Favoritism in Russian Organizations: Antecedents and Consequences

Favoritism in Russian Organizations:
Antecedents and Consequences

Balabanova E.S.

Dr. Sci. (Sociol.), Prof., National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia. balabanova@hse.ru

Portnyagina A.A.

media advertising specialist, Carat Russ Media, Moscow, Russia al.portniagina@gmail.com

ID of the Article: 9484

For citation:

Balabanova E.S., Portnyagina A.A. Favoritism in Russian Organizations: Antecedents and Consequences. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2023. No 2. P. 16-27


The paper analyzes the phenomenon of managerial favoritism defined as managers’ preferences for some of their subordinates, giving them the most favorable treatment at the expense of others. The study is based on two surveys of 1,116 managers and 364 employees. We reveal that the presence of favoritism is positively related to “clannish” type of social organization, with “closed” social network channels of hiring and employee socio-economic dependency from their managers. In organizations with favoritism, the importance of personal sympathies and subjective evaluations of managers is high, and a successful career requires compliance, discipline, and personal loyalty. In contrast, companies without favoritism are characterized by meritocratic type of social organization. They have open hiring channels, performance-based rewards and promotions, and a focus on continually updating the employees’ skills. Employees who reported favoritism in their organizations have lower job satisfaction, higher levels of role uncertainty, stress, and intentions to leave. Conversely, the most satisfied, engaged, and happy are those respondents who reported close and trusting relationships with their supervisors and at the same time their equal, not “exclusive”, treatment of all subordinates.

favoritism; in-group; out-group; leader-member exchange; meritocracy; power in organization


Балабанова Е.С. Концепция меритократизма в современных исследованиях организаций // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. 2016. Т. XIX. № 2 (85). С. 60–73. [Balabanova E.S. (2016) The Concept of Meritocracy in Contemporary Organizational Studies. Zhurnal sociologii i social’noj antropologii [The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology]. Vol. XIX. No. (85): 60–73. (In Russ.)]

Балабанова Е.С. Организационное поведение. М.: ИНФРА-М, 2022. [Balabanova E. S. (2022) Organizational Behavior. Moscow: INFRA-M. DOI 10.12737/1048688. (In Russ.)]

Парамонова С.П. Социология фаворитизма. Пермь: ПНИУПТУ, 2018. [Paramonova S.P. (2018) Sociology of Favoritism. Perm: PNIUPTU. (In Russ.)]

Флоровский С.Ю. Организационное развитие и совместная управленческая деятельность руководителей: технология личностно-регуляторной предикции // Психология управления в современной России: процессы труда и организации: мат. Междунар. науч.-практ. конф. Тверь: ТГУ, 2012. С. 46–51. [Florovskiy S.Yu. (2012) Organizational development and joint managerial activities of managers: the technology of personality-regulatory prediction. Psychology of Management in Modern Russia: Labor and Organizational Processes: conference proceedings. Tver: TGU: 46–51. (In Russ.)]

Флоровский С.Ю. Ценностно-ориентационная регуляция совместной управленческой деятельности: организационно-контекстная вариативность-стабильность // Вестник Удмуртского университета. Сер.: Философия. Психология. Педагогика. 2018. Т. 28. № 2. С. 228–238. [Florovskiy S.Yu. (2018) Value-oriented regulation of joint managerial activities: organization-contextual variability and stability. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psihologiya. Pedagogika [Bulletin of Udmurt University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy]. Vol. 28. No. 2: 228–238. (In Russ.)]

Castilla E.J., Benard S. (2010) The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 55. No. 4: 543–676.

Farr-Wharton R., Brunetto Y., Shacklock K. (2011) Professionals’ supervisor-subordinate relationships, autonomy and commitment in Australia: a leader-member exchange theory perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Vol. 22. No. 17: 3496–3512.

Graen G.B., Uhl-Bien M. (1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly. Vol. 6. No. 2: 219–247.

Hofstede G. (1986) Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Vol. 10. No. 3: 301–320.

Hotho J., Minbaeva D., Muratbekova-Touron M., Rabbiosi L. (2020) Coping with favoritism in recruitment and selection: a communal perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 165. No. 1: 659–679.

Hudson M., Netto G., Noon M., Sosenko F., De Lima P., Kamenou-Aigbekaen N. (2017) Ethnicity and low wage traps: favouritism, homosocial reproduction and economic marginalization. Work, Employment and Society. Vol. 31. No. 6: 992–1009.

Palermo O.A., Carnaz A.C., Duarte H. (2019) Favouritism: Exploring the ‘uncontrolled’ spaces of the leadership experience. Leadership. Vol. 15. No. 3: 381–397.

Pearce J.L. (2015) Cronyism and nepotism are bad for everyone: The research evidence. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 8. No. 1: 41–44.

Petersen T., Saporta I., Seidel M.D.L. (2000) Offering a job: Meritocracy and social networks. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 106. No. 3: 763–816.

Prendergast C.J., Topel R. (1996) Favoritism in organizations. Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 104. No. 5: 958–978.

Rivera M.T., Soderstrom S.B., Uzzi B. (2010) Dynamics of Dyads in Social Networks: Assortative, Relational, and Proximity Mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 36: 91–115.


Content No 2, 2023