




































 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Favouritism in Higher Education Institutions: Exploring 

the Drivers, Consequences and Policy Implications 

 

Seniwoliba Attiah Joseph & Ibrahim Alhassan 
 

 

 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

32 
 

Favouritism in Higher Education Institutions: Exploring the 

Drivers, Consequences and Policy Implications 
 

Seniwoliba Attiah Joseph1 & Ibrahim Alhassan2* 
1Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Sciences, Nyanpkala Campus, University for 

Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana 
2Human Resource Planning and Research Unit, Central Administration, University for 

Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana 

*Corresponding Author’s Email: ibrahim.alhassan@uds.edu.gh 

 
Article history 

Submitted 16.06.2023 Revised Version Received 23.06.2023 Accepted 24.06.2023 

 

Abstract 

Purpose: Favouritism is one of the most 

harmful informal practices in Higher 

Education Institutions (HEIs) that affect the 

success and growth of the institutions, 

especially in recent decades. However, as 

destructive as favouritism is, most 

institutional managers seem to perpetuate 

its practice either because its negative 

effects are not well appreciated by the 

leaders or because the leaders have never 

been unfavourable of the favouritism act. 

This study explores favouritism and all its 

mutations, its causes and effects, and how 

to curb it in the HEI context.  

Methodology: The study was qualitatively 

driven. Valid data were solicited from 60 

staff of the University for Development 

Studies (UDS), Tamale, Ghana, through an 

interview session and analysed. Based on 

the results and insights from secondary 

data, the study discusses three main types 

of favouritism in HEIs: nepotism, 

cronyism, and patronage. We found that 

favouritism of any form is cancer that can 

affect employees psychologically, 

emotionally, and even mentally.  

Findings: As a result, we conclude that the 

principle of fairness in the selection of 

employees is directly related to the level of 

public trust in the institution’s ability to 

serve its stakeholders and has deeper 

organisational implications that determine 

the ethos in the HE domain and that failure, 

on the part of institutional managers, to 

employ a trusted merit-based recruitment 

and selection procedures in the recruitment 

of employees is one of the factors that can 

significantly contribute to the spread of 

unrest in the HEI space.   

Recommendations: Given this, we 

recommend, among others, that managers 

and administrators of HEIs avoid playing 

favourites by instituting an anti-favouritism 

policy that seeks to check murky 

recruitment and selection procedures and 

promote trust in employees in the 

promotion and reward systems in HEIs. 

Keywords: Favouritism, Nepotism, 

Cronyism, Patronage, Higher Education 

Institutions 

 

 

 

 

file:///C:/Users/Finstock/Downloads/0009-0005-7671-1487
mailto:ibrahim.alhassan@uds.edu.gh
file:///C:/Users/Finstock/Downloads/0000-0002-14619651
https://doi.org/10.47672/ejh.1515


European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

32 
 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Favouritism in developing countries is giving preferential treatment to members of one's group, 

such as family, friends, or members of one's political party. This can result in unequal access 

to resources, opportunities, and benefits. It is a fact that favouritism has become an important 

subject matter as corporations and both governmental and non-governmental organisations are 

becoming more ethical (Derya et al., 2011). 

Widespread favouritism is one of the main obstacles to good governance and organisational 

development in most developed countries. In general, the public perception of favouritism is 

ambiguous. Many developed countries disapprove of it because it is unfair to those who do not 

have good connections. Others, however, endorse it because it can help people to enforce their 

rights (Loewe et al., n.d.). While some countries consider it a form of corruption, others believe 

it is not because it is not linked to money. A third group claims favouritism is a form of 

corruption when it circumvents the law but not if it is used merely to speed up procedures.  

Some developed and developing countries believe favouritism is closely linked to traditional 

values, social norms, and culture. Thus, as we know it today, favouritism permeates the 

operations of almost all governmental and non-governmental organisations. 

Organisations typically have a set of strategic objectives and ambitions that they hope to 

achieve to succeed and flourish. To help guide their operations and decision-making processes, 

they create vision and mission statements that communicate their overarching purpose and 

direction. These statements help to ensure that everyone within the organisation is working 

towards the same goals and objectives. Similarly, individuals have their ambitions and goals, 

particularly regarding finding employment. To secure employment, individuals must have 

developed certain skills and competencies in demand in the job market; all other factors remain 

constant.  

The competencies required by industry often inform the curriculum development of Higher 

Educational Institutions (HEIs). Thus, HEIs are established to impart the knowledge and skills 

needed to develop the workforce necessary for the economic development of a nation. Because 

of this, any university seeking relevance in Ghana today must produce graduates armed with 

the relevant industry competencies to seek employment or even employ other people. To this 

end, one can comfortably conclude that the university’s role is to generate knowledge as a basis 

for development and to develop the human capital required to catalyse national development.  

Universities are agents of development, helping people out of poverty and contributing to 

achieving global goals.  

Higher education has become increasingly important on national agendas. Over the past 

decades, it has undergone profound mutations and reforms worldwide, as portrayed in a recent 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) review of tertiary 

education policies (OECD, 2008). Therefore, there is a need to ensure that the right expertise 

is hired to work in HEIs. Berry et al. (2011) observed a need for a conscious effort by the 

Management of HEIs to recruit qualified and professional administrative and academic staff 

since they directly influence graduates' learning outcomes and employability. However, not all 

HEIs follow the appropriate policies and guidelines to recruit qualified and professional teams 

for their institutions (UNESCO, 2014).  

The overwhelming problem observed in most HEIs is a gross mismatch between skills, 

capabilities, and values in recruitment and selection. It has become a normal practice among 

the management of most HEIs in Ghana that one cannot find employment unless there have 

close connections in the institutions where they are seeking the employment, despite having 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

33 
 

the right qualifications, appropriate experience, knowledge, skills, and character for the job at 

hand. It has also been observed that the election and appointment of university leadership, such 

as deans, directors, and heads of departments, are influenced by the University management 

and not based on merit. These assertions are noticeable from the assessment of promotion 

documents of staff members, their recruitment and posting, the appointing of staff to headship 

positions, and even the posting of national service personnel into the University. 

When favouritism is noticed in an organisation by staff who happen to be unfavourable in the 

favouritism act, they turn to break their citizenship and the loyalty that has been built over the 

years. This phenomenon naturally leads to low productivity, unrest, turnover intention or 

turnover. Thus, a discussion on favouritism in the high education context is urgently needed to 

highlight the woes that accompany its practice. Unfortunately, the literature on favouritism in 

higher education is largely unavailable. The few documented works on the subject do not 

adequately address favouritism involving staff in HEIs.  Therefore, it is on this basis that we 

made this effort to provide a detailed discourse on Favouritism in HEIs.  

To achieve our objective, we reviewed relevant literature on the subject. We also solicited the 

opinions of staff with relevant knowledge, experience, and expertise in the recruitment and 

selection process at the University for Development Studies (UDS) in Tamale, Ghana 

(purposive sampling) who were within our reach and were available and willing (convenient 

sampling) to participate in the study. The data were analysed based on the current trends of 

favouritism by considering the types of favouritism, causes of favouritism, the impact of 

favouritism and how to curb favouritism in HEIs.  

Thus, this paper presented an overview of favouritism in the recruitment and selection process, 

followed by a discourse on favouritism in HEIs and types of favouritism in HEIs. We also 

present the causes of favouritism in the HEI context. We discussed extensively; some proposed 

solutions to curb all forms of favouritism. Finally, we present recommendations to the 

leadership of HEIs on managing favouritism and all its mutations to engender a positive work 

climate in a university setting. 

We wish to acknowledge that our paper was guided by insights from several theories of 

favouritism: In-group Favoritism, Social Identity Theory, Homophily Theory, Implicit Bias, 

Evolutionary Psychology, Social Exchange Theory, Power and Status Theory, and the like. 

We did what we did because there are many different theories of favouritism, and there is no 

one theory that can explain favouritism in all cases. Some theories of favouritism focus on the 

person doing the favouritism, while others focus on the person or group that is favoured. 

Besides, the theories provide different perspectives on favouritism and are subject to ongoing 

research and debate. Thus, discourse on favouritism is multifaceted and influenced by 

psychological, sociological, and cultural factors. 

Favouritism in the Recruitment and Selection Process 

All employees, regardless of their skills and experience, are entitled to equal treatment, as 

illustrated in the Ghana Labour Act 2003, Act 651 in Section 68, which states that every worker 

should receive equal pay for work of equal value without any discrimination, and per the 1992 

Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, which recognises the right to fair remuneration and 

equal pay for work of equal value (Section 24(1)). The Constitution of Ghana also clarifies that 

all human beings are equal before the law and that no person can be discriminated against on 

any grounds, be it gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed, or social or economic 

status. However, HE in Ghana has been characterised by political influence and favouritism, 

usually during recruitment. 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

34 
 

While the recruitment and selection process aim to identify and attract potential candidates 

from within and outside an institution, most parts of the process have elements of subjective 

judgment inherent in them. Experience shows that a successful appointment can produce results 

that impact favourably on the wider aspects of institutional life, while a poor one can have 

damaging effects on institutions.  

According to Keles et al. (2011), one of the negative effects of favouritism on the recruitment 

and selection process is that candidates are recruited based on their friendships and ties with 

some managers in the organisation where employment is being sought. These people may not 

have sufficient knowledge, skills, and qualifications for the job. They may not perform as well 

as other candidates with appropriate qualifications and experience. Failure of the institution to 

recruit the appropriate candidates will impact employee motivation, citizenship, institutional 

harmony, justice, and eventually, productivity. Such impacts can cause productive employees 

to leave their jobs over time and to make negative comments about the institution to its 

customers, stakeholders, colleagues, and people around them, which can harm the operations 

and image of the institution (Arasli & Tumer, 2008).  

According to Froschheiser (2008), putting the wrong person in the wrong position to fill a 

vacancy can have dire consequences for the organisation in terms of poor employee morale, 

low productivity, and loss of opportunities. Perhaps, this is why Sarkar and Kumar (2007) 

contend that organisational performance hinges on organisations' approach to recruiting and 

selecting their employees.  

Favouritism in Higher Education Institutions 

All employees, regardless of their skills and experience, are entitled to equal treatment, yet, 

favouritism is thriving in modern-day workplaces, especially in HEIs. According to Abun 

(2014), favouritism in HE refers to a practice where a person or group of persons are treated 

differently than others, not necessarily because of their qualifications regarding job 

requirements but sometimes other aspects unrelated to job performance.  

It is a fact that in every HEI, favouritism is found, and such preferential groups do exist. These 

groups are called the “circle of influence” or “the untouchable” because elements in the group 

are treated as special and considered close to the top management and can also influence 

management’s decisions and other people’s behaviour. The closeness of such individuals and 

groups to top management and their influence on management decisions brand them with such 

names. Most of the time, the unfavourable need to be extremely careful when dealing with such 

a favoured group of people because it can cost them their employment. 

Favouritism is one of the most harmful informal practices in HEIs that affect the success and 

growth of institutions, especially in the last few decades. However, as destructive as 

favouritism is, most institutional managers seem to perpetuate its practice either because its 

negative effects are not well appreciated by the leaders or the leaders themselves have never 

been unfavourable of the favouritism act.  

Goode's work (2017) mentions the negative consequences of favouritism when he writes that 

training students to develop work experience and employable skills is lacking in Ghana’s HE 

system. Goode (2017) further reports that the interviews and focus group participants stated 

that Ghana’s HEIs still need to build a culture for students to develop work experience and 

career skills due to a lack of technical and professional staff who can mount programmes that 

are market driven. In this regard, Sinha and Thaly (2013) spoke of a holistic recruitment model. 

They emphasised the importance of the whole recruitment process and the independence of its 

parts to avoid favouritism. 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

35 
 

The presence of favouritism in the HEIs in Ghana was also echoed by the National Council for 

Tertiary Education when they reported, after the Council’s 2019 audit exercise, that some 

teaching staff are teaching courses in which they have no expertise. Therefore, the report 

recommended the realignment of some teaching staff. The Council’s report also recommended 

that some non-teaching staff pursue programmes leading to acquiring some competencies that 

will enable them to meet the job demands of their current positions or departments. 

Implementing the NCTE recommendations will involve training and recruitment costs for the 

affected universities. Therefore, without any reservations, favouritism in HE is 

counterproductive and, in some cases, unethical and illegal (Abun, 2014). When management 

assigns responsibilities or promotes employees based on favouritism, the institution cannot 

attract the most qualified person. It discourages excellent performance and encourages 

mediocrity. Hard work is not recognised, but laziness is. Promotion is not based on merit, but 

on certain favours, Abun (2014) opines.  

Favouritism in HE can be very demotivating for the employees who are at the unwanted end; 

it can result in one person being unfairly promoted faster than the others, being paid more to 

do the same job as others, and being more tolerated. The result is that they appear to be treated 

better than others for no valid administrative reason (Muzellec, 2006). Favouritism is one of 

the most critical sources of stress, personal preferences of decision-makers, loss of motivation 

and productivity, and a poison to employee morale. 

A typical example is the case where a staff member of Professor Nir’ Mbor’ Oyelli Institute of 

Technology working on the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission’s (GTEC) annual 

institutional data was denied the opportunity to attend a workshop organised by the 

Commission. The opportunity was given to a staff member of the same institution who had 

never heard of GTEC’s annual institutional data. Conspicuously speaking, this kind of 

favouritism creates terrible feelings in employees towards the management and the favoured 

employees. 

Certainly, such emotional conditions affect the performance of unfavourable employees. Thus, 

favouritism does not benefit any organisation, but it destroys almost all its administrative 

structures (Abun, 2014). Employees might be professionals, qualified, and experienced, but 

they are still humans and susceptible to emotions better left outside the workplace. Jealousy, 

anger, fear, sullenness, and worry can occur at any time in a work or institutional environment, 

but these negative emotions are exacerbated when favouritism occurs. Therefore, management 

should be careful when playing favouritism. Before indulging in workplace favouritism, 

management and supervisors should consider how their actions might affect other workers. 

Types of Favouritism in Higher Education Institutions 

There are several types of favouritism in HE; however, our paper will only discuss those that 

bother much in the HEI landscape: cronyism, patronage, and nepotism.  

Nepotism: The term nepotism, derived from the Latin word “nepos,” meaning nephew, is 

defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Merriam Webster, 2011) as the 

appointment of nephews or other kin to duties based on relationship rather than qualification. 

It is an individual’s attainment, recruitment, promotion, selection, or provision of more 

favourable working conditions and similar gains irrespective of their knowledge, abilities, 

skills, educational level, and experience, but owing to their kinship ties (Ozsemerci, 2003). 

One major effect of nepotism on recruitment and placement practices is that candidates are 

considered for employment based on their friendships and bold ties rather than their 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

36 
 

professional merits. Nepotism negatively affects employee work satisfaction and the smooth 

operation of profit-motived organisations.  

Cronyism: is a broad social phenomenon in today’s business world.  Cronyism is a compound 

word of “crony,” which seems to have originated as slang among undergraduates at the 

University of Cambridge in the 17th century, meaning close friend. Crony comes from the 

Greek word khronios, meaning “long-standing” (Duckett, 2003).  

The concept can be defined as a general tendency to favour one person or group over others 

(Loewe et al., 2007). Cronyism is hiring people because of friendship but not on professional 

grounds. Cronyism is a type of organisational politics (Khatri et al., 2003), and it creates a 

feeling of entitlement on the part of the cronies and causes insubordination and disrespect for 

management members who are not in the circle of the cronies.   Friends of managers may feel 

they deserve promotions and appointments to headship positions ahead of more qualified 

employees (Root, 2004). Cronyism affects the performance of the unfavourable employees as 

well as the performance of the institution because people are treated based on cronyism and 

not on their talents, skills, abilities, competencies, and experience.  

Patronage: the support, encouragement, privilege, or financial aid that an organisation or 

individual bestows on another (Wikipedia, 2021). Patronage can be called “favouritism” based 

on attributes unrelated to merit or performance. Globally, patronage practices vary enormously, 

and they are highly entrenched with “godfathers”, Professors and Administrators acting as 

gatekeepers into an academic career. Avenues for patronage abound, for example, in the 

allocation of offices. Whoever decides which person gets which office can use this power to 

dispense favours, giving the largest or most attractive offices to favourites. Every little thing in 

HE can be involved in patronage. It could be assessing a grant application, referring to an 

article, fixing a computer, fixing an air conditioner, and many more (Brain, 2009). 

For example, the easiest way to get rid of the unfavourable is to make life unpleasant for them 

so that they leave the institution in a way that looks voluntary. Potential techniques include 

preventing them from getting desirable and lucrative administrative offices, giving them no 

recognition for achievements, denying them access to systems relevant to their work, and 

denying them tenure.  

Patronage in HE has four dimensions.  The first type is making decisions favouring insiders 

(compatriots), such as making appointments and awarding grants. Such actions are fairly 

obvious and, as such, may be susceptible to challenge in an equal-opportunity environment. 

The second type of patronage is biasing the process through which decisions are made, for 

example, by appointing favourites to selected committees or, more subtly, by establishing a 

process that will make appointing such people to a particular committee more likely. The third 

type of patronage is assisting preferred individuals in developing their knowledge or skills.  

An example is by granting them undue study leave, holding their headship positions while they 

are in further studies, and nominating them for undeserved career development programmes 

that are not due. The fourth type of patronage is personal interaction, for example, how a person 

is greeted in a private meeting or on a public occasion. Patronage at the interpersonal level is 

often quite subtle and can be hard to detect, easy to misinterpret, impossible to prove and hence 

difficult to contest. These dimensions of patronage are summarised in the table below. 

 

 

 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

37 
 

Table 1: Types of Higher Education Patronage 

No  Type of Patronage Advantage for the Favoured 

(insiders) 

Disadvantage for the 

unfavoured (outsiders) 

1 Decision making Advantageous decisions Adverse decisions 

2 Processes Biased procedures; stacked 

lucrative committees 

Biased procedures; stacked 

committees 

3 Assistance Advice; support; coaching; 

provide inside knowledge 

Absence or inadequacy of 

assistance 

4 Personal interaction Encouragement; stimulus; 

bolstering of reputation 

Discouragement; ostracism; 

bullying; undermining. 

Source: Adopted from Brain (2009), and Modified  

Effects of Favouritism on Higher Education Institutions 

Virtually all development players now concur that for any meaningful and sustainable 

economic growth to be realised and sustained, tertiary education must be centrally placed in 

the development agenda of nations. Countries worldwide strive to build the sector in their 

strategic development plans. Indeed, building a tertiary education system is no longer a luxury 

but a national and continental imperative critical for Africa’s development and global 

competitiveness (Makuku, 2020), and therefore HEIs should operate in a climate devoid of 

favouritism.  

In addition, worldwide research on teaching in HE revealed that most institutional personnel 

do not have the knowledge and skills for quality assurance because of the practice of 

favouritism. The situation has been further aggravated by poor to no orientation and the 

induction of new personnel. It is well known that an institution's reputation is at risk if 

perceptions of poor-quality result from favouritism. Besides these, the effects of favouritism 

may include a decline in organisational performance, resentment and demoralisation, 

organisational conflict, a negative corporate image of the University, and unemployable 

graduates. 

Unemployable Graduates 

Graduates trained under the hands of unqualified faculty members are highly unlikely to hone 

the required competencies and skills to venture into the world of work, thus keeping them in 

the unemployment bracket. This is why it is no longer a surprise that despite the growing 

educational attainment of many, several pieces of literature cite a lack of skills and experience 

as key barriers to graduate work opportunities in various areas of the world (Fox et al., 2016). 

Some faculty members across the African sub-region gain their current job, maybe not because 

they merit it but because of favouritism.  

Perhaps this is the reason Baah-Boateng (2014) concludes that although educational attainment 

in Ghana is rising, the quality of education is considered weak and ineffective in building both 

the motor and cognitive skills necessary to enter the labour force, resulting from the 

employment of unqualified teaching and non-teaching staff in our universities. 

The Decline in Organisational Performance 

The performance of any organisation depends, to a large extent, on the level of skills its leaders 

possess when it comes to implementing strategies. Silva (2014) described the essence of 

leadership as a conditional relationship between a manager and his followers. Therefore, the 

performance of an organisation also depends on its employees, who are key customers of the 

organisation and form the team that works towards achieving the organisation’s goal. The 

cognitive competencies of both leaders and followers are also considered vital for effective 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

38 
 

organisational performance. This practice could lower employee and organisational 

performance if an institution hires employees not on merit.  

Resentment and Demoralisation 

Transparency is necessary for increasing fairness levels and minimising bias during recruitment 

and selection because every individual seeking employment has ambition. However, Van den 

Brink et al. (2010) believe bias is more likely to occur if assessments are based on obscure 

criteria and the evaluation process is kept confidential. This process of unfairness is likely to 

ruin an individual's ambition and can also lead to perpetual resentment. 

Resentfulness can cause low staff morale and undermine organisational goals. Employee 

resentment can stem from many sources, including delays in promotion or recognition, 

unwelcome work assignments, feelings of being overwhelmed, and simple jealousy. 

Favouritism breeds resentment, destroys employee morale, and creates disincentives for good 

performance. Once employees see that benefits flow from being on the manager’s good side 

rather than from doing a great job, there is little point in working hard, eventually leading to 

demoralisation. 

Demoralisation describes the negative emotional experiences affecting employees' well-being 

and quality of work in HEIs. Clarke and Kissane (2002) state that demoralisation is the 

experience of being unable to “cope, together with associated feelings of helplessness, 

hopelessness, meaninglessness, subject incompetence, and diminished self-esteem.” 

According to this definition, demoralisation is similar to burnout, which describes people's 

negative emotional experiences towards their jobs (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter, 2001).  

Since the dominant discourse on employee demoralisation is influenced by psychological 

perspectives, especially the theory of burnout, most efforts to promote employee well-being 

rely on psychological approaches. Nevertheless, employee demoralisation is more socially 

constructed than psychologically constructed. 

Organisational Conflict 

According to Coser (1967), conflict is a struggle over values and claims to secure status, power, 

and resources in which the opponents aim to neutralise, injure, or eliminate the rivals. From a 

communication perspective, it is also defined as “an expressed struggle between, at least, two 

interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce rewards, and interference from 

other parties in achieving their goals” (Hocker and Wimont, 1985). There are subtle conflicts, 

including rivalries, jealousies, personality clashes, role definitions and struggles for power and 

favour. 

Root (2014) posits that when employees perceive widespread favouritism, such a situation may 

lead to organisational conflict. He laments that it would be a conflict between the unfavourable 

and favourable employees and between the management and employees. He claims that the 

working environment becomes less conducive to productive work if such things happen.  

Negative Corporate Image  

The term “corporate image” refers to how positively or negatively an institution is perceived 

by its key stakeholders, such as employees, customers, media members, investors, 

governmental and non-governmental agencies, suppliers, etc. A strong corporate image helps 

win the war for talent and fosters employee retention (Melewar & Jenkins, 2002). 

 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

39 
 

Organisations have long understood the importance of their images, but in the HE sectors, the 

topic is yet to gain more attention. Organisational image can be understood as a synonym for 

organisational brand. Universities are competing for the best applicants nationally and 

internationally; hence, they need to understand better how their stakeholders perceive them. 

Thus, universities today act more like commercial businesses, and assessing their corporate 

brands and images has become urgent (Curtis et al., 2009). A negative corporate image, usually 

given birth by internal conflict resulting from favouritism, can lower profits and eventually 

send an organisation out of business. In other words, a positive corporate image will suggest 

that an organisation has little or no favouritism, all other factors being equal. This will 

eventually translate to an attractive corporate brand and then higher profits. We proposed, 

below, a model summarising the causes and the overall effect of favouritism on the 

performance of HEIs. 

 

 

 

 

                   Staff                                                                                         Students 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 Overall Effects 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Figure 2: A Proposed Model of the Implications of Favouritism on the Operations HEIs 

Source: Authors’ Construct, 2023 

Chairpersons of Appointments 

and Promotions and 

Admissions Committees 

 Appointments and 

Promotions Committee 
Admissions Committee 

Appointment and Promotion of 

Senior Members, Senior and 

Junior Staff  

Admission of Junior 

Members 

Lecturers, Administrative 

Staff and Students 

Students, Customers, Stakeholders, 

Partners Internationalization 

Poor teaching and Research, Weak 

Partnerships, Poor Customer 

Relations and Low Stakeholder 

Engagement 

Weak Students, Political Influence, 

Poor Faculty Staff, Low self-esteem, 

Poor Quality Assurance Culture 

1. Poor graduate output 

2. Graduates with mismatched Skills 

3. Low image of the University 

4. Organizational conflict 

5. Resentment and demoralization for 

incoming students 

7. Low ranking within the context of 

Universities in Ghana. 

8. Poorly designed programmes 

9. Low job prospects of students 

10. Low contribution to national 

development 

 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

40 
 

Curbing Favouritism in Higher Education Institutions 

In the globalised world, equality, transparency, accountability, rights, and fairness are often 

pronounced in every aspect of life. Managers and administrators who do not consider these 

concepts in their applications have been at the centre of the criticism. Institutional managers 

who believe the concepts mentioned above while carrying out their management activities are 

mostly appreciated, whereas those who do not consider these concepts in their work have been 

criticised for favouritism (Meric & Erdem, 2013; p. 468). 

Creating a conducive atmosphere for good interaction with employees could be an influencing 

factor in favouritism. For this reason, some institutional managers try to keep communication 

with their employees to a reasonable level in order not to engender the practice of favouritism.  

Several practices have been recommended to managers of institutions to curb favouritism in 

the enterprise space. They include fostering professionalism, instituting a favouritism policy, 

providing equal and better standards for promotion, and rewarding employees. 

At its core, favouritism is unprofessional and unethical behaviour; therefore, the first step to 

avoiding it is fostering professionalism in the institution. It is said that the best offence is a 

good defence; hence, managers should defend their organisations from potential favouritism 

by creating a professional environment that actively discourages unfair treatment (Root, 2014). 

Organisations and institutions should establish anti-favouritism policies to ensure that 

favouritism does not influence the hiring, promotion, or disciplining of a close relative or crony. 

Such a policy will reduce the perception of favouritism by requiring all employees to disclose 

relevant conflicts, such as a close personal or business relationship with a prospective employee 

and by restricting that employee’s involvement with employment decisions relating to his 

relative. An effective favouritism policy typically prevents these issues by prohibiting married 

couples or close relatives from working directly with each other. Transferring one of the 

employees to a different department can help ease problems in the working environment 

(Abun, 2014; p.13). A successful favouritism policy, therefore, has the potential to make a 

significant improvement in the overall morale of the organisation. 

Everett (2019) recommends that administrators praise their employees where it is due and 

ensure that such activities are done timely and, just as importantly, are genuine. Managers 

ought to “give praise only when employees have done a good job, and they know it.” Another 

important consideration is clarifying why an individual deserves praise; otherwise, it will go 

poorly with others. If the manager explains why and links that to corporate strategy and values, 

it feels less like favouritism and more about a fair meritocracy. According to Everett (2019), 

the idea is to create a culture of appreciation based on nurturing and supporting the weakest 

and strongest performers and playing to employees’ strengths.  

In all well-meaning HEIs, it is important to reward high-performing employees to motivate and 

retain talented and high performers and attract potential employees. However, HE institutions 

must be extremely cautious when allocating monetary and other rewards to avoid playing 

favourites in the selection process. The institution's rewards structure should adhere to a 

transparent framework that managers practice and employees understand. Without this 

structure, favouritism can take root in the institution, negatively impacting its culture and 

bottom line. It is, therefore, essential to ensure that employee rewards are tied to performance; 

otherwise, any reward given out of merit on a case-by-case basis should be the same standards 

set for all employees. 

 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

41 
 

From all the recommendations mentioned above, the take-home message is for the management 

of HEIs to ensure that they establish universal systems to assess employees and leave personal 

preferences aside. Administrators should dedicate equal time and attention to all employees, 

whether in a meeting or having lunch together. Root (2014) posits that administrators should 

keep track of employees’ performance using objective criteria to monitor their performance. 

He also contends that administrators should encourage open communication at the workplace 

so that employees can feel comfortable sharing their opinions whilst focusing on creating a 

professional environment where everyone has equal chances of success. When employees are 

promoted based on a certain criterion, the process should be made clear to all employees. 

2.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS  

Conclusion  

Our paper aims to provide a detailed discourse on favouritism and offer practical 

recommendations to the leadership of HEIs, in particular, on how to manage favouritism and 

all its mutations to engender a positive work climate in a university setting. Our paper revealed 

that favouritism exists in appointing teaching and non-teaching staff in HEIs in Ghana. It was 

also evident that institutional managers favour their relatives, friends, fellow compatriots, and 

those who share their political views regardless of their educational/professional qualifications 

and competencies.  

In the course of this study, we also noticed that the principle of fairness in the selection of 

employees is directly related to the level of public trust in the institution’s ability to serve the 

public and has deeper organisational implications that determine the ethos in the HE domain. 

A lack of merit-based recruitment is one of the factors that can significantly contribute to the 

spread of unrest in the HEIs space.  

The paper equally disclosed that the most important factor for recruitment and selection based 

on favouritism is to become obedient towards the superior, not the individual employees' skills 

and qualifications. Such occurrences lead to mediocre quality appointments. In such 

institutions, the governance standards are replaced by complicated social-exchange 

mechanisms based on personal favours. The principles of merit, transparency and 

accountability are substituted by murky human resource practices that tolerate corruption, 

favouritism, and ultimately deteriorating organisational performance. 

Recommendations 

Human resources lie at the heart of HEIs and constitute their main asset. Therefore, for HEIs 

to function effectively, they need quality and highly motivated staff. The existence of merit-

based recruitment and promotion systems is a precondition for ensuring the impartiality and 

quality of service delivery. The establishment of merit-based recruitment and selection 

processes would provide equal access and opportunities to all interested applicants, value the 

skills and knowledge of the individuals, and appreciate attitudes and behaviour. The 

recruitment processes should be transparent and built to allow the best candidate for each 

position to be selected. 

Given the frequently large gap between the formal rules for appointments and promotions of 

employees in HEIs and the actual favouritism practices, the role of the leadership is crucial for 

enhancing the impartiality of recruitment procedures. Providing a moral model of behaviour, 

installing and enforcing merit-based recruitment practices, and imposing sanctions for non-

compliance can lead to proper institutional reengineering to uplift the institution’s corporate 

image. 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

42 
 

Higher education institutions should also establish a policy that guarantees that any real, 

perceived, or potential conflict of interest in the recruitment procedures will be avoided. Such 

a policy should ensure no staff will be involved in selecting and recruiting any candidate with 

whom they may be deemed in any relationship that may create a conflict of interest.  

Higher education institutions in Ghana should minimise using friends and family to publicise 

their vacant positions. It should also use campus or graduate recruitment and unsolicited 

applications, together with recommendations, as its main mode of employing its employees. 

Though a good idea, employee referrals (recommendations) should be reduced to cater for a 

certain number of people rather than a whole-scale opportunity. That gives room to favouritism 

and, at times, the employment of individuals who might not contribute meaningfully to 

organisational output. 

Higher education institutions should establish a sound employee reward system as the utmost 

tool to underpin employee trust and the fight against all forms of favouritism. A reward system 

that will be fair and transparent enough to be trusted by all. Promotion and appointments to 

headship positions should follow a fairly designed criterion acceptable to all and approved by 

an institution’s governing council. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

43 
 

REFERENCES 

Abun, D. (2014). Favouritism in the Workplace and Its Effect on the Organization (Fr. 

Damianus Abun, SVD, MBA, Ph.D.). 

Arasli. H. and Tumer, M. (2008). “Nepotism, Favoritism and Cronyism: A study of their effects 

on job stress and job satisfaction in the banking industry of north Cyprus”, Social 

Behavior and Personality, 36(9), 12371250.  

Baah-Boateng, W. (2014). Youth employment challenges in Africa: policy options and agenda 

for future research. A paper presented at the plenary of the AERC biannual conference, 

Lusaka, Zambia, 30 November–4 August. 

Berry, A. B., Petrin, R. A., Gravelle, M. L., & Farmer, T. W. (2011). Issues in special education 

teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development: Considerations in 

supporting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 3(4), 3-11. 

Brain, M. (2009). Academic Patronage; The International Journal for Educational Integrity is 

available online at: http:// www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/journals/index.php/IJEI/ 

Clarke, D. M. and Kissane, D. W. (2002). Demoralization: Its phenomenology and importance. 

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 733-742. Retrieved from 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406115. 

Constitution of the Republic of Ghana (Ghana),  7 January 1993, available at: 

https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5850.html [accessed 20 May 2021]  

Coser, L.A. (1956). The Functions of Conflict. New York: Routledge and Kogan Paul.  

Curtis, T., Abratt, R. and Minor, W. (2009). Corporate brand management in higher education: 

The Case of ERAU, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18(6), 404-413. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420910989721. 

Derya, N., Ozler, E., & Buyukarslan, B. A. (2011). THE OVERALL OUTLOOK OF 

FAVORITISM IN ORGANIZATIONS: A LITERATURE REVIEW. 

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES, 

3(1). 

Duckett, B. (2003), "Oxford English Reference Dictionary (2nd edition, revised)", Reference 

Reviews, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 12-13. https://doi.org/10.1108/09504120310490381  

Everett, C. (2019). Favouritism at Work: what leaders must watch out for. www.raconteur.net/ 

business-innovation/favouritism. 

Fombrun, C. (1996). The Reputational Landscape.  Corporate Reputation Review. Vol. 1, pp. 

5 – 14. 

Foxa, L., Senbetb, L. W. and Simbanegavib, W. (2016). Youth Employment in Sub-Saharan 

Africa: Challenges, Constraints and Opportunities; Journal of African Economies, 

2016, Vol. 25, AERC Supplement 1, pp. i3–i15 doi: 10.1093/jae/ejv027.  

Froschheiser, L. (2008). Reliable plant. Recruitment fundamentals: Get more ‘A' players on 

board, 27 February. 

Ghana Labour Act 2003, (Act 651), Official Gazette; p 1-58 [Online] www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex 

Accessed October 1, 2016 

Goode, F. (2017). Approaches to Ghana's Higher Education Challenges Drawn from the U.S. 

Community College Model; Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406115
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420910989721
https://doi.org/10.1108/09504120310490381
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex%20Accessed%20October%201
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex%20Accessed%20October%201


European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

44 
 

Hocker, J. I. and Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Interpersonal Conflict Dubuque, IOWA: Wmc. Brown 

Publisher. 

Keleş. N.H., Ozkan.K.T, Bezirci. M.,(2011).” A study on the effects of nepotism, favoritism 

and cronyism on organizational trust in the auditing process in family businesses in 

turkey”. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 10(9), 9-16. 

Khatri, Naresh and Eric W K Tsang (2003), “Antecedents and consequences of cronyism in 

organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics, 289-303. 

Loewe M., Blume J., Schonberg V., Seibert S., Speer J., and Voss C., (2007). The impact of 

favouritism on the business climate: a study on wasta in Jordan. German Development 

Institute, 30.  Bonn, 2007. ISBN 978-3-88985-358-5. 

Makuku, V. (2020). Quality Assurance, Higher Education Learner-Centred Teaching Skills 

and Research Workshop for the 21st Century Higher Education Personnel; February 10 

– 13, 2020; Tamale, Ghana. 

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., and Leiter, M., P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of 

Psychology, 52, 397-422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 

Melewar, T. C., and Akel, S. (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher education 

sector: A case study, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1), 41-

57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280510578196. 

Merriam Webster (2011). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/  

Meriç, E. and Erdem, M. (2012). Okul yönetiminde kayırmacılığa ilişkin ölçek geliştirme 

çalışması. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi 2 (2), 141-154. 

Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations (2014). National Employment Policy, volume 

1, 2014 

Muzellec, L. (2006). What is in a Name Change? Rejoicing Corporate Names to Create 

Corporate Brands. Corporate Reputation Review, 8, 305 – 316. 

National Council for Tertiary Education (2018). Statistical Report on Tertiary Education for 

2016/2017 Academic Year (www.ncte.edu.gh)\  

OECD, (2008). Ghana at a Glance. Corrigenda. [Online] www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.  

Özsemerci, K. (2003). Türk kamu yönetiminde  yolsuzluklar, nedenleri, zararları ve çözüm 

önerileri. Sayıştay Araştırma/ İnceleme/ Çeviri Dizisi, Ankara. 

Root, N. R. G. III. (2014). Demand Media.  (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/types-favoritism-

workplace-11537.html), date retrieved, Feb, 21, 2014 

Sarkar, A., and Kumar, S. (2007). Effective recruitment and selection: An approach towards 

model building. HRM Review, 7 (7), 15-22. 

Silva, A. (2014), “What do we really know about leadership?”, Journal of Business Studies 

Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1-4. 

Sinha, V. and Thaly. P. (2013). A review on changing trend of recruitment practice to enhance 

the quality of hiring in global organizations. Management, 18(2), 141-156..  

UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational Planning (2014). The diversification of 

postsecondary education. Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning 

(IIEP). 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280510578196
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
http://www.ncte.edu.gh)/
http://www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda


European Journal of Human Resource   

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 1, pp 31 - 45, 2023                                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

45 
 

Van den Brink, M., Benschop, Y. and Jansen, W. (2010). ‘Transparency as a tool for gender 

equality’. Organization Studies, 31, 1459–83. 

Wikipedia, (2021). https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage, Accessed November 10, 

2021. 

 

 

2023 by the Authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and 

conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) 

 

 

 

 

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

