Office cliques: unethical or just natural?

No sooner do I pick my way — successfully I hope — through one minefield, than a reader nudges me into another one. The reader writes:

“I’m 49 years old. Male. I’m overweight, and have been suffering from some low self-esteem over the last seven or eight years. Now … here’s the subject: Ageism/Overweightism/Maleism.

“I work in a large company, with a very conservative reputation. This company has some very sound policies in place regarding discrimination. I applaud them for that. However, I find myself in a quandary, nonetheless. My co-workers range in age from mid 20s to late 30s. Mostly late 20s. The department consists of 2 female managers (both older than I), and 22 analysts (of which, I am one).

“None of the employees would dare overtly violate the company’s policy, but they find ways of doing it anyway. I liken this to high school popularity contests and cliques. This clique is led by a late 20s female that is very close to the senior manager. They ostracize people that aren’t in their group, and they practice this on me.

“My goal is to work together as a team, and try as I might, I find that I have to ‘swallow my pride,’ let them be right when I know they are wrong and accept work assignments that are less than desirable — all because I believe this company is worth staying with. However, making any statements to my superiors would be seen as ‘not being a team player.’ I’ve seen what they’ve done to others, and I don’t want to risk my job.

“Having said all that, I know that I have other methods of recourse. I can do things about the weight, the self-esteem and so forth. I can’t do anything about the age differences. I would like to know if people in my age group and older have had to deal with these issues before, and if so, how do they do it?”

When I read this, I had to ask myself whether this was an issue worth exploring for an ethical connection, but two things pushed me in that direction. The first is that I, too, am an older worker and have reached the stage where gravity is no longer my friend. Second, this seems to be a serious question for the writer, and is probably worth examining for that alone.

However, I’m also in the enviable position of never having worked in a place where that was a problem for me. Maybe journalism is different. Maybe it’s because people tend to socialize around work responsibilities or similar interests. I’ve never experienced or been aware of people being excluded because they were older or of either gender. Also, for the past nine years I’ve been telecommuting, so my “face time” interactions during the work day are mostly with pets and inanimate objects.

One possible reaction would be to adopt the position of Generation W (these are the people whose answer to everything is “Whatever”) and tell the writer that it’s his tough luck and he should “just get over it.” Life is unfair, they say, so stop being a victim. But being older and raised to be more considerate of people, I think we need to determine what’s going on.

The reader is right. He can do something about a weight problem or self-esteem issues. And although it would probably be in his best interest, the question remains whether he should have to in order to be considered “one of the team” by his co-workers. As long as he can do the work, can interact well with other employees — if allowed to — and completes projects on time, it’s hard to see any reason his personal baggage is anyone else’s business. We all have our quirks, hang-ups, and “issues,” and unless they seriously impede the flow of business, maybe it’s other people who should “just get over it.”

However, people in office situations invariably tend to group themselves together around common interests. New mothers, for example, will talk endlessly about subjects that men or non-mothers have no interest in, and to which they have nothing to contribute. Golfers and football fans gather to discuss their interests at great length. But even those innocuous-seeming groupings can have an exclusionary feel to outsiders.

I once worked in an office where we had four secretaries about the same age. Three of them were planning their weddings and spent all their free time poring over the stacks of bride magazines they brought to the office one day. After about a month of this, the fourth announced that she too was getting married — to someone she had known for only a few weeks — and joined the group. Unfortunately, her engagement lasted only until the others had completed their plans. Then she dumped the guy. Coincidence? You be the judge.

This sort of grouping is natural. The joggers will hang together, as will the brides-to-be, those with strong religious convictions, sailors, those in the same age group, you name it. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it and I don’t think it’s going to change any time soon.

However, in the situation described by the reader, the group did have a detrimental effect on what he saw as his place in the organization, and that’s a different story altogether. More important, the supervisor was involved, which not only lends some stamp of approval to the situation, but makes it difficult for him to get redress.

My feeling has always been that the manager is responsible for fostering a cooperative attitude among employees and for creating and maintaining diversity in the workplace. I realize that idea of diversity has gotten a bad reputation lately, but I think it not only creates a productive workplace, but prevents just the situation the reader describes in his note. I think that this is just good management.

I don’t think keeping an eye on diversity is as bad as some people make it out to be. Just as we wouldn’t want to load up the staff with people with the same skill set, ignoring other important skills, neither should we load it up with people from the same college, of all the same age, or of either gender. You don’t have to make diversity your overriding criterion, but it can be a consideration.

Another issue that comes up in situations like that of the reader is when people are promoted disproportionately from among those in the boss’ clique, running group, coffee klatch, or poker game. Opinions are pretty divided on this. On the negative side, some call it “cronyism,” “favoritism,” and “the old boy network.” On the positive side, we call it “networking,” or “hiring a known quantity.”

I admit it can look like favoritism, but on the other hand, there’s a lot to be said for promoting people with whom your comfortable. If I’m looking for an assistant, wouldn’t it make sense for me to hire someone — assuming he or she met all the qualifications of the job — whose qualities I know well, someone whose judgment I respect, and who I’m certain would make the right decisions? Is that favoritism or merely good hiring practice?

Since I haven’t been in the position and don’t work in an office environment, I don’t have any practical insights to offer the reader. Perhaps as the workforce ages, this is a growing and serious problem. Maybe those of you in “cubicle hell” have a better perspective. If I get some good insights, I’ll include them in a future column. When you write, let me know if I can quote you and how I should attribute it.