Key Takeaways
- Workplace cliques, tight social groups that form naturally among coworkers, are common: a CareerBuilder survey found 43% of workers say cliques exist at their office.
- Cliques aren’t inherently bad. They can boost morale, teamwork, and cross-department collaboration among members.
- The risks show up around the edges: employees left out can feel excluded, communication can break down with the rest of the team, and new hires can struggle to integrate.
- Leaders can’t force friendships, but reinforcing a culture of inclusion, in policy and in practice, helps keep cliques from becoming a barrier to organizational cohesion.
It doesn’t matter the size or goal of the organization, any group of people working and spending time together is going to form a social dynamic that allows them to function. Because we spend as much as a third of our lives (or more) at work, it’s natural that friendships and bonds will form between coworkers, whether over a shared project or task or a mutual interest. However, social dynamics are not always wholly positive, and they can lead to toxic or challenging behavior that erodes the cohesion of your organization.
One of the most common dynamics is the formation of cliques, which are essentially in-groups of employees that engage in or are believed to engage in insularity, excluding others from their group dynamic whether it’s in a work or social setting. The nature and severity of this can change a lot, but it can become a significant obstacle to work and make working at an organization more difficult for those not included in the clique. That being said, cliques are not bad by default; rather, they can lead to unproductive or destructive dynamics.
Here are some of the pros and cons of this dynamic and how you can address them:
Pro: People feel a social investment in their job and workplace
Cliques are reported to be quite common, with 43% of workers reporting that cliques exist at their job, according to a CareerBuilder survey. Most often they form just like a group of friends who bond over a shared interest and enjoy spending time together. Companies and mission-driven organizations invest in workplace culture because it promotes cohesion and teamwork, and social groups like cliques can provide this kind of dynamic naturally. Members of the group will feel happy to come to work and contribute, and they’ll go the extra mile to help their peers because they feel an emotional investment in helping each other.
Con: People outside the clique may be excluded
This can take many forms, but one of the downsides of a clique is that those outside of it will not enjoy the same benefits, or they will feel they are being actively denied the help and collaboration that those inside the clique offer each other. Sometimes, the mechanics of whether or not this is actually happening matter less than the perception of it, as some people may assume that they are being excluded because they aren’t part of a particular social unit. Sometimes cliques can also become sources for gossip and rumors, which can have major negative repercussions for workplace morale.
As a leader, it’s important that you recognize when these dynamics form and what effect they are having. It can be difficult to ‘solve’ this as asking members of a group to befriend someone they don’t know or forcing friendships on your staff can be extremely counter-productive. However, if you can reinforce the value of organizational cohesion face to face and in your employee handbook, you can show that extending assistance without bias is critical for your mission and goals.
Pro: Improved teamwork and productivity
Those within a clique will often display greater willingness to work together, to divide up projects effectively, and to complete tasks efficiently. This is particularly the case with teams that have worked together for a long time or cliques that form around a specific department or two departments that work together. Because each person knows the relative strengths and weaknesses of the others, they will naturally form a work cadence and move through tasks much faster than a group whose members do not know each other. They can also resolve issues and adapt to changes faster, as there is an inherent group trust that would be impossible to replicate among a random group of collaborators.
Con: Communication and collaboration issues
Problems can arise when a larger or cross-functional project requires people within a clique to collaborate with those outside it, or requires dialogue that extends outside their insular social dynamic. People who know each other well can “read each other’s minds” and assume that certain elements of a project are being done by someone else. However, without sufficient project management, these assumptions can become counter-productive, boxing out other contributors or letting particular elements go undone because everyone assumed someone else was doing it. Another element is a mismatch of communication styles, as the group may talk over text or face to face while the rest of the organization relies on a chat tool like Slack.
Pro: Cross-functional understanding
Cliques can form among departments and structures at an organization, like when members of HR, operations, and fundraising all bond over a shared interest. This can be a fertile ground for the cross-pollination of ideas and approaches, as each department becomes socially and structurally invested in the others. Someone with technical expertise will help solve a persistent HR issue, for example. This kind of cross-functional understanding is difficult to achieve through management strategy alone. It can also be helpful to younger employees, who can benefit from the guidance and encouragement of the group and get a deeper understanding of the organization.
Con: Exclusion of new team members
A common complaint about cliquish social dynamics is that they can be extremely challenging for a growing organization. New team members may run into groups and social dynamics that feel impenetrable or unfriendly, and feel that they aren’t able to ask for the guidance and support from their peers that they need to do well at work. This can become so corrosive that it can actually limit growth, as new hires feel stymied by the insular social dynamic and choose to move on. This is common at organizations that enjoy a very stable long-term “core” of employees who are resistant to new ideas or change.
About Us
For more than 40 years, 501(c) Services has been a leader in offering solutions for unemployment costs, claims management, and HR support to nonprofit organizations. Two of our most popular programs are the 501(c) Agencies Trust and 501(c) HR Services. We understand the importance of compliance and accuracy and are committed to providing our clients with customized plans that fit their needs.
Contact us today to see if your organization could benefit from our services.
Are you already working with us and need assistance with an HR or unemployment issue? Contact us here.
The information contained in this article is not a substitute for legal advice or counsel and has been pulled from multiple sources.
(Images by Magnific and User16696927)
