Blog

Behind the Curtain Series #2

Why does it sometimes feel personal?

A decision is made that affects us, and it feels inconsistent, harsh, or strangely selective. One person is given flexibility while another is held to process. One colleague receives patience while another receives pressure. A request we make is rejected, yet a similar request from someone else seems to move quickly. In startups and small teams, where decisions are more visible and hierarchy is closer, these moments can feel especially sharp.

The question becomes: why do managers sometimes feel so unfair, even when they may believe they are being reasonable?

What happens sometimes underneath decisions?

Sometimes unfairness is real. Inconsistent standards, favouritism, poor judgment, or weak management capability do exist. But often, what feels unfair is also shaped by information we do not fully see. Managers balance confidential constraints, founders' pressure, budget limits, timelines, capability gaps, and risks they cannot openly explain. They sometimes also manage multiple people with different histories, performance and trust levels at the same time.

From our position, we often compare visible outcomes. From their position, they are balancing hidden variables; workload, precedent, morale, retention risk, and the wider impact on others are all in play. Sometimes that balance is handled poorly, other times it's a genuine attempt to protect the wider team rather than satisfy one individual. That does not automatically make every decision right, but it can explain why the logic is not always obvious from where we sit.

How do we respond when something feels unfair?

When something feels unfair, most of us do one of three things: we internalise it and grow resentful, we personalise it and assume we are undervalued, or we confront the issue emotionally, which can turn a valid concern into a defensive exchange. All three usually reduce clarity.

Here’s the shift: instead of starting with an accusation, begin with curiosity and evidence; ask for the reasoning, not just the reversal.

You might say, “I’d like to understand the thinking behind that decision.” Or, “Can you help me understand what factors were considered here?” Or, “From my perspective, this feels inconsistent, and I’d value more context.”

This creates room for explanation while still protecting our dignity. If the answer reveals a sound reason, we gain perspective; if the answer reveals poor leadership, we gain useful information too.

In small teams, where trust compounds quickly in both directions, fairness is not only about decisions. It is also about whether people understand the principles behind them. And as many of us grow into greater responsibility ourselves, we may discover that leadership often involves compromises that look simpler from the outside than they feel from the inside.