Thalia Brown

The Dangers of Favoritism in Workplace Representation and Culture

Most employers enjoy highlighting their high-performing employees, especially those who help promote the company’s brand.

These high performers are often viewed as the “pets” of the organization, with the company keeping a close professional eye on them. Employers may also show favoritism by rewarding them for their loyalty and visibility.

Sometimes, however, the company experiences a sudden change of heart. Instead of being seen as an asset, the employee becomes viewed as a threat. This label often implies that the employee has done something wrong, which is rarely the case. More often, the employee’s personal brand or messaging no longer aligns with the company’s evolving brand, priorities, or initiatives. As a result, they unfairly acquire the reputation of being perceived as a threat.

Let’s explore the “Pet to Threat” phenomenon in organizational culture and the psychology behind why certain employees become viewed this way.

Many companies are risk-averse. They frequently monitor employees to maintain a positive brand image and often place particular expectations on visible employees to uphold the organization’s professional standards.

However, unless those expectations are clearly communicated, companies can unintentionally create unfair and inaccurate perceptions of an employee’s role and performance. Many organizations struggle to distinguish between being a strong employee and being a brand ambassador, often treating the two as though they are interchangeable.

So, how do we overcome this unfair dynamic?

Usually, it begins three or four layers above you in the organizational hierarchy. Often, a senior leader or executive notices qualities they admire in your work—sometimes influenced by the halo effect bias. They then encourage your direct manager and leadership team to assign you high-visibility projects and special responsibilities, effectively positioning you as the “pet” employee on the team.

Unfortunately, this can also lead to resentment from colleagues who perceive the favoritism being shown toward you. Instead of celebrating your contributions, teammates may begin viewing you as a threat rather than as someone whose success benefits the team as a whole.

The situation often becomes harmful when leadership begins to perceive your performance differently or sees you as “too competent” for your role, particularly if your abilities unintentionally make your manager appear less effective. At that point, you may begin to be viewed as a threat rather than an asset.

This dynamic often affects women, especially nonconforming women who do not fit traditional leadership expectations or who refuse to comply with unspoken workplace norms.

So, how do you address and resolve this situation?

Women can sometimes perceive other women as competitors in professional environments, which may lead to tension, resentment, or feelings of insecurity between colleagues.

According to a recent workplace conflict study, 43% of women reported feeling invalidated or perceived as being in competition with female colleagues at work.

Source: Lean In Workplace Discrimination Report

One of the most effective strategies is learning how to “manage up.” Rather than expecting leadership to fully understand the situation on their own, approach them as a collaborative partner. Help them understand that the current dynamic is creating friction within workplace relationships and may eventually negatively affect both team morale and performance.

A productive approach is to use your knowledge and influence to foster collaboration within the team. Help colleagues recognize their own strengths and contributions to the group dynamic. Encourage open communication and provide tools or support that help others feel valued rather than overlooked.

Collaborating more intentionally with colleagues also helps them better understand who you are, how you communicate, and how you prefer to work. Over time, this can improve relationships, strengthen communication between you and your leadership team, and create healthier overall team dynamics.

This approach is often highly effective in repairing workplace relationships impacted by resentment, anxiety, insecurity, or frustration.

The technology revolution has entered its next phase: evolution. This shift is focused on helping companies operate leaner and more efficiently. Many organizations are now modeling startup ecosystems and adopting agile methodologies traditionally associated with early-stage companies. Recently, Amazon cited its reduction in force as an opportunity to streamline its workforce and transition toward a startup-style operating model.

“The new innovation economy is here, and the future of work—whether we acknowledge it or not—is increasingly shaped by our parallel experience with artificial intelligence. AI is both a job eliminator and an industry strategist. We can no longer rely on institutions that once served as incubators for innovation. AI is now adopted and implemented by mainstream technology companies, and they are dictating the future of work.”

Artificial intelligence has had an unprecedented impact on business roadmaps and workforce planning. Organizations are accelerating the shift toward automation and reducing headcount in roles deemed redundant or outdated. The question is no longer if change is coming, but how individuals and companies prepare for it.

The Required Mindset Shift

The first step is embracing a new way of working. This means leaning into emerging technologies rather than resisting them. Introduce yourself to new tools and features gradually, integrating them into daily routines until they become second nature. Adaptability is no longer optional—it is a core professional competency.

How to Upskill in the Age of AI

There are more opportunities than ever to reskill and upskill for an AI-driven economy. Options include:

• AI and data science courses
• Free coding and technical training programs
• AI schools and initiatives sponsored by organizations such as UN Women
• U.S. Department of Labor retraining programs
• Free AI and digital skills programs offered by companies like Google

These programs are designed to help individuals transition into roles that complement automation rather than compete with it.

The Growing Opportunity and Skills Gap

In the short term, the workforce will experience an opportunity gap. In the long term, failure to adapt will result in sustained unemployment and deeper labor shortages. AI is not waiting for workers to catch up—it is advancing rapidly, leveraging large language models and automation to replicate and augment human intelligence at scale.

What Skills Gap Data Reveals

Skills gap data highlights a widespread and accelerating talent shortage:

• Nearly 90% of organizations report current or future skills gaps.
• Talent shortages are most pronounced in technology, healthcare, manufacturing, finance, and logistics.
• Rapid technological change, digital transformation, and workforce retirements are key drivers.
• These gaps cost global economies trillions of dollars, slow hiring, and reduce productivity.

In the United States alone, 60% of employers report open roles remaining vacant for more than 12 weeks due to a lack of qualified candidates—directly impacting organizational performance and growth.

Key Statistics and Trends

• Prevalence: 87% of companies globally report existing or anticipated skill gaps.
• Economic Impact: Talent shortages could cost the U.S. economy up to $2.5 trillion.
• Urgency: 6 in 10 workers will require training by 2027 (World Economic Forum).
• High-Demand Skills: Analytical thinking, creative problem-solving, AI literacy, and digital proficiency.

What the Data Shows

• Role Shortages: The U.S. needs millions more workers with postsecondary education, particularly bachelor’s degrees and higher. Management roles face the most significant shortfalls.
• Hiring Challenges: 30% of managers report prolonged vacancies due to a lack of skilled applicants (Educate 360).
• Employee Impact: Nearly 80% of Americans feel personally affected by the skills gap (Udemy).

The Role of Data in Closing the Gap

Organizations that leverage workforce data are better positioned to respond effectively:

• Informed Strategy: Skills gap analysis identifies hidden weaknesses and future-ready opportunities.
• Targeted Action: Data enables focused training, internal mobility, and succession planning.
• Measurable ROI: Companies using skills data report significant returns—HP, for example, has cited an 11x ROI from targeted training initiatives.

Conclusion

If organizations and workers fail to address the shift in workplace productivity, the result will be a new labor market crisis. Massive unemployment represents one of the most significant threats to the innovation economy.

The future of work belongs to those who adapt quickly, invest in learning, and align their skills with emerging technologies. The evolution is already underway—and the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of change.

Although former Vice President Kamala Harris has rebuked the idea of the glass cliff, there is an undeniable trend affecting women—especially women of color—who are promoted into leadership roles during times of crisis. This phenomenon, known as the glass cliff, occurs when women are elevated to positions of power precisely when organizations or administrations are already in distress. Having only 107 days to launch and develop a successful presidential campaign certainly qualifies as such a scenario.

The glass cliff theory describes the pattern in which women are more likely to be appointed to leadership roles during periods of instability or high risk, when the likelihood of failure is already elevated. Coined by researchers in the early 2000s, the theory suggests that these circumstances often set women up for greater scrutiny and a higher chance of failure, frequently due to insufficient support or deeply challenging environments. When failure occurs, women are often blamed, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and negatively impacting future opportunities for women in leadership.

Context of Promotion

Glass cliff promotions typically occur during crises—such as organizational decline, scandal, or periods of extreme uncertainty. This contrasts sharply with stable periods, when leadership positions are more often filled by men.

High-Risk Environment

These leadership roles are inherently precarious. Individuals placed on the glass cliff often inherit failing organizations, high-pressure projects, or teams resistant to change or to their leadership. In the context of the 2024 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris assumed leadership amid President Biden’s declining health. While she was widely viewed as a strong and capable candidate, she also inherited one of the most difficult political landscapes in modern history.

Several risk factors illustrate the glass cliff dynamic:

Likelihood of Failure

The probability of failure is significantly higher due to limited time, entrenched challenges, and the nature of the crisis itself. When failure occurs, it is often used to justify gender-based stereotypes and can hinder advancement for other women. Throughout Harris’s campaign, both her gender and racial identity were repeatedly emphasized as counter-narratives to her qualifications.

Time Constraints

With only 107 days, there was insufficient time to build and communicate a comprehensive vision for a future administration. As a result, she was forced to rely heavily on her role and contributions within the existing administration rather than fully articulating her own agenda.

Scapegoating

Individuals placed on the glass cliff can become scapegoats for broader systemic failures. If they fail, organizations may claim they “gave a woman a chance” and use the outcome as justification. If they succeed, credit is often attributed to the institution rather than to the individual’s leadership, despite the extraordinary risk involved.

Although the glass cliff theory is sometimes dismissed or viewed as controversial, it exposes deeply rooted cultural and social dynamics that frequently go unexamined. In Kamala Harris’s case, she is far from alone. Women are often called upon to lead during moments of upheaval and instability—asked to stabilize, repair, or rescue systems already on the brink.

While there are certainly examples that challenge this narrative, the 2024 presidential election stands as a particularly visible illustration. Harris’s campaign was historic, but it was also framed—implicitly and explicitly—as a test not only of her leadership, but of women’s readiness for the highest levels of authority. These are the unintentional consequences women face when stepping into positions of power: heightened risk, intensified scrutiny, and unequal judgment in moments when success is least attainable.