Sociology

How Workplace Etiquette Impacts the Bottom Line

This paper wants to show how having certain groups align themselves can have good (or bad) consequences. There are ways to get things done, but if everyone is not on the same page then the project will fail. This unfortunately result leads to name-calling, finger-pointing, and eventually staff changes. The hope is to see where the cliques form and to determine whether such groups should exist.

People work in groups, whether in a small company or in a large conglomerate. Employees must work together to complete assigned tasks. Otherwise, there is explaining to do from the groups leaders. How do these groups, or cliques, work More importantly, how do these people impact the rest of the workplace

One answer can be found from research conducted by Jena Walker. While she sees some redeeming value for joining a clique, there are potential pitfalls as well. Walker sees those affiliated with a clique given praise by those in the group. However, those employees outside the group are looked at as second-class citizens and thus, have no impact according to them (2006)

Walker said cliques in the workplace are often fatal because the group travels together and may influence whether certain employees are liked, respected, or given equal opportunities. (2006). She said being able to function inside a clique is difficult because failure to work with in the clique can lead to that persons ouster. (2006)

The bottom line from Walkers perspective is to not join a clique. They can damage a professional reputation, a persons personal life and ultimate, cost someone their job. (2006)

Companies have language written into their human resources manual pertaining to the topic. This is prevent a potential headache and to keep the rules uniform for every employee.

Boeing has such a provision for their workers. Spelled out by Wendy McMillan, LPC, CEAP, it tells employees the inappropriate stature of forming and maintaining cliques for personal gain. The problem they see is when the clique goes wrong over a given issue. The issue then becomes a messy one for human resources to handle.

Cliques have some value if they foster teamwork and goodwill within the group. However, when management comes in and shows some type of favoritism toward one member of the group, then the animosity starts amongst the group. (2009)

Since it is human nature for people to be both competitive and cynical, being part of a clique can be problematic because of the groups nature to stand up for each other. There is no individualismit is for the good of the group. Small disagreements can lead to fights that break up the group and the project. (2009)

The practice is not confined to groups within the workplace. It can be done outside the workplace and in the networking world, where contacts are made and the possibility of importance becomes a key issue.

When people network they want people who are like-minded. That is no surprise. When they work together (or some say, conspire) to keep other would-be professionals from either joining them or keeping them away from potentials business, then it is termed road blocking. (Borders 2009)

Think of this as a glass ceiling because the tactic is similar keeping the undesirable people from joining a group or clique and not benefiting from the knowledge and expertise of the other members. (2009)

Which begs the question would anyone want to work either for or with someone who acts like this

While there is enough tress and negativity for employees in the workplace, it can be avoided if employees agree to work together. Negative actions such as gossiping, sabotaging another persons work and using negative words such as cant and wont, help undermine the task at hand. (Sherrer 2010). Instead, using positive reinforcement and encouragement works to help ease tensions amongst the group and promote a healthier working environment. Cliques can work in such instances because everyone is working toward achieving the common goal.

Having meetings can be helpful if structured and not forced upon by the project leader or other members of management. You want employees motivated to work, but not bogged down by the rah-rah mentality that some people bring to the project or job. Can there be a balance

Robert Whipple thinks it can work IF the employees are on board with the concept. He said meetings can serve as a springboard for better ideas and improve communications between groups. (Whipple 2009) What he thinks works is having the employees lead the meeting instead of management (2009). That way, the employees are the ones who drive the meeting and have a more vested interest in the result than the higher-ups (although when money is factored in the equation, then management watches with more than a passing interest.)

For the most part, it is wise to refrain from entering a clique because there are more disadvantages and the potential for backlash among the non-clique employees. Such groups only harbor ill feelings among the have-nots and try to better themselves at the expense of others. In the end, if the clique fails, then all involved will be accountable for their actions and the ensuing fallout.

There is some value to working within a group. However, it is best to work as a team and not in an adversarial role.