Avoiding Perceptions of Favoritism
Product managers are uniquely positioned within organizations to drive customer value and business impact. After all, we're the ones who work cross-functionally to prioritize what to build, to define product strategy, and to lead initiatives from ideation through execution.
But with this unique position comes a challenging dilemma. How can we drive the most value for customers and the business, while simultaneously being perceived as fair, impartial, and empathetic by our stakeholders?
The reality is that every single product decision requires trade-offs. We have limited engineering bandwidth, limited design bandwidth, and limited go-to-market bandwidth.
Inevitably, some stakeholders will be frustrated when product decisions don't benefit them. Worse, some stakeholders may feel like they are actively & negatively impacted by our choices.
It's impossible to keep everyone happy all the time. But, it is possible to be thoughtful in how we position ourselves and how we communicate, to maintain our stakeholders' trust even when we make decisions that don't favor them.
In this essay, we dive deep into why perceptions of favoritism matter, and the negative impacts caused by perceived favoritism. Then, we share a set of techniques, mindsets, and approaches that empower product managers to make principled product decisions while maintaining strong stakeholder relationships.
So, let’s dive in!
Why perceptions of favoritism matter for PMs
Let's begin by discussing why we should care about being perceived as playing favorites in the first place.
After all, we make decisions based on customer value and business value, not based on keeping internal teams happy! So, why does it matter what our stakeholders think about us at a personal level?
There are three key reasons why we should proactively manage perceptions of favoritism:
Perceptions of favoritism erode trust, harming long-term business outcomes
Perceptions of favoritism damage working relationships, slowing down execution velocity
Perceptions of favoritism hinder our ability to gather insights, reducing quality of decisions
Let's dive into each reason below.
Perceptions of favoritism erode trust
Trust is the foundational pillar of execution excellence. Every single decision we make requires our stakeholders to trust that we're doing the right thing for customers and for the business.
When stakeholders perceive us as making choices based on personal preferences rather than principled logic, they start to question whether our other decisions are truly in the best interest of the company. They wonder if we have ulterior motives driving our prioritization and our product strategy.
This erosion of trust has major negative long-term impacts on the business. Stakeholders start to doubt our recommendations, even if those recommendations are truly the right call to make. They push for additional oversight and approval on our product decisions, slowing down development velocity.
In drastic situations, they escalate to leadership to override our product choices, leading to suboptimal outcomes for customers. After all, many times our stakeholders don't have the same end-to-end context that we have.
Therefore, we must maintain our stakeholders' trust - if we don't, we will struggle to make the right long-term decisions to drive the business forward.
Perceptions of favoritism damage working relationships
Beyond company-level impacts, perceptions of favoritism also create major friction on a person-to-person basis. To drive products forward, we rely on collaborative, positive relationships with cross-functional teammates.
But when individuals feel that we are biased towards other functions or other business lines, they personally invest less effort and energy into the partnership. After all, why should they go above-and-beyond if we are not truly advocating for their needs?
This negativity spirals over time. Stakeholders provide less context and visibility into upcoming challenges, so we're forced to make decisions with limited information. And, they're less likely to make time on their calendars to discuss roadblocks, so we're forced to spend more time chasing people down.
Many times, these stakeholders may even work behind-the-scenes to lobby other teams to join their side and overturn our decisions.
We simply cannot move at peak velocity if our stakeholders are not eagerly partnering with us. As the proverb goes, "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."
As product managers, we must go far. Therefore, we need to bring our teams along with us.
Perceptions of favoritism hinder insight-gathering
Finally, one of our core value propositions as PMs is our ability to gather a diversity of perspectives and to identify the best path forward given a variety of conflicting inputs. But, if stakeholders perceive us as playing favorites, they will be less forthcoming with information.
Think about it this way: if a team believes that we will always prioritize a different team ahead of them, why would they bother spending time to share context with us?
From their perspective, additional information won't change the final output - we'd still be biased towards our "favorite" teams. So, they won't make the time to provide customer verbatims, industry analyses, or market trends. They'll simply ask for what they need and lobby for it, rather than working to create a shared reality first.
This dearth of insight is crippling for us as product managers. We can't drive good decisions if we don't have a comprehensive understanding of the market landscape and of our customers' needs. In absence of insight from our stakeholders, we have to spend more of our own time doing research that could have been delegated, slowing down the entire product development lifecycle.
We now see how perceived favoritism causes organizational friction, damages interpersonal relationships, and leads to lower-quality product decisions. So, how do we solve this problem?
How PMs can avoid perceptions of favoritism
Here are four actionable strategies for product managers to maintain stakeholder trust:
Establish a reputation for fairness and neutrality
Acknowledge and empathize with those negatively impacted by decisions
Explain principled reasons for product decisions
Advocate for holistic business success
Let's discuss each approach below.
1) Establish a reputation for fairness and neutrality
One of the highest-leverage preventative approaches we can take is to deliberately, proactively build our reputation as fair and impartial collaborators. This effort must begin from Day 1, even before we're making difficult trade-off decisions.
Here are some key ways to build this track record:
Ask for feedback and input from all stakeholder groups, not just the ones we interact with most frequently. Actively solicit opinions from teams that may not be top-of-mind.
When asked to make a decision, clearly share the objective rubric that will be used to make that decision. Gather feedback from others on what criteria should be included in the evaluation.
Amplify suggestions from teams that typically have less influence within the organization. Deliberately call out great ideas from underrepresented groups.
Highlight our own blindspots and biases, and ask others to call out unconscious bias when they see it from us. Demonstrating vulnerability builds psychological safety.
Constantly solicit feedback from stakeholders on what we could be doing better to make them feel heard and valued. Implement the feedback to show that we're listening.
When others bring up past examples where we were not perceived as playing fairly, acknowledge the situation, clarify what we did wrong, and share how we've changed our approach going forward.
We want to craft a narrative and a persona as a product manager who deeply cares about all stakeholders and who goes out of their way to ensure equality. Of course, building this reputation requires consistent, repeated effort over a long period of time to solidify others' impressions of us.
But by deliberately investing in this area, we buy ourselves the ability to make difficult decisions in the future from a place of trust, rather than fighting an uphill battle to convince others that we're making the right call.
2) Acknowledge and empathize with those negatively impacted
Inevitably, some of our choices will negatively impact certain teams at the expense of other teams. In these situations, we need to practice acknowledgement and empathy.
Acknowledgment is about stating the situation plainly and directly, without minimizing or downplaying the scenario. Here's an example of what this could sound like:
"I recognize that this is not the decision you were hoping for. I know that the sales team was relying on this new feature to help close deals and drive revenue. I acknowledge that not having this feature will lead to frustrated prospects and potentially longer deal cycles."
Acknowledgment is only the first step. We also need to empathize with the personal and emotional impact of the decision on the individuals involved. Here's an example of how to express empathy:
"I understand how difficult it is to have to change your pitch to prospects mid-quarter. It's incredibly frustrating to feel like you finally have momentum, only to find out that you need to adapt to a new reality. I can imagine how much extra time and effort it will take to reposition the product without this key feature, and how this might reflect negatively on your performance."
When we empathize with our stakeholders' situations, we demonstrate that we care about them as human beings, not just as means to an end. We show that we recognize the real-life cost of our choices.
Ultimately, acknowledgment and empathy are not about making ourselves feel better. After all, our goal is not to be charitable or to do our stakeholders a favor.
Instead, we want our stakeholders to truly recognize that we are balancing a diversity of needs. We are not ignoring them or minimizing their pain - we are actively considering them with every decision we make, even if the final output is not the one they wanted.
By combining acknowledgment and empathy, we emphasize our impartiality. We're not celebrating the "winning" team and we're not dismissing the "losing" team. We're trying to optimize for what's best for the collective whole, while still knowing the individual impact on each group.
3) Explain principled reasons for product decisions
Beyond simply communicating decisions, we need to share our rationale behind these decisions. After all, others cannot read our minds - if we don't explain our logic, they may fill in the gaps with the worst possible assumptions.
One of the most effective ways to demonstrate principled decision-making is to use a framework, and to show our stakeholders how we evaluated each option through said framework.
As an example, we can show a scorecard where each initiative is ranked on customer value, feasibility, and business impact. With a clear rubric in place, stakeholders are able to see exactly how different ideas stacked up against one another.
Or, we can share a prioritization matrix, where the horizontal axis indicates degree of impact and the vertical axis indicates degree of effort. By plotting initiatives against these two dimensions, we have a visual, objective way to stack rank what to pursue first.
When sharing frameworks like these, call out how different teams' initiatives landed in different spots compared to other teams. Explicitly comment on the balance of priorities across stakeholder groups, so it's clear that we evaluated each one fairly.
It's not enough to prioritize in a spreadsheet and share the final output. We must walk our stakeholders through our logic - the decisions we're making are not easy ones, so we shouldn't expect others to immediately agree with our perspectives.
And to be clear, simply having an initial framework is not necessarily sufficient. We need to be open to feedback and iteration on the framework itself. Ask stakeholders whether there are important considerations that are not currently captured in the rubric, or whether certain factors should be weighted more heavily.
When we have buy-in and alignment on the thought process itself, others will be far more bought into the final decision, even if it doesn't end up favoring them. They can clearly see that we're not making biased calls based on playing favorites - we're making difficult trade-offs based on what's ultimately best for the customer and for the business.
4) Advocate for holistic business success
At the end of the day, we will have to make decisions that leave some teams worse off than before. But, our north star must always be the overall success of the business.
We need to help our stakeholders understand - what's good for the entire company is ultimately good for their specific team as well, even if there's short-term pain. If the business grows and hits major milestones, every team will have more funding, more resources, and more customers to work with.
So while a sales team may be frustrated that they don't have a particular feature to close new deals this quarter, if the product initiatives we prioritize instead lead to higher customer retention, then that sales team will have a much larger base to sell into and expand revenue in the future.
Or, an ops team may be disappointed that their needs for a custom-built internal tool are taking a backseat, but if the engineering team is freed up to tackle customer-facing, revenue-generating features, then that ops team will eventually have more budget to hire additional headcount to solve their problems.
This mental shift takes time, effort, and repetition. Our stakeholders are not wrong or short-sighted to focus on their own team's needs. After all, that's what they're being measured against!
It's our job as product managers to consistently reiterate the larger picture and the downstream impact of our decisions. We need to paint a vision of a rising tide that lifts all boats.
By positioning ourselves as advocates for collective success rather than champions for a specific team, we bring stakeholders together instead of pitting them against one another. We demonstrate our commitment to finding the best solutions for everyone, even if that means making tough calls in the short-term.
Additional scenarios to manage
Even when employing the above strategies, tough situations may still arise.
Based on coaching sessions with my clients, here are some scenarios that you might run into:
Running into specific teams that are consistently resistant
Dealing with ongoing resentment from a key stakeholder
Working deeply with one team and causing other teams to feel left out
Here are some best practices to manage each of these scenarios.
Driving mindset changes with resistant teams
When faced with consistently resistant teams who struggle to see the bigger picture, I’ve found that three particular phrases can help drive mindset change.
Of course, you have to genuinely believe each phrase. Don’t parrot the phrases mindlessly at these resistant teams! After all, people are shockingly good at detecting insincerity.
To avoid being perceived as insincere, make sure you understand what the point of each of these phrases are, and take the time to adjust your mindset to align with the underlying principles behind each phrase.
Phrase #1: "I understand this decision feels unfair to your team right now. Can we take a step back and look at how this positions us for long-term success?"
This language validates their current frustration while inviting them to consider a wider lens.
Phrase #2: "I know it's hard to have your team's needs deprioritized. Let's forecast how this decision could enable your team to get more resources and support in the future."
Tying the short-term pain to specific long-term gain for their team can breed buy-in.
Phrase #3: "What's most important to your team's success next quarter and the quarter after that? Let's see how this trade-off aligns to those goals."
Prompting the resistant team to articulate their longer time horizon needs can help them see alignment they may be missing.
Additionally, it's important to model and reward big-picture thinking publicly. When a team makes a sacrifice for the greater good, highlight that behavior in a visible way. Celebrate and reinforce the mindset you want to see.
Change won't happen overnight, but consistently using this language and these techniques can slowly shift resistant teams towards a more holistic view.
Handling ongoing resentment
In situations where a stakeholder remains angry or resentful even after you've acknowledged the negative impact of a decision, a few techniques can help.
Give them space: Sometimes, people just need time to process their emotions. Avoid hounding them or demanding they get over it immediately. Let them know you're there to continue the discussion when they're ready.
Involve them in the solution: Resentment often stems from a feeling of powerlessness. Ask the stakeholder for their ideas on how to move forward or make the best of the situation. Empower them to be part of the path ahead.
Align on next steps: Work with the stakeholder to define concrete next steps, both for your team and theirs. Having clear actions to take can channel frustration into forward momentum. Make sure those next steps include ways you'll support their team.
Escalate compassionately if needed: If the anger is extreme or persists over a long period of time, don't be afraid to pull in additional support. Looping in your manager or theirs can provide backup and fresh perspectives. Remember, escalation is not a punishment or an ultimatum; it’s meant to help provide more degrees of freedom in coming up with a workable solution.
Throughout, remember to remain calm and professional, even in the face of strong emotions. Acknowledge their continued frustration, but gently steer conversations towards collaborative problem-solving.
Resentment is challenging! But, approaching resentment with empathy, openness, and a bias towards action can reduce the chances of it festering out of control.
Working closely with specific teams
Many times, product managers work closely with certain teams by nature of their current strategic priorities. Other teams may feel left out, even though you’ve invested in trust-building work. This tension can be tricky to navigate, but there are ways to strike a balance!
Overcommunicate your rationale: When you are inevitably working more closely with certain teams, don't assume other teams will naturally understand why. Proactively share, in detail, the strategic reasoning behind your allocation of time and resources. Make the needs of the business, not personal preference, abundantly clear.
Track your touchpoints: Take note of the different touchpoints that you’ve made with each team. It doesn’t have to be a sophisticated system; a quick mental check is enough. As you do so, take note of any patterns of imbalance. From there, commit to minimum touchpoints with each team, even when they're not the priority.
Bring an outsider lens: It's easy to get in your own head about whether you're being fair. Regularly bring your stakeholder engagement approach to a trusted peer or manager, ideally someone removed from the situation. Ask them to gut check your plan for any signs of unintended favoritism.
Funnel insights meaningfully: Make sure the insights you gain from the teams you work with closely don't just live with you. Synthesize and share learnings with the broader organization.
Importantly, keep the non-priority teams in the loop on what you're doing with the high-priority ones. Transparency breeds trust.
No matter what, some stakeholders may still feel stung by the imbalance. That’s the magic and the curse of working with human beings to ship products - we’re not deterministic like our computers & devices are!
But by maximizing transparency at every turn and by regularly evaluating your own stakeholder engagement patterns, you'll minimize the risk of being perceived as playing favorites.
Closing thoughts
Product management is all about trade-offs; we'll never be able to keep every stakeholder happy at the same time. The nature of our role is such that we have to make difficult decisions that favor the customer and the business.
But, just because we can't please everyone doesn't mean we have to be seen as playing favorites. By proactively building a reputation for fairness, by empathizing with those negatively impacted, by showing our principled approach to decision-making, and by aligning everyone towards the greater good, we can maintain trust and collaboration even in the face of tough choices.
Ultimately, the path to long-term success is through ruthless & impartial prioritization. By optimizing for the overall business, we set up every team for the best possible future.
Thank you to Pauli Bielewicz, Mary Paschentis, Goutham Budati, Markus Seebauer, Juliet Chuang, and Kendra Ritterhern for making this guide possible.
