How workplace cliques affect employee morale and productivity

Cliques in the Workplace: The Strength of Workplace Diversity

Many workplaces can be just as clique-ish as a high school. In the new global marketplace, an intolerant company is not simply immoral and illegal -- a lack of diversity is also economically unproductive for the business. Although having a diverse workplace can pose challenges in terms of employee communication and creating a cohesive sense of mission, ultimately the benefits of diversity outweigh any potential detriments.

First and foremost, a diverse workplace is more likely to mirror a company's client base. Diverse employees can provide insight about the needs of consumers. A workplace that is overrepresented by one gender, race, or class may forget needs or concerns that are specific to a particular demographic. For example, the painkiller Motrin was recently forced to 'pull' an advertisement which showed a woman carrying around her child, complaining about the pain that the baby caused her. Many 'mommy bloggers' vowed to boycott Motrin because they considered it offensive that the mother said: "Do moms that wear their babies cry more than those who don't? I sure do! These things [baby slings] put a ton of strain on your back, your neck, your shoulders" ("Moms and Motrin," The New York Times, 2008). A gender-balanced workforce solicits input so it can screen advertisements or marketing that might be offensive to men or women; similarly, members of different racial or ethnic groups can provide feedback that would prevent an advertisement that might be taken 'in the wrong way' from being released.

Dealing with suppliers and partnerships from around the world can be improved with the greater cultural awareness provided by diversity. The theorist of different communication styles Edward Hall suggested that cultures existed on a continuum between high and low contexts. For example, Northern European cultures such as Scandinavian, Germans, and Swiss culture tend to communicate explicitly in speech, so the context of the situation and the relationship between the speakers is not important to discern the meaning of what is being said. These cultures are called extremely 'low context' cultures. In contrast, in Japan and China, nonverbal cues and silence as well as the speakers' relationship is extremely important in understanding the meaning of what is being said. These cultures are called 'high context' cultures (Wurtz 2005). Miscommunication is often the result when members of low and high-context cultures interact. For example, in Japan, saying 'no' directly is considered very rude, and uttering 'maybe' conveys 'no.' To fully understand the different shades of meaning within another culture, a diverse workforce can provide an in-house cultural 'translator' on many occasions. This is often is just as valuable as having someone on staff who speaks multiple languages.

Organizations themselves can develop cultures which can be extremely factionalized and insular. This can result in a lack of creative and independent thinking. The friction that is sometimes generated by a diversity of perspectives can give rise to new ideas. It ensures that the organization can compete with an ever-changing market environment and does not grow calcified and stale in its thinking. New ideas, thoughts, and insights are required for a company to stay 'fresh.' When companies have excessively homogeneous cultures, a kind of 'groupthink' can take hold.

For example, the well-respected Japanese automotive company Toyota suffered a sharp public relations backlash when it was forced to recall several models of its vehicles because of faulty mechanical problems. Rather than apologize, Toyota adopted a defensive posture. "The firm initially refused to acknowledge the problem; then, last year, it offered an explanation (badly fitting floor mats) that was greeted with skepticism; only last month did it change its mind and agree to replace the accelerator pedals in affected vehicles...Groupthink becomes entrenched because there is so little mobility between companies: hiring from outside is thought to disrupt a firm's internal harmony" ("Accelerating into trouble," The Economist, 2010). Although 'harmony' might sound like a good thing, a lack of tolerance for persons who might advocate a different opinion can lead to an inability to admit that the firm can do something wrong, or that a new strategy is demanded. Another good example of an automotive company that was unable to see its policies from an outsider's perspective was Ford, which elected to produce a low-cost car called the Pinto without correcting a flaw that caused the car to burst into flames when hit from behind, rationalizing that it was easier to pay the cost of lawsuits than it was to fix the car's design, raise the price, and alienate potential buyers.