| Course | DIV 5023 Recognizing and Reducing Favoritism |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Favoritism analysis |
| Length | 1,210 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | M.S. in Organizational Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DIV 5023 Module 1
Seven of Nine Promotions From the Manager's Old Shift: Recognizing Favoritism in a Distribution Center
Student Name
American College of Education
DIV5023: Recognizing and Reducing Favoritism
Module 1 Assignment
Instructor Name
September 4, 2028
Introduction
Few managers believe they play favorites, and I was no exception. I am one of two operations managers at a distribution center in Groveport, Ohio, that supplies a regional chain of home improvement stores; the center is a composite drawn from my experience, with details changed. It employs about 160 warehouse associates across three shifts and 14 shift leads. This paper defines favoritism and its common forms, explains why it often happens without anyone intending it, reviews research on its effects and then looks for it in three of the center's decisions: lead promotions, overtime and shift assignments and the flow of informal information.
What Favoritism Means
Favoritism, in this paper, means giving someone an advantage at work because of a personal connection or liking rather than because of performance or qualifications. It takes several forms. Nepotism favors relatives, and cronyism favors friends or allies. A broader and more common form is affinity-based favoritism, in which a decision maker leans, often unconsciously, toward people who resemble them, share their interests or spend more time with them. Favoritism can also appear in small, repeated choices, such as who gets the easier assignment, the early tip about an opening or the benefit of the doubt after a mistake.
Why It Happens Without Intent
Ordinary social psychology explains much of the problem. A large meta-analysis by Montoya et al. (2008) found that people are attracted to others they see as similar to themselves, and that perceived similarity matters even more than actual similarity in ongoing relationships. Familiarity works in the same direction: people we see often, talk with after meetings or share breaks with become easier to read, trust and picture in a bigger role. None of this requires bad intentions. A manager who simply knows some people better will find their strengths more visible and their mistakes easier to explain.
What Field Research Shows
Studies of real workplaces show these tendencies affecting outcomes. Prendergast and Topel (1996) modeled how supervisors' personal preferences can distort performance evaluations and pay, creating costs that firms then try to limit, for example by reducing supervisors' discretion. In personnel data from a farm in the United Kingdom, Bandiera et al. (2009) found that managers paid a fixed wage favored workers with whom they had social connections, and that the favoritism largely disappeared, and productivity rose, once managers were paid bonuses tied to the output of the whole workforce.
Socializing and Promotion
A more recent study speaks directly to everyday affinity. Using records from a large commercial bank in Asia, Cullen and Perez-Truglia (2023) found that male employees assigned to male managers were promoted faster than those assigned to female managers, and that the advantage appeared linked to social interaction; employees who smoked and were assigned to managers who smoked also advanced faster, consistent with shared breaks building relationships. The lesson for a distribution center is plain. Shared shifts, shared break rooms and shared interests can turn into faster careers without anyone deciding that they should.
Lead Promotions
Over the past three years, the center promoted nine associates to shift lead. Promotions are decided by the operations manager responsible for the shift, after informal conversations rather than a posted process with set criteria. Seven of the nine came from the shift that the promoting manager had personally supervised before becoming a manager, though that shift holds about a third of associates. Productivity and accuracy records for the nine were solid, so none of the promotions looks undeserved. The concern is the pool: strong associates on other shifts were rarely considered because the deciding manager barely knew them.
Overtime and Shift Assignments
Overtime is offered by leads, often by text to associates they expect to say yes. Payroll records for the last twelve months show that the top fifth of associates by overtime hours received 41 percent of all overtime, while a third of associates who had signed the voluntary overtime list received almost none. Transfers to the day shift, the most sought after, follow a similar pattern; four of the last six went to associates who had worked with the receiving lead before. Overtime matters financially, and in a center where base pay is modest, uneven access means uneven earnings.
Informal Information
A quieter form of favoritism runs through information. Openings for lead roles, cross-training on forklifts and the reach truck and changes to schedules are often mentioned in conversation before they are posted, if they are posted at all. Associates who chat with leads and managers during breaks hear first. In conversations for this paper, two associates on the overnight shift said they learned about the most recent lead opening after it had been filled. Earlier information is an advantage in itself, since it gives people time to prepare, volunteer or ask. Because none of this is written down, it is also the form of favoritism least likely to show up in any audit unless someone asks.
Effects on People
The effects show up in how people talk about the center. Several overnight associates described promotions as going to whoever the managers like, a belief that, true or not, discourages effort. Exit interviews from the last year mention unfair overtime or favoritism in 11 of 38 cases, second only to pay. Associates who are left out may also stop volunteering for extra work, which reinforces the pattern: leads offer overtime to the people who reliably say yes, and those people get still more chances to show what they can do.
Effects on the Organization
The organization pays as well. Narrow promotion pools mean some of the most capable associates are never considered for lead, and leads chosen from one shift may struggle to earn trust on others. Uneven overtime concentrates fatigue in a small group, which matters in a center where forklift safety depends on alertness. Turnover is costly; replacing a trained associate takes weeks of hiring and training. And a belief that advancement depends on who you know can make it harder to recruit, since associates talk with friends and family about where to work.
Favoritism Versus Judgment
Not every uneven outcome is favoritism. Some associates earn more overtime because they have certifications others lack, and some leads rightly prefer people they have seen handle difficult loads safely. The test is whether advantages follow from relevant, known criteria that everyone had a fair chance to meet, or from personal connection and visibility. It also matters whether the same treatment would be given to someone the decision maker knows less well. That test points the course toward process: the next step is to judge how fair these decisions feel to the people they affect.
Conclusion
Favoritism at the distribution center is mostly unintentional, but it is visible in the records: seven of nine lead promotions from the promoting manager's former shift, overtime concentrated in a fifth of associates and information that reaches some people first. Research on similarity, social connection and promotion explains how such patterns arise and what they cost. Distinguishing favoritism from legitimate judgment keeps the focus on processes rather than on individuals. The next module applies organizational justice to how associates perceive these decisions.
References
Bandiera, O., Barankay, I., & Rasul, I. (2009). Social connections and incentives in the workplace: Evidence from personnel data. Econometrica, 77(4), 1047-1094. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA6496
Cullen, Z., & Perez-Truglia, R. (2023). The old boys' club: Schmoozing and the gender gap. American Economic Review, 113(7), 1703-1740. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20210863
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889-922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700
Prendergast, C., & Topel, R. H. (1996). Favoritism in organizations. Journal of Political Economy, 104(5), 958-978. https://doi.org/10.1086/262048
What the DIV 5023 Module 1 instructions ask for
The first DIV 5023 paper usually asks you to identify forms of favoritism and their effects. Expect to define favoritism and related terms such as nepotism and cronyism, then explain with research why people favor those they resemble or know, often without intending to. Most prompts reward finding favoritism in a real workplace's decisions, such as promotions, assignments or access to information, using records where possible. Describe effects on employees and on the organization. Keep the focus on patterns and processes rather than on blaming individuals, and cite research in APA 7. Choose two or three decisions to examine, such as promotions, scheduling and access to information, so the analysis has depth rather than breadth.
How this DIV 5023 Module 1 example is built
The sample defines favoritism and its forms, then draws on a meta-analysis of similarity and attraction to explain unintended bias. Field studies from a farm and a bank show favoritism shaping pay, productivity and promotion. The distribution center's records then reveal promotions drawn from one shift, overtime concentrated among a fifth of associates and openings heard about too late on the overnight shift. Effects include exit interview comments, fatigue and narrow promotion pools. A section separating favoritism from legitimate judgment sets up the next module on fairness perceptions. Composite details are labeled as such. Every figure in the paper comes from records the center already kept.
Where the points sit in the DIV 5023 Module 1 rubric
Favoritism analyses are graded on definition, evidence and tone. Graders look for clear definitions of favoritism's forms, research explaining why it occurs and evidence from a real workplace's decisions, ideally from records rather than impressions. Effects on individuals and the organization should both be addressed. Papers that separate favoritism from legitimate judgment and keep the focus on processes are often credited. Accusations against named people, examples without evidence and definitions without research tend to score lower. Each source should be cited accurately in APA 7 with page or issue details correct. Using counts from records, such as how many promotions came from one group, gives the paper weight that impressions alone cannot.
DIV 5023 Module 1 help: mistakes that cost points
Writing about favoritism in your own workplace is delicate, especially when the decisions involve people you work with every day. Our writers know how to find patterns in promotion, scheduling or overtime records, explain them with research and keep the tone analytical rather than accusing. A short description of your workplace and the decisions in question, together with your copy of the prompt, is enough to start a draft grounded in studies of similarity, social connection and favoritism's costs. Warehouses, hospitals, schools, offices and retail all work as settings. A completed paper usually reaches you within two days. We can also help you decide which records to request and how to describe a composite workplace when the real one must stay anonymous.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DIV 5023 and M.S. in Organizational Leadership sample papers
- DIV 5023 Module 2: Organizational Justice Analysis
- DIV 5023 Module 3: Promotion Process Map
- DIV 5023 Module 4: Promotion Process Redesign
- DIV 5023 Module 5: Fairness Monitoring Plan
- SUST 5013 Module 2: Vital Farms Crew Practices
- DATA 5013 Module 2: Research Design and Sampling
- HRM 5473 Module 3: Pregnancy Accommodation Analysis
- DATA 5013 Module 5: Research Report
DIV 5023 Module 1 questions, answered
What does DIV5023 Module 1 usually ask for?
Module 1 of DIV5023 usually asks you to identify the forms favoritism takes in a workplace and explain their effects on people and the organization, using research.
Can favoritism be unintentional?
Yes. Research on similarity and familiarity shows people lean toward those they resemble or know better, which can shape decisions without any intent to favor.
What is the difference between favoritism, nepotism and cronyism?
Nepotism favors relatives and cronyism favors friends or allies; favoritism is the broader term, including subtle advantages based on liking or familiarity.
Where can I find a free DIV 5023 Module 1 sample paper?
This page has one: a distribution center where seven of nine lead promotions came from the promoting manager's old shift and a fifth of associates got 41 percent of overtime.
How do you tell favoritism from legitimate judgment?
Ask whether the advantage follows known, relevant criteria everyone could meet, and whether someone the decision maker knows less well would be treated the same way.