Fairer Scheduling in the Workplace: Reducing Shift Bias

Assigning shifts isn’t just about filling slots. It’s about people.

When rosters feel unfair, staff morale dips, retention suffers, and operational cracks start to show. Yet in many organisations, shift allocation still relies on opaque decisions, gut feel, or processes that inadvertently favour some staff over others.

Bias shows up in shift allocation quite commonly, so how can you identify shift allocation bias within your scheduling process and what can you do to reduce it? Let’s explore..

What is shift allocation bias?

Shift allocation bias is when shifts are distributed in a way that unfairly favours some staff over others whether intentionally or not. This often happens subtly, through patterns that repeat over time, unchecked assumptions, or decision-making that lacks structure. It can also happen through favouritism.

Common signs include:

• Certain staff always getting prime shifts (like weekdays or early starts)
• Less experienced or part-time workers are regularlyscheduled on weekends or public holidays
• People with caregiving responsibilities or cultural obligations being deprioritised
• "Go-to" staff being overburdened simply because they rarely say no

Importantly, bias doesn’t always look like discrimination - it’s often the result of informal processes, inconsistent rules, or the absence of data-driven decision-making.

Left unaddressed, shift bias can erode team trust, increase turnover, and create operational blind spots. In high-pressure settings like healthcare, it can also affect safe staffing and equitable patient care.

Different types of bias in staff scheduling

Understanding the types of bias at play is the first step toward reducing them. Make sure your scheduling team are aware of the different types:

Availability bias: assuming someone is always free

When a staff member often says yes or rarely pushes back, they may become the go-to for unpopular shifts - not because it's fair, but because it’s convenient.

Seniority bias: favouring long-serving staff

While experience matters, over-prioritising senior staff for preferred shifts can alienate newer team members, affecting morale and retention.

Affinity bias: rewarding people we relate to

Managers may unconsciously favour people with similar backgrounds, communication styles or values (also known as favouritism) - leading to uneven distribution of shifts, opportunities or flexibility.

Confirmation bias: making assumptions based on past patterns

If someone has taken a lot of sick leave or requested swaps in the past, they may be excluded from certain shifts without consultation - even if their situation has changed.

Proximity bias: favouring those we see most

Staff who are frequently on site, visible in meetings or socially active can end up getting better shift allocations, simply due to being top-of-mind.

Gender and care-based bias: overlooking invisible responsibilities

Caregiving duties - often undertaken by women; can be undervalued or dismissed. If staff feel they can’t openly communicate their needs, they may silently shoulder the consequences of unfair schedules.

Cultural bias: missing diverse needs

Failing to account for religious observances, cultural events or language preferences can lead to exclusion or prevent staff from accessing shifts fairly.

What does a “fair” schedule actually look like?

Fair doesn’t mean equal. It means justifiable, inclusive, and accountable.

A fair schedule balances:

• Equity: everyone has a reasonable share of less desirable shifts, such as nights or weekends
• Transparency: people can see how decisions are made and trust the process
• Input: staff can express preferences and constraints, and have them genuinely considered
• Consistency: practices are applied evenly, not just to the loudest voices or longest-tenured staff

Reflecting on whether your processes meet all four of these fairness dimensions is a useful task when trying to reduce bias in your shift allocation process.

How bias creeps in (even with the best intentions)

Whether we realise it or not, certain scheduling practices open the door to unfairness:

“First in, best dressed” preference models

Letting staff pick shifts in order of seniority or speed often disadvantages newer or less vocal team members.

Manual pattern replication

Repeating the same “safe” patterns often leads to unbalanced workloads. For example, some staff always end up with high-pressure Mondays, while others avoid weekends entirely.

Manager discretion without guardrails

While flexibility is helpful, discretionary changes without visibility or reasoning can be perceived as favouritism.

Inconsistent leave consideration

Staff with regular commitments (such as school drop-offs or religious observances) may have their constraints deprioritised compared to “one-off” requests.

Feedback gaps

Many organisations don’t review past schedules for imbalance. Without a feedback loop, bias can go unnoticed and continue unchallenged.

How to reduce bias in shift allocation

1) Use rules, and make them visible

Define and document your shift distribution rules. For example, everyone rotates through nights fairly over a roster cycle. Make these rules accessible to all staff to increase transparency.

2) Capture genuine staff preferences

Modern systems allow structured staff input, not just verbal requests. Let staff submit their preferred days, no-go windows, or recurring needs - and keep a record over time.

3) Let technology balance the trade-offs

AI tools can scan hundreds of competing constraints - fairness rules, preferences, compliance - and build an optimal schedule without human blind spots.

Tip: choose a system that balances fairness and operational needs, not one or the other.

4) Audit shift schedules for equity

Use reporting to assess:

• Distribution of unpopular shifts
• Changes made after publishing
• Who gets what kinds of shifts and when

Even a simple visual breakdown can reveal hidden imbalances.

5) Create a feedback channel

Invite staff to flag concerns about fairness. Keep it constructive, not blame-based, and use the input to inform future scheduling cycles.

6) Educate your team

Ensuring that the team involved in the staff scheduling process is aware of bias can help create awareness and reduce unfair practices.

Benefits of fairer shift allocation

Studies have shown a direct link to unfair or unpredictable shift scheduling leads to higher burnout, absenteeism and turnover (particularly in healthcare) - burnout increases nurses’ intention to leave by over 50% and turnover can exceed 40% when scheduling is poor.

Fairness isn’t just ethical. It’s operationally smart - when scheduling is fair you’ll start to see the following benefits:

• Trust improves between staff and managers
• Retention rises, especially for part-time and newer team members
• Fewer complaints about favouritism or inconsistency
• Less time spent explaining decisions
• Safer care and better staffing coverage

Make fairness systemic, not personal

Even the most well-meaning manager can introduce bias without realising it. The fix isn’t trying harder - it’s building fair systems.

With the right technology, you can:

• Apply fairness rules consistently
• Minimise manual changes
• Give staff confidence in thescheduling process

That’s where RosterLab’s digital scheduling solution helps. It automates shift assignments with fairness and transparency built in - making it easier to do the right thing, every time.

Because behind every shift is a person. And fairness shouldn’t be negotiable.