It is not easy to get to the bottom of an organization’s culture. Culture cannot be decided and is therefore not easy to discuss. Fortunately, organizational sociology provides a heuristic that helps to investigate the relevant phenomena. We call them the searchlights of organizational culture.
In this series, we present these searchlights. This article discusses clique formation.
Also on this topic:
Even when organizations formalize the communication paths in which staff can operate, a certain degree of freedom exists for a person to choose their own contacts. And there is also a choice of where to communicate: Write a quick email, reach for the phone, or pop into an office and chat for a while? These phenomena not only exist for individual contacts; in organizations we are all familiar with little groups characterized by a more trustful atmosphere. Beyond formally arranged meetings and formally expected information updates, “particularly trusted groups” arise on the informal side (Luhmann 1995: 324). They form a protected space in which people get involved in a rather personal way.
Anyone can be a colleague, but cliques are not open to every member of an organization. In other words, cliques are not loosely connected groups but actually demonstrate a high degree of cohe-sion. After all, what they exist for is so members exchange information, enable mutual career opportunities, or use the protected space to give free rein to dissatisfaction about their organiza-tion and enjoy support in their criticism.
Clique formation: The creation of small groups of special
mutual trust beyond formal structures.
Special groups always form “where the relationship with the formal organization becomes particularly distant and problematic, and where people do not live in direct accordance with the professional norm” (Luhmann 1995: 324). Cliques absorb any tension from a formal situation and open up paths that are not formally possible. Yet, they are also connected to the formal organization – if you leave the organization, you also cease being a member of the clique.
What function does clique formation perform for an organization?
Cliques can perform different functions, through essentially there are two distinct ones, the con-versation clique and the strategic clique.
In the first case, employees can express themselves critically in a protected circle – to a critical degree that could not be done formally or even in the context of the usual norms of collegiality. After a meeting they reflect on critical decisions, gossip about bosses’ habits, discuss the strategic guidelines for the next year, and possibly even hatch a plan to circumvent them. The key question for such cliques is in which groups opinions about the organization are formed.
Strategic cliques mobilize collective energy. Membership of the clique is intended to be of advantage to the individual because members can pursue strategic goals more effectively to-gether, or benefit collectively from information. They swap favors in important committees or try to advance their case for climbing the hierarchical ladder. However, members of such cliques also have to be able to contribute. Some members are even wooed so people can benefit from their qualities. It is not uncommon for leadership structures to form in such cliques so the group can negotiate externally and jointly represent the clique’s interests. The key question for such cliques is what insider relationships can be observed.
What consequential problems does this entail?
Strategic cliques in particular pursue goals that are not solely aligned with the formal structure but with their own interests. In such cases, an organization’s goals may be pushed into the back-ground. Mutual career advancement may be an advantage to individuals, even though they do not conform to formally established career patterns.
And even in conversation cliques, the formation of (generally negative) opinions about an organization can undermine organizational plans. For example, ambitious change projects may well be condemned to failure by small groups of opinion leaders before they even get off the ground.
Formally speaking, the obvious outcome is consequential problems – and often enough tangible consequences for individual members as well. Cliques depend on imposing informal sanctions because their formation cannot be formally legitimized. Members of strategic cliques who no longer contribute, for example, are refused contacts, support, or the advantages of belonging. Plots are hatched and the clique may even work against the career plans of former members. However advantageous a clique may be, exclusion from the group can prove just as difficult for individuals.
These questions should be considered:
- Which individuals provide mutual support in pursuing their own interests?
- What insider relationships can be observed?
- In what groups are opinions about the organization formed?
This article is an excerpt from the white paper “Nail the pudding to the wall! How to analyse, discuss – and successfully influence – your organization’s culture”. The full whitepaper is available to download free of charge here.