive of job performance, but instead advantaged White applicants (e.g., Griggs v. Duke

Power Company, 1971). Further, Johnson and Lewis (2020) found that traditional

competitive examinations are no better at predicting subsequent employee perfor-

mance and promotions than managerial direct hire authority, outstanding scholar pro-

grams, and veteran recruitment practices, all of which give more discretion to

managers. Yet, the formal traditional practice of competitive examinations has long

been the cornerstone of insuring that government employees believe they are hired and

promoted based on merit (Poocharoen & Brillantes, 2013).