How attempts to break up workplace cliques can push them underground
When leaders become aware of a workplace clique, their first instinct is often to break it up.
They may separate individuals, redistribute responsibilities, challenge particular relationships or instruct people to behave more professionally.
This response is understandable, particularly when the group appears to be excluding others, controlling information or engaging in harmful behaviour.
But direct attempts to dismantle a clique can sometimes make the dynamic harder to address.
Instead of disappearing, the clique becomes less visible.
Why workplace cliques form
Cliques are often described simply as groups of employees who like one another and exclude everyone else. But informal alliances can fulfil a number of psychological and practical functions.
They can provide:
a sense of belonging;
emotional safety;
access to information;
influence over decisions;
protection from perceived threats;
validation of a shared interpretation of events; and
a sense of control in an uncertain environment.
These benefits can become particularly important when the formal team feels unsafe, unclear or unfair.
If employees do not trust formal communication channels, they may rely more heavily on informal ones.
If they feel unsupported by the leader, they may seek protection from colleagues.
If decisions appear unpredictable, being connected to an influential group may provide a greater sense of security.
This does not excuse exclusion, bullying, intimidation or harmful conduct.
It does help explain why the alliance may be resistant to simple attempts to remove it.
What happens when the group feels threatened?
When leaders take forceful action against a clique without understanding the wider dynamics, members of the group may feel threatened or unfairly targeted.
This can increase their loyalty to one another.
The group may interpret the intervention as evidence that leadership is against them or unwilling to hear their perspective.
Rather than becoming more open, members become more cautious.
Conversations move away from formal settings and into:
private messaging groups;
informal social gatherings;
closed-door conversations;
personal phone calls; and
communication outside working hours.
The alliance continues, but leadership has less visibility of it.
The behaviour has been pushed underground.
Why visibility matters
When informal dynamics remain visible, leaders have a better chance of understanding and influencing them.
Once communication moves into hidden spaces, harmful narratives can become more difficult to challenge.
Group members may reinforce one another’s interpretation of events without exposure to alternative perspectives.
Mistrust of leadership may deepen.
Employees outside the group may continue to experience exclusion while leaders mistakenly believe the problem has been resolved.
This creates a dangerous gap between the formal appearance of the team and its lived reality.
Accountability is still necessary
Understanding the function of a clique does not mean leaders should tolerate harmful behaviour.
Employees must still be held accountable for bullying, exclusion, information withholding or conduct that undermines colleagues.
However, accountability is more likely to create lasting change when it is accompanied by a wider examination of the team environment.
Leaders should consider:
Why has this alliance become so influential?
What does membership provide?
What are people afraid would happen without the group?
Are formal communication and decision-making processes trusted?
Do some employees have privileged access to information or leadership?
Have concerns been addressed consistently?
Are employees clear about how decisions are made?
Do people feel they have legitimate ways to exercise voice and influence?
Without addressing these questions, the organisation may remove the visible expression of the problem while leaving its underlying drivers intact.
Create safer formal structures
One of the most effective ways to reduce dependence on unhealthy informal alliances is to improve the formal team environment.
This might involve:
more transparent communication;
clearer decision-making processes;
fairer access to information;
consistent behavioural expectations;
greater role clarity;
regular opportunities for employee voice;
stronger responses to exclusion and incivility; and
leadership that is both approachable and has appropriately boundaries.
When the wider team feels safer and more predictable, the psychological value of the clique may begin to reduce.
People no longer need membership of a particular group to feel informed, protected or influential.
Address the need, not only the group
A workplace clique is not simply a collection of difficult personalities.
It is a relationship system.
To change it, leaders need to understand both the harmful behaviour and the needs, fears and organisational conditions that help sustain it.
The objective is not merely to stop certain people spending time together.
It is to create a team in which informal alliances cannot dominate information, belonging, power or safety.
How I can help
My doctoral research explores how healthcare leaders prevent, manage and respond to bullying and incivility involving workplace cliques.
Alongside this research, I support organisations to diagnose and address unhealthy team dynamics, informal power structures and entrenched patterns of behaviour.
If attempts to address a clique have made it less visible rather than less influential, a deeper psychological and systemic assessment may be needed.
Nicole Williams is an occupational and coaching psychologist specialising in culture repair, team dynamics and psychologically safe workplaces.
Comments