In the intricate ecosystem of an organization, employees naturally form bonds and alliances. While camaraderie and mutual support can foster a healthy work environment, there is a darker side to this dynamic—workplace grouping. My discussions with employees from various organizations in Bangladesh reveal a troubling pattern: the formation of exclusive groups that, despite seeming beneficial on the surface, ultimately erode and corrode the organizational fabric from within.
We recently spoke with ten individuals from various organizations in Bangladesh. Remarkably, 80% of them admitted to being part of workplace groups, while 20% were not. Universally, they all condemned the practice of grouping. When asked if they would support such grouping in their own organizations, they unanimously replied, "No." Our discussions revealed that those who avoid grouping are often deeply focused on their work. Although they may be quieter by nature, they are highly active and productive, frequently becoming key performers who can independently tackle challenges for the organization. In contrast, those within groups often label these ungrouped employees as selfish, driven by jealousy over their genuine achievements.
The success of grouped individuals tends to be more visible but is often manipulative and speculative. In the context of organizational behavior, workplace grouping can be seen as a distortion of Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy, which emphasizes a structured hierarchy, clear rules, and merit-based advancement. Weber famously stated, "Bureaucracy develops the more perfectly, the more it is 'dehumanized,” highlighting the need for impartiality and the removal of personal biases in decision-making. Moreover, the role of pressure groups within an organization is similar to that of pressure groups in public policy making in Bangladesh. External pressure groups often lobby the government to influence decisions in favor of specific interests, sometimes at the expense of the broader public interests. Similarly, within an organization, certain workplace groups can exert undue influence over management and decision-making processes, pushing their own interests over those of the entire organization. This internal manipulation can lead to decisions that benefit only a few powerful individuals or groups, rather than supporting the organization’s overall goals. Such actions can cause inefficiencies, reduce fairness, and ultimately erode the organization’s integrity. This is because reliance on such groups can become a liability; if the organization depends on them for over 50% of its operations, these groups could eventually leverage their influence to demand undue benefits, potentially harming the organization.
Grouping often arises from shared backgrounds—same academics,location, or even common cultural traits. Members of these groups offer each other unwavering support, creating an insular environment where mutual back-patting and unmerited promotions become the norm. While the visible success of these groups might seem impressive, it is frequently superficial, based on manipulation rather than genuine achievement.
It is essential to distinguish between harmful grouping and productive teamwork. Teamwork, when specified by the organization, fosters collaboration and efficiency and is fundamental to achieving common goals. Unlike exclusionary groups, effective teams are inclusive, transparent, and driven by collective success rather than individual interests. AsHelen Keller famously said, "Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much." This principle underpins true teamwork, which should never be conflated with the divisive nature of workplace grouping. The ungrouped employees, who prefer to focus on their work rather than engage in office politics, are often the true backbone of the organization. They remain dedicated, driven, and capable of handling crises independently. Yet, their contributions often go unnoticed, overshadowed by the more conspicuous successes of the grouped employees. This not only demoralizes the ungrouped but also perpetuates a toxic work culture where genuine effort is undervalued.
Moreover, when the boss of an organization inadvertently or intentionally supports these groups, the problem is exacerbated. Such support can lead to an unhealthy dependency on these groups, which, over time, may wield disproportionate power. True organizational freedom comes from supporting individual merit over group allegiance. To foster a truly professional and resilient workplace, organizations must strive to be unbiased and vigilant. Identifying and dismantling these groups requires a nuanced approach. It involves observing interactions closely, listening to less vocal employees, and even seeking insights from non-managerial staff, like office support personnel, who often witness the dynamics unnoticed by higher-ups.
Leaders must cultivate an environment where the only group that matters is the organization itself. Encouraging a culture of inclusivity, where every employee feels valued based on merit rather than affiliation, is crucial. In a healthy work environment, every employee should feel empowered to lead and take initiative. This individual readiness strengthens the organization, whereas dependence on exclusive groups creates vulnerabilities. Martin Luther King stated that "A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus" points to the essence of true leadership.
In conclusion, while workplace grouping might offer a semblance of order and progress, it is a silent saboteur of organizational health. Leaders must be proactive in identifying and addressing this issue, ensuring that their support is reserved for collective organizational goals rather than divisive subgroups. It is essential for organizations to cultivate a strong, unified culture that emphasizes merit, inclusivity, and alignment with the broader organizational mission, ensuring that all decisions serve the collective good rather than the narrow interests of specific groups.Then only true professionalism and long-term success can be achieved.
Writer: Dr. Md. Abdur Rahim Khan, is a Senior Faculty at Bangladesh Institute of Governance and Management. Email: [email protected]
Md. Mominur Rahman is an Assistant Professor at Bangladesh Institute of Governance and Management. And also, an Associate Editor at BIGM Journal of Policy Analysis. Email: [email protected]
BDST: 1908 HRS, NOV 06, 2024
MSK
