Office cliques can affect workplace culture in a variety of ways...according to nationwide survey conducted by Harris Interactive on behalf of CareerBuilder from May 14 to June 5, 2013, among a representative sample of nearly 3,000 full-time, private sector U.S. workers
What do Workers do to Fit In?
While only one in ten workers (11 percent) said they felt intimidated by office cliques, 20 percent of workers said they’ve done something they’re really not interested in or didn’t want to do just to fit in with co-workers. Forty-six percent in this subgroup simply went to happy hours to fit in. Moreover, about 1 in 7 said they hide their political affiliation to fit in (15 percent), ten percent don’t reveal personal hobbies, and nine percent keep their religious affiliations and beliefs a secret.
“Thirteen percent of workers said the presence of office cliques has had a negative impact on their career progress,” says Rosemary Haefner, vice president of Human Resources at CareerBuilder. “While it’s human nature to associate with peers who possess similar personality types and characteristics, the presence of cliques can be counterproductive in the workplace. We see more managers using team-building activities or assembling people from different groups to work on projects to help discourage behaviors that can alienate others.”
The survey found that not all managers succeed at staying neutral. Nearly half of those workers whose workplaces have cliques (46 percent) say their boss is a part of clique with some of his or her employees.
A number limitation relates to groups where we are a member.
According to "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell, to be someone's best friend requires a minimum investment of time. More than that, it takes emotional energy. Caring about someone deeply is exhausting. At a certain point, at somewhere between 10 to 15 people, we begin to overload. Mostly, it's a question of our available time and energy.
For example, if you belong to a group of twenty people, there are 190 two-way relationships to keep track of: 19 involving yourself and 171 involving the rest of the group. That's a twentyfold increase in the amount of information processing needed to 'know' the other members of the group. Even a relatively small increase in the size of a group, creates a significant additional social and intellectual burden.
The figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who they are and how they relate to us. To have more than 150 people in a group reduces the ability of each member to be sufficiently familiar with each other that they can work together as a functional unit.
Above 150, you have to impose complicated hierarchies and rules to command loyalty and cohesion. Below 150, it is possible to achieve these same goals informally based upon personal loyalties and direct person-to-person contacts.
When things get larger than 150, people become strangers to one another. When your group gets bigger than 150, you begin to get two or three sub-groups or clans within the larger group. Above 150 people, there begins to be structural impediments to the ability of the group to agree and act with one voice.
So if you have an organization (like a business, school, church or social club) that is approaching the 150 number, be cognizant of the perils of bigness. Adhering to the Rule of 150, you can exploit the bonds of memory and peer pressure. Crossing over the 150 line, you lose that highly effective institutional memory, intimacy and trust that was gained by knowing people well enough to understand their strengths and passions.
Malcolm Gladwell: The Tipping Point Discover how ideas, messages and products spread like outbreaks of infectious disease.
John Agno: When Doing It All Won't Do: A Self-Coaching Guide for Career Women