Man Follows Coworker’s Request For Group Chat Messages, But It’s Not What He Expected

Office dynamics can be tricky, especially when certain coworkers seem to play favorites or make selective efforts to be helpful. In this situation, one employee is growing frustrated with a coworker who has a tendency to treat everyone differently based on gender.

While this coworker is particularly helpful to the women in the office, the man finds himself excluded, even being bypassed for information that should’ve come his way.

Things take a turn when the coworker asks to only be messaged in the group chat.

This story reads like a corporate sitcom, except for the part where the punchline doesn’t land. The OP describes a coworker who signals clear favoritism, friendly messages and snacks for some, silence (or detours) for others.

When asked to communicate only through group chat, the OP exposed delays, unresponsiveness, and a level of unprofessional behaviour that obviously annoys them.

The coworker appears to treat female colleagues (and perhaps a select social circle) as priority contacts, sending them private messages, being helpful, even offering snacks.

Meanwhile, the OP is ignored; important messages go through the boss, and direct communication is avoided. That coworker then demands that the OP use group chat.

When the OP does, they publicly highlight the coworker’s shortcomings, hints that tasks are being delayed, calls ignored, issues unresolved. The coworker then demands private messages again, trying to regain control.

From the OP’s point of view, this isn’t just annoying, it’s unfair, unprofessional, and undermines team cohesion. From the coworker’s point of view… well, it’s unclear. Maybe they simply prefer a social circle.

Maybe they’re uncomfortable communicating with “him.” Or maybe they like having control over who gets their attention and when.

This isn’t petty office drama, favoritism affects trust, productivity and mental well‑being.

A 2022 study on “Workplace Favoritism and Workforce Sustainability” found that favoritism undermines employees’ psychological well‑being, lowers morale, and fosters behaviors like “knowledge hiding.”

According to a recent survey summarized by a workplace‑consulting group, those who perceive favoritism are more likely to feel demotivated, emotionally exhausted, and consider leaving the job.

Even among experienced employees, perceptions of favoritism, unequal access to communication, support or opportunity, are linked to reduced trust, poorer collaboration, and fractured team dynamics.

In short: when coworkers see someone getting special treatment, direct messaging, social gestures, leniency, and others being left out, it damages the shared sense of fairness and belonging.

Organizational psychologists studying bias and unfair workplace practices warn, favoritism doesn’t just “hurt feelings.”

According to a recent paper, “when favoritism or partiality is perceived in leadership decisions, who gets tasks, who gets communication, who gets perks, it triggers emotional and behavioural responses such as withdrawal, reduced engagement, and even plans to quit.”

In other words: the OP’s frustration isn’t irrational. The coworker’s behaviour, whether conscious or not, represents more than a personal quirk: it’s a threat to equitable workplace functioning.

The OP should consider documenting specific instances of favoritism, such as delays in communication or being bypassed for important information.

They could then have a calm, private conversation with the coworker to clarify any misunderstandings, explaining how this behavior is affecting team dynamics.

If the situation persists, escalating the matter to HR with concrete examples may be necessary, emphasizing how favoritism undermines fairness and team cohesion.

Lastly, suggesting more transparent communication norms, such as using a shared group chat or workflow for work-related issues, can help ensure that all employees are treated equally and prevent further feelings of exclusion.

The OP’s experience highlights a blunt truth about workplace favoritism, it often isn’t loud or obvious, but it fractures trust and sows silent resentment.

When one coworker gets exclusive access, prompt responses, and social perks, while another gets detours, silence, and delays, it doesn’t just feel bad. It undermines fairness, equity, and team effectiveness.

If nothing changes, if communication stays selective, accountability stays unequal, the company loses more than productivity. It risks morale, engagement, and even retention.

In the OP’s case, speaking up publicly may have rubbed the coworker the wrong way, but the heart of the problem isn’t confrontation itself.

It’s the unequal structure behind it: a workplace where message receipts, responsiveness, and respect seem determined by personal preference instead of professionalism.

Check out how the community responded:

These commenters emphasize the importance of documenting the situation, with a strong recommendation to file a grievance.

This group focuses on the interpersonal dynamics at play, pointing out that the man’s actions are rooted in insecurity or an inflated sense of importance.

These users are particularly vocal about how the situation is a clear case of bullying or power-tripping, where the man believes he can manipulate or dominate others under the guise of leadership.

This group raises questions about the dynamics between the man and the women involved, with some suggesting he may be selectively paying attention to certain people while ignoring others.

 

It’s frustrating when someone creates an uneven dynamic in the workplace, especially when it feels like favoritism is at play.

This situation is made worse by the coworker’s refusal to engage respectfully, particularly when you’re forced into a group chat that brings unnecessary visibility to mistakes.

Was it petty to call out the errors publicly, or was it an act of standing up for fairness? How would you have handled the situation while keeping professional boundaries intact? Let us know your thoughts below!