POWER DYNAMICS, FAVOURISM & PERCEIVED UNFAIRNESS

Written by Jana Ferreira

The Hairdressing, Cosmetology, Beauty and Skincare Industry is built on relationships between stylist and client, senior therapist and junior, salon owner and team. This closeness is a strength, but it also creates fertile ground for power imbalances that, left unmanaged, quietly erode trust and morale. Favouritism in shift allocation, client books, commission opportunities, training, or simple day-to-day recognition is one of the most common (and most under-reported) sources of workplace conflict in salons and spas.

Unlike obvious misconduct, favouritism and perceived unfairness rarely announce themselves. They build slowly, through small, repeated decisions: who gets the best chair, who is sent on the paid course, who is publicly praised, who is given the benefit of the doubt when a client complains. For employers, understanding both the legal exposure and the psychological cost of these dynamics is essential to running a compliant, ethical, and commercially healthy business.

What Power Dynamics Look Like in a Salon Environment

Power in a salon/spa is rarely only about job title. It shows up as:

• Seniority-based influence: established stylists or therapists controlling client allocation, rosters, or informal mentorship.

Example: A senior colourist keeps the highest-spending clients for herself and only passes on difficult, low-tip clients to juniors, with no rotation system in place to check this.

• Commission and booking control: whoever controls the appointment book effectively controls colleagues' earning potential.

Example: A front-desk receptionist who is close friends with one stylist consistently books walk-ins and repeat high-value clients to that stylist first, leaving others with gaps in their day.

• Social capital: close personal friendships between an owner/manager and certain staff, which can (intentionally or not) translate into preferential treatment.

Example: An owner who regularly socialises with one employee outside of work finds that this employee is the one who consistently gets flexible hours and the benefit of the doubt in client complaints.

• Gatekeeping of opportunity: deciding who is put forward for advanced training, competitions, editorial work, or promotion to senior stylist/therapist.

Example: A paid seat at an international masterclass is offered to the same employee two years running, with no advertised selection criteria and no chance for others to apply.

• Informal discipline: inconsistent application of rules (e.g. lateness, dress code, product use) depending on who the employee is.

Example: One employee receives a friendly verbal reminder about lateness, while another is issued a written warning for the same conduct in the same month.

None of these are illegal in themselves. They become a legal and ethical problem when the pattern of decisions is inconsistent, unexplained, or linked to personal relationships rather than merit, and when it results in a detriment to another employee.

Why Perceived Unfairness Damages Morale, The Psychological Dimension

Organisational psychology offers a useful lens here: organisational justice theory, which identifies three components of fairness at work:

• Distributive justice: is the outcome fair? (Who got the raise, the client, the course?)

• Procedural justice: was the process used to reach that outcome fair, consistent, and transparent?

• Interactional justice: were people treated with dignity, honesty, and respect while the decision was made and communicated?

Example: Two stylists apply informally for the same paid advanced-colour course. Only one seat is available, so one of them will inevitably be disappointed; that is unavoidable (a distributive outcome). What determines whether this becomes a grievance is whether there was a clear, advertised process for deciding who got the seat (procedural justice), and whether the employer sat down and explained the decision honestly and respectfully to the employee who missed out (interactional justice).

The same disappointing outcome can either be accepted in good spirit or become the seed of long-term resentment, depending entirely on how the process and the conversation were handled.

Research consistently shows that employees tolerate a disappointing outcome far better when they believe the process was fair and they were treated respectfully. It is often not the favouritism itself that causes the greatest harm, but the silence and inconsistency around it: no explanation, no visible criteria, no route to raise a concern.

The typical psychological and behavioural fallout of sustained perceived favouritism includes:

• Reduced psychological safety; staff stops raising concerns or offering ideas.

Example: a junior therapist who noticed a stock-control problem stops mentioning it, assuming management only listens to certain people.

• Quiet quitting and disengagement; reduced discretionary effort, upselling, and client care.

Example: a stylist who once suggested new retail displays and stayed late for tricky clients now does only the minimum required.

• Increased staff turnover; particularly among top performers who feel overlooked.

Example: your most requested colourist resigns after repeatedly being passed over for training opportunities given to a less experienced but better-connected colleague.

• Interpersonal conflict; cliques and gossip cultures.

Example: staff begins dividing into "the owner's favourites" and "everyone else," with tension spilling into shared break areas.

• Higher absenteeism and stress-related ill health.

Example: an employee begins taking more sick leave around rostering periods, when perceived unfair shift allocation resurfaces each month.

• Reputational risk; client-facing staff carry tension into client interactions, and salons are small, high-visibility workplaces where morale problems are hard to hide.

Example: a regular client comments that "the vibe has changed" at the salon, without being able to say exactly why.

For a labour-intensive, client-facing industry where mood, energy and teamwork are part of the product itself, the commercial cost of low morale is direct and measurable, not just a "soft" issue.

Guidelines for Employers: Building a Culture Free of Favouritism

Publish objective criteria:

Set clear, written rules for how clients, shifts, commission opportunities and training places are allocated (e.g. rotation systems, seniority plus performance metrics, rebooking rates). Communicate these to all staff.

Example: Instead of the front desk allocating walk-ins based on who is "free and friendly," introduce a simple rotating list so every stylist knows exactly when their turn is next.

Separate friendship from management decisions:

Owners and senior managers should recognise where personal relationships with staff could influence, or appear to influence, decisions, and build in a second opinion or checklist before finalising decisions on promotion, discipline or opportunity allocation.

Example: Before confirming who attends a paid training course, an owner asks a co-manager or bookkeeper to review the shortlist against agreed criteria before the final decision is made.

Apply discipline and reward consistently:

Keep a simple log of disciplinary actions and rewards/opportunities given, to check for patterns over time.

Example: A one-page spreadsheet noting every verbal warning, written warning, and training opportunity given, by employee and date, makes it easy to spot and correct an emerging pattern before it becomes a dispute.

Create a real grievance channel:

Ensure staff know how to raise a concern about unfair treatment, and that grievances are handled promptly, confidentially and without retaliation, consistent with the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace (2022) requirements.

Example: A simple, known process, such as a private conversation with a nominated senior staff member outside the direct chain of favouritism, or a confidential note to the employer, gives staff somewhere real to go rather than raising concerns only through gossip.

Train supervisors and senior stylists/therapists:

Where informal power exists (senior staff mentoring juniors, controlling bookings), extend fairness and anti-harassment training to these informal leaders, not only to management.

Example: A short annual workshop for senior stylists on fair mentoring and inclusive team behaviour, alongside management, reinforces that fairness applies to informal power as much as formal titles.

Conduct regular, structured check-ins:

Simple, scheduled one-on-ones reduce the information gap that allows perceptions of favouritism to fester.

Example: A 15-minute monthly check-in where each stylist can ask about upcoming training opportunities or raise concerns directly, rather than guessing at how decisions are made.

Document the "why":

When a decision could be seen as preferential (a course place, a promotion, a prime shift), record the objective reasons. This protects the business at the CCMA and reassures staff the decision was principled.

Example: A short written note, "Course place awarded to X based on client rebooking rate and two years' service in a colour-specialist role", kept on file, ready to be shared if questioned.

Model the standard from the top:

Culture follows leadership behaviour far more than policy documents. Owners and salon managers should be visibly consistent in how they treat every team member.

Example: An owner who publicly recognises a junior stylist's improvement in front of the team, with the same warmth shown to a personal friend on staff, sends a clear signal that recognition is earned, not assigned by relationship.

The South African Legal Framework

Employers in the Hairdressing, Cosmetology, Beauty and Skincare Industry should be aware that favouritism and perceived unfairness are not purely reputational risks; several pieces of South African legislation and case law create direct legal exposure.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Section 23 guarantees everyone the right to fair labour practices. This constitutional right underpins all labour legislation discussed below and is frequently invoked in unfair labour practice disputes concerning promotion, benefits and discipline.

Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA)

Section 185 gives every employee the right not to be unfairly dismissed or subjected to an unfair labour practice.

Section 186(2)(a) defines an unfair labour practice to include unfair conduct by the employer relating to promotion, demotion, probation or training, or the provision of benefits. Case law (notably Apollo Tyres SA (Pty) Ltd v CCMA) has confirmed that a "benefit" includes advantages or privileges granted at the employer's discretion, such as being given preferential shifts, client allocations, or access to paid training, not only contractual entitlements. This means a salon owner's discretionary decisions about who gets opportunities can be challenged at the CCMA if the process is inconsistent or unexplained.

Section 186(2)(b) covers unfair suspension or unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal, relevant where discipline is applied inconsistently between favoured and non-favoured staff.

Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA)

Section 6 prohibits unfair discrimination, direct or indirect, on listed and analogous grounds (race, gender, family responsibility, and others). Favouritism that tracks along these lines, for example, consistently favouring staff of a particular race, gender, age or family status, moves from a management style issue into unlawful discrimination.

Section 60 places a positive duty on employers to take proactive and remedial steps once informed of alleged discriminatory conduct, including harassment, by employees.

Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace (2022)

Issued under the EEA, this Code replaced the 2005 sexual harassment code and now covers all forms of harassment, including bullying, victimisation, exclusion and abuse of power, not only sexual harassment. It requires employers to conduct a workplace risk assessment, implement a harassment policy, and provide training. Persistent favouritism that results in the exclusion, humiliation or undermining of certain staff can fall within this Code's definition of harassment.

Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA)

Governs working hours, leave and conditions of employment. Uneven application of BCEA entitlements (e.g. approving leave, rest periods or overtime for favoured staff while denying others under the same rules) can itself found a grievance or unfair labour practice claim.

Common Law

Every employment contract carries an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, alongside the employer's duty to provide a safe working environment (this also intersects with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993, which increasingly is read to include psychological, not only physical, safety).

Practical implication for employers: the law does not require perfect equality of outcome; it requires a fair, consistent, and explainable process. Employers who can demonstrate objective criteria for allocation, promotion, and discipline are far better protected than those relying on informal, relationship-based decision-making.

For Employers in the Hairdressing, Cosmetology, Beauty, and Skincare Industry, addressing power dynamics and favouritism is not simply a compliance exercise; it is a direct investment in staff retention, client experience, and brand reputation. A transparent, consistently applied set of decision-making processes protects the business legally while giving every team member, junior or senior, confidence that their effort and conduct, not their proximity to management, determine their opportunities.