May 1, 2026

Scenario:

You are a supervisor in a busy office.  Two of your employees are having a disagreement over coming in late from a break.  When you speak with one employee they accuse you of "taking sides."  The second employee says they don't feel you're going to be fair because you're always visiting with the first employee.  How do you avoid any perception (or misperception) of taking sides?​

​

Why This Matters:

Supervisors are frequently placed in situations where they must respond to employee concerns, interpersonal conflict, or allegations of misconduct, and one of the most significant risks in these situations is the perception that they are “taking sides.” Whether accurate or not, this perception can erode trust, damage morale, and increase the likelihood of formal complaints or claims of unfair treatment. Maintaining neutrality does not mean avoiding decisions; rather, it requires a consistent, behavior-based approach that is grounded in observable facts and established processes. Research on organizational justice consistently demonstrates that employees are more likely to accept outcomes, even unfavorable ones, when they perceive the process used to reach those outcomes as fair and unbiased (Colquitt et al., 2001). Therefore, supervisors must ensure that their actions reflect procedural fairness, not personal preference or informal alliances.

​

“Perception is reality…Misperception is also reality”
​

Focus on Behavior, Not Individuals:

A critical strategy for avoiding the appearance of favoritism is focusing on behavior rather than the individual. Supervisors should anchor their responses in observable actions, what was said or done, rather than subjective impressions, reputations or rumors. This aligns with behavior-based management practices, which emphasize objective, measurable actions as the foundation for feedback and decision-making (Aguinis, 2019). By describing specific behaviors (e.g., missed deadlines, tone of communication) instead of labeling individuals, supervisors reduce the likelihood that their actions will be interpreted as biased or personal. Additionally, maintaining consistency across situations is essential. When supervisors apply policies, expectations, and processes uniformly, they create predictability, which strengthens perceptions of fairness and trust (Greenberg, 1987). Inconsistent responses, even if well-intentioned, can quickly lead employees to believe that decisions are influenced by favoritism rather than standards.
Another key component is controlling the intake and interpretation of information. Supervisors must resist the urge to form early conclusions based on one-sided accounts and instead ensure that all relevant perspectives are heard before making a determination. This practice supports principles of procedural justice, particularly the concept of “voice,” which refers to individuals having an opportunity to share their perspective before decisions are made (Leventhal, 1980).

 

Language and Physiological Cues:

Equally important is the use of neutral language and communication. Supervisors should avoid statements that imply agreement with one party before a full assessment is completed and instead communicate that they are gathering information and will make decisions based on facts and policy. The way a supervisor communicates, both verbally and nonverbally, plays a significant role in shaping perceptions of fairness, as employees are highly attuned to social or physiological cues that signal bias or alignment (Bies & Moag, 1986). 

 

Notice in the photo above how the supervisor’s neutral hand positioning, even eye distribution, and controlled facial expression are all signaling physiological safety without reinforcing either side. The supervisor’s neutral hand positioning, open, steady, and non-pointing, signals non-threat and non-alignment, reducing the likelihood that either employee perceives judgment or escalation. Their even eye distribution communicates balanced attention, which helps both individuals feel seen without implying agreement or favoritism. Finally, the controlled facial expression, calm, composed, and emotionally regulated, acts as a stabilizing social cue, signaling that the environment is safe and manageable. Together, these cues support physiological safety by downregulating threat responses in both employees while preserving the supervisor’s neutrality.
 

Documentation:

Objective and thorough documentation further reinforces neutrality by creating a transparent and defensible record of actions taken. Supervisors should document the essential facts, who, what, when, where, and how, while avoiding assumptions or subjective interpretations. This not only supports fair decision-making but also provides evidence that processes were followed consistently. At the same time, supervisors must remain aware of how informal relationships and interactions may be perceived. Engaging in workplace gossip, aligning too closely with certain individuals, or appearing to favor one group can undermine credibility, even if no actual bias exists. Perception often outweighs intent, making visible neutrality a critical leadership behavior. Finally, supervisors should communicate not only the outcome of a situation but also the process used to reach that outcome. Transparency regarding the steps taken, the information considered, and the standards applied helps employees understand that decisions are rooted in fairness rather than favoritism, which strengthens acceptance and trust (Colquitt et al., 2001).