In workplaces, institutions, and political landscapes alike, favouritism and loyalty politics are often silent triggers of conflict. While potentially subtle in manifestation, their effects can be wide-reaching and insidious. The recognition or perception that decisions are being made based on personal allegiance rather than merit undermines trust, creates divides, and erodes morale. These dynamics frequently create environments where individuals feel alienated, resentful, or disempowered. Over time, unresolved resentment may escalate into open conflict or pervasive disengagement.
Favouritism tends to arise when decisions about promotions, opportunities, or responsibilities are influenced more by personal relationships than by objective assessment. Similarly, loyalty politics can dominate organisational cultures where leaders reward agreement and personal support over constructive dissent or diverse perspectives. Together, both create tribal dynamics, often leading to factions or in-groups and out-groups within teams or communities. Under such circumstances, rational discourse is often replaced by suspicion and concealed tensions.
These conflicts present unique challenges when it comes to resolution, largely because they involve not only differing opinions, but complex emotional undercurrents—feelings of betrayal, frustration, injustice, and exclusion. That’s where mediation can provide invaluable support. With its focus on dialogue, empathy, and collaborative problem-solving, mediation offers more than just a method for managing conflict; it provides a pathway to healing systemic issues and rebuilding trust.
The Invisibility of Emotional Harm
Unlike policy violations, which can often be directly addressed through procedure, favouritism and loyalty politics frequently operate in grey areas. Emotional harms—feeling unrecognised, belittled, or bypassed—are subtler and harder to quantify. Yet these are often deeply felt and longer lasting. The erosion of psychological safety, that invisible shield that allows individuals to speak freely and take interpersonal risks, can lead to a toxic silence or passive disengagement.
In these contexts, traditional methods of conflict resolution—such as top-down investigations or disciplinary measures—may either miss the point entirely or exacerbate the divide. Many people affected by favouritism report feeling invalidated not just by the behaviour itself, but also by how their concerns are brushed aside or trivialised. The issues lie not just in what was done, but in how power is perceived and exercised.
By offering a space where voices can be heard without judgment, mediation centres the emotional dimensions of the conflict. It does not aim to investigate who is right, but to understand how each party experienced the situation and what they need moving forward. This focus is especially crucial in conflicts sparked or sustained by perceived loyalty politics, where feelings of powerlessness or betrayal lie at the heart of the matter.
The Role of Mediation in Rebuilding Trust
Trust is both the glue and grease of any functioning team or collective—it binds individuals to a common purpose while allowing friction to be resolved constructively. When trust is damaged by favouritism or loyalty politics, mediation becomes more than just a service. It is an active process of rebuilding broken relational infrastructure.
Unlike arbitration or formal grievance systems, mediation is voluntary and collaborative. It encourages dialogue without imposing decisions from above. The presence of a neutral facilitator helps uncover not only the visible conflicts, such as an unfair promotion, but also the underlying emotions—the sense of being undervalued or unheard. These acknowledgements can be powerful, often leading to a mutual recognition that would never arise in more adversarial settings.
Central to many mediation processes is the practice of active listening and the articulation of needs. By allowing parties to speak from personal experience—using “I” statements rather than accusatory language—people begin to hear each other differently. Rather than laying blame, they engage in meaning-making. Why was this interaction hurtful? What was perceived, and what was intended? What boundaries were crossed, and what repair is required?
One of mediation’s greatest assets is its forward-facing nature. While the past is acknowledged, the focus remains on crafting a better way of relating going ahead. It may involve setting shared expectations, establishing mechanisms for feedback, or clarifying roles and accountability. These agreements, although informal, are often more meaningful precisely because they are co-created.
Addressing Power and Perception
At the core of issues surrounding favouritism and loyalty politics is often a lopsided power dynamic. Whether it is a manager who consistently leans on a trusted subordinate to make decisions, or a senior leader who awards plum projects to those who echo their views, the concentration of influence in a small circle naturally marginalises others.
Mediation offers a rare opportunity to shift the dynamics around power—not by redistributing titles or revising organisational charts directly, but by inviting all voices to the table. In a well-facilitated mediation, participants are not just encouraged, but empowered to articulate their experiences. This alone can level the playing field in subtle but powerful ways. For many, the very act of being seen and taken seriously can be reparative.
Yet, mediation does not treat perceptions as irrelevant. The process often begins with recognising how different people saw the same event through different lenses. For example, what one person perceived as a routine assignment, another may have experienced as a line-crossing gesture reflecting favouritism. These differing viewpoints are not necessarily signs of dishonesty or manipulation—they are reflections of varied lived experiences. The goal is to build bridges between these narratives, creating a more inclusive understanding of what happened and how it affected those involved.
Particularly with loyalty-based conflicts, it is important to also explore implicit group norms. Who is expected to speak up? Who is rewarded for conformity? Who pays a price for dissent? When people begin to recognise these dynamics out loud—with honesty and humility—a genuine shift can occur within teams or organisations.
The Importance of External Facilitation
Because conflicts emerging from internal loyalties or favouritism often involve muddled boundaries and deeply embedded histories, external facilitators bring a critical neutrality to the process. When someone from within the group attempts to mediate, they may unwittingly reinforce existing perceptions of partisanship.
A skilled external mediator has no stake in the outcomes beyond supporting mutual understanding and agreement. Their questions are more likely to be seen as fair, their insights as nonpartisan. They bring with them experience from analogous situations elsewhere, which enables them to help participants frame their struggles within wider human and organisational patterns.
This impartiality does not imply detachment. Effective mediators are profoundly attuned to emotional subtleties, shifts in dialogue, and non-verbal cues. They create environments characterised by psychological safety and confidentiality, conditions essential for honesty. In turn, this enables deeper exploration of grievances, perceptions, and aspirations—areas rarely addressed in everyday professional dialogues.
It is also worth noting that mediation is not a one-size-fits-all solution. In some scenarios, power imbalances may be too severe, psychological harm too deep, or accountability structures too opaque to foster authentic dialogue. A careful assessment is therefore essential to determine whether mediation is both appropriate and safe for the participants.
Beyond the Individual: Organisational Learning
Conflicts triggered by internal loyalties are not just interpersonal problems; they often point to larger systemic or cultural issues. Mediation, while conducted at the interpersonal level, can create opportunities for institutional learning. If approached mindfully, the insights gathered during mediation can inform broader efforts to create fairer, more inclusive cultures.
One of the challenges organisations face is the temptation to view each conflict as isolated. Yet recurring themes—such as inconsistent application of procedures, selective inclusion, or emotional withdrawal—often reveal structural patterns. When mediations are conducted over time and their anonymous findings synthesised, leaders may begin to see the surfacing of cultural red flags.
This is where skilfully channelled feedback loops become invaluable. Mediators, while maintaining confidentiality, can provide thematic insights: areas where communication consistently breaks down, perceptions of partiality, or repeated role ambiguity. These themes can inform training and policy reviews, leadership development, or mechanisms for safeguarding equity.
Moreover, having mediation available as a recurring resource sends a clear message—that the organisation values dialogue over hierarchy, repair over punishment, and cohesion over division. Far from signalling weakness, the presence of mediation systems reflects maturity and a proactive stance toward inevitably emerging tension.
Building Cultures of Fairness and Inclusion
Eventually, the goal is to create environments where favouritism and divisive loyalties find no fertile ground in which to grow. This does not merely require punishing biased behaviours or issuing new policies. It involves a long-term cultural shift—cultivating values of fairness, open communication, and collective accountability.
Mediation supports this objective through modelling. It shows, in real time, what it looks like to hold difficult conversations respectfully, to sit with discomfort, to own impact even when intent was benign. These are not just conflict resolution skills—they are skills for leadership, collaboration, and community-building.
For that reason, training peers in basic mediation approaches, encouraging reflective supervision practices, and investing in emotionally intelligent leadership development create fertile ground for long-term change. Employees are more willing to speak openly when they believe they will be listened to fairly, not judged by where their allegiance lies.
Certainly, mediation will never be a substitute for principled leadership, transparent processes, or clear ethics. But where interpersonal trust has been frayed by the subtle corrosion of favouritism or politically motivated loyalty, it offers a unique and at times transformative path toward clarity, healing, and renewed cohesion.
In a world increasingly defined by polarisation and echo chambers, creating spaces where honest conversation can flourish remains not just desirable, but essential. Mediation, when used skillfully and earnestly, becomes not merely a functional tool but a deeply human act—restoring dignity, balance, and connection in places where division once reigned.
