Jump to content

If some co-workers talk among themselves and don't include someone, whose fault is it


Recommended Posts

I noticed that there are like 6 six co-workers that sit in the another row, that are "tight" and they all talk among themselves, their business, etc, etc. Then, there is this one another guy that sits in that row and that group never include him in the conversation, never ask him how is weekend is, not even small talk. Shouldn't they include him and make him feel welcomed to join in on their conversation? Or should he jump into their conversation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

both are good options. Have you made any attempts to speak with this lad to get his version ?

 

Some folks really are great at absorbing information, then accessing it, and when the time is right... they speak up.

 

Is this group more of a hen gathering or is it a group working on a project of sorts?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The bigger question in my mind...is why don't they accept him?

 

 

Sounds kind of like a hiring/cultural problem. You can't force co-workers to like each other. All you can do is hire the RIGHT people so that cliques have a harder time forming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or he could be one of those co workers who comes in, does his job, leaves. We have a few of those at my job, and though they are quite affable they generally want to be left alone to work. One girl is so quiet I forget she even exists. She seems sweet enough, and I make small talk with her in the elevators, but honestly you can tell she would rather be left to her music and her work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
The bigger question in my mind...is why don't they accept him?

 

 

Sounds kind of like a hiring/cultural problem. You can't force co-workers to like each other. All you can do is hire the RIGHT people so that cliques have a harder time forming.

 

Managers where I work have no clue on what goes on out on the floor. And what can do they to hire the right people? Its just unfair how they treat him. He's a nice guy and when the other co-workers come in, they all say good morning to each other, except him. I too, have made an effort in trying to get closer to my co-workers, for example, one time I asked someone how her vacation was, she replied, "FINE, THANKS" she was really short with me. And some managers wonder why some people are reserved. Geez.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I noticed that there are like 6 six co-workers that sit in the another row, that are "tight" and they all talk among themselves, their business, etc, etc. Then, there is this one another guy that sits in that row and that group never include him in the conversation, never ask him how is weekend is, not even small talk. Shouldn't they include him and make him feel welcomed to join in on their conversation? Or should he jump into their conversation?

 

I'm not understanding why this is your concern. You need to focus on doing your job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not understanding why this is your concern. You need to focus on doing your job.

 

Apple, I think the OP is conveying what is called human interaction, which is what socializing and being civil in the work place carries. If 8 hours of my life are going to be given away to my employer, I at least want to know that others are decent in the area of employ.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author

We had a short meeting today and everyone sat by their best friends. I saw one lady saving a seat for her bestie. My god, we are all in a room where most likely everyone will be able to see each other and hear each other, its not the end of the world if they don't sit by each other. Anybody think it sounds too cliquish?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apple, I think the OP is conveying what is called human interaction, which is what socializing and being civil in the work place carries. If 8 hours of my life are going to be given away to my employer, I at least want to know that others are decent in the area of employ.

 

Tayla, unless you're doing volunteer work, you aren't "giving" 8 hrs a day to your employer. That aside, people who spend time wondering/analyzing who is sitting with whom, who said what to who, why isn't that person socializing with so-and-so, etc. etc. aren't the most productive - that's not what they are paid to do. They're usually known as busybodies with too much time on their hands.

Edited by applej4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tayla, unless you're doing volunteer work, you aren't "giving" 8 hrs a day to your employer. That aside, people who spend time wondering/analyzing who is sitting with whom, who said what to who, why isn't that person socializing with so-and-so, etc. etc. aren't the most productive - that's not what they are paid to do. They're usually known as busybodies with too much time on their hands.

 

Most places of employment don't operate like Dickensian workhouses where the whip is cracked with energy and the gruel thinned with water. I don't know what sort of work you do, but I would say that in most jobs having good working relationships and communication with workmates. A lot of jobs require good people skills (dealing with clients etc).

 

Somebody who focuses strictly on their work and doesn't engage to any social degree with colleagues in the (usually) misguided belief that their employer wants a robot who doesn't take their eyes off the machine is likely to be deemed as a bit of a problem by colleagues and the employer alike. Where are their people skills? Most jobs require people to have some degree of those soft, social skills.

 

The OP is likely talking about what happens at break times or lunch times. Some working environments are based in a location where it isn't practical for people to take an out of office lunch break. If that's the situation in the workplace the OP is talking about, and this guy is - day in and day out - being given the cold shoulder during those break times, I would say that's a problem.

 

If I were an employer and I saw that happening, I'd probably have a quiet word with the clique leader along the lines of "I've noticed G is a bit out of the group. You're good at drawing people out of themselves...do you think you could get him included in the group a bit more at lunch breaks? We're a team, and I don't like to see anybody being left on the fringes."

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Most places of employment don't operate like Dickensian workhouses where the whip is cracked with energy and the gruel thinned with water. I don't know what sort of work you do, but I would say that in most jobs having good working relationships and communication with workmates. A lot of jobs require good people skills (dealing with clients etc).

 

Somebody who focuses strictly on their work and doesn't engage to any social degree with colleagues in the (usually) misguided belief that their employer wants a robot who doesn't take their eyes off the machine is likely to be deemed as a bit of a problem by colleagues and the employer alike. Where are their people skills? Most jobs require people to have some degree of those soft, social skills.

 

The OP is likely talking about what happens at break times or lunch times. Some working environments are based in a location where it isn't practical for people to take an out of office lunch break. If that's the situation in the workplace the OP is talking about, and this guy is - day in and day out - being given the cold shoulder during those break times, I would say that's a problem.

 

If I were an employer and I saw that happening, I'd probably have a quiet word with the clique leader along the lines of "I've noticed G is a bit out of the group. You're good at drawing people out of themselves...do you think you could get him included in the group a bit more at lunch breaks? We're a team, and I don't like to see anybody being left on the fringes."

 

 

Ooohhh, defensive much? Touchy, touchy. I said nothing about Dickensian work atmospheres or people being robots. You pulled that exaggerated comparison out of the air, for whatever reason(s).

 

You don’t NEED to know that type of work I do/did. That’s irrelevant. I happen to be happily retired, not that it’s any of your business.

 

You also don’t know if OP is spying and eavesdropping at lunch, break, or all day long.

 

Social interaction is fine, but when someone is spending considerable time spying and eaves dropping on their co-workers and analyzing them something is wrong. Usually they have too much free time on their hands.

 

As employer it’s not your business to mold personalities and bust up social cliques, and it’s not OP’s job. If I were the employee you gave that speech to I'd roll my eyes as soon as I walked out of your office and maybe even have a good laugh and hope someone would get the net out and throw it over you real soon.. Most likely the team is not composed of the type of people the other person wants to hang with and prefers to be on the fringes. Worksites are not a kindergarten play groups or 8 hour parties.

Edited by applej4
Link to post
Share on other sites

So wait... you're saying that if there is a large enough group, it'll inevitably break off into smaller, closer knit groups?

 

Listen, if that person hasn't said anything to them or tried to interact, I fail to see the problem.

 

Just people making a big hoopla over nothing. This is high school stuff, college stuff, work stuff, meetup stuff... it happens EVERYWHERE.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ooohhh, defensive much? Touchy, touchy. I said nothing about Dickensian work atmospheres or people being robots. You pulled that exaggerated comparison out of the air, for whatever reason(s).

 

Yeah, you know....people often do that. Socially.

 

Social interaction is fine, but when someone is spending considerable time spying and eaves dropping on their co-workers and analyzing them something is wrong. Usually they have too much free time on their hands.

 

Where are you getting the notion that people are spying and eavesdropping here? Picking up the general dynamics of an environment of people is not that hard. One doesn't need to be snooping to notice.

 

As employer it’s not your business to mold personalities and bust up social cliques,

 

As an employer it would be my business to run my business as I saw fit - provided I was doing so in compliance with the law. I would expect a team to function like a team. And yes, if I saw somebody being excluded by a clique I would address it.

 

ETA. Others have pointed out that some people don't really want to participate in the social aspects of workplaces - which is fine. However in a scenario like this:

 

Its just unfair how they treat him. He's a nice guy and when the other co-workers come in, they all say good morning to each other, except him.

 

as outlined by the OP, I regard that as uncivil enough to be addressed. You don't cut one person out like that. An employer who decides it's not their place to notice if one person is being excluded from the group, and make reasonable efforts to improve the situation for that person may well be the kind of employer who will find themselves floundering to deal with grievances.

Edited by Taramere
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
So wait... you're saying that if there is a large enough group, it'll inevitably break off into smaller, closer knit groups?

 

Listen, if that person hasn't said anything to them or tried to interact, I fail to see the problem.

 

Just people making a big hoopla over nothing. This is high school stuff, college stuff, work stuff, meetup stuff... it happens EVERYWHERE.

 

Like you, I fail to see how any of it is a problem for OP. How does it affect her? How does it impede her ability to do her job? It doesn't. Apparently a diversionary tactic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
An employer who decides it's not their place to notice if one person is being excluded from the group, and make reasonable efforts to improve the situation for that person may well be the kind of employer who will find themselves floundering to deal with grievances.

 

I think an employer that is serious about business isn't worried about Mike & Tina excluding Bob, rather, their productivity levels.

 

You can't force a square peg into a round hole.

 

So you give the "clique" an ultimatum, then what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think an employer that is serious about business isn't worried about Mike & Tina excluding Bob, rather, their productivity levels.

 

You can't force a square peg into a round hole.

 

So you give the "clique" an ultimatum, then what?

 

Where did I say I was giving the clique an ultimatum? The approach I described is very much along the lines of an informal and unthreatening approach. Noting that X seems to be a bit out of things, and suggesting they could draw him in a bit more. That's not even approaching the realms of formal proceedings or warnings. Nor is it suggesting that there's a bullying problem. It's simply noting that one person could be included in the team a bit more - from my perspective.

 

What if they then, as my employees, disregard what I've said and carry on as they are? Well, first off - if the person I'd identified as clique leader and had an informal chat with reacted in the way Apple described a few posts ago then I'd be looking at taking disciplinary proceedings against them (behaviour of the type he described will generally be reported back one way or another). Somebody who reacts like that is disrespecting both you as an employer and the general terms and conditions of their employment.

 

Really, I'd probably take the view that the situation had flushed out a bit of a bad egg...and I'd be looking to get shot of them. With a termination payment if need be, but I wouldn't continue to employ somebody like that. It can affect the entire working environment adversely and send out a bad message to other employees. There's no need to get rid of the entire clique in that scenario. You focus on the clique leader in your informal "X seems to be a bit out of things...what do you think? Could you draw him into the team a bit?" for a reason. You target them for your chat because they're the one with the power within the group. If they're prepared to use that power in a way that's helpful to you as an employer and promotes good teamwork generally then that's fine. If they're going to use that power to undermine and disrespect you then they need to go.

 

That apart...if there's nothing disrespectful going on to me as an employer but I notice that X is still out of things, then I give him some opportunity to let me know how his working life is going. That's not something I could even begin to cover in a post. It's a potentially delicate situation. Excluding one team member from things can be classed as bullying, but as a manager or employer you do not just dive in and say "I think you're being bullied".

 

Rather than reinventing the wheel, I'm just going to post a link to some guidance we would follow in the UK.

 

Raising bullying or harassment issues with one of your staff can be very uncomfortable – for them and you. It may be that you’ve misinterpreted the situation, and the person you think is being bullied does not perceive any unacceptable behaviour at all. The relationship that you have with your staff depends on many factors such as personality, management style and the culture of the team or organisation.

 

How managers tackle this issue may be very different. One way would be to create the atmosphere and circumstances for the individual to raise the problem themselves – you could perhaps ask open questions such as 'how are things going?'

 

Bullying and harassment - Advice for managers

 

If you've got a comprehensive bullying policy (better termed "respect in the workplace" or something along those lines) in place that all staff have been made aware of, have informally suggested to other team members that X could perhaps be drawn out a little, and if you've also given X the opportunity to let you know whether there are any problems - and if none of these informal chats leave you with any particular concerns, then I think as an employer you've done your bit.

 

In this thread, the OP is presenting as somebody who has noticed potential problems relating to a colleague not fitting in with team mates, being ignored (people bidding eachother good morning but ignoring that particular individual - which is pretty disrespectful and unimpressive behaviour). Potentially that person, if they continue to have concerns about their colleague, is going to eventually approach the employer about it.

 

What, as an employer, would you do if the OP approached you with their concerns? Would you just tell them to keep out of matters that you don't think concern them, and get on with their work?

Edited by Taramere
Link to post
Share on other sites

So wait... co-workers not saying "Good morning" to someone... is bullying now?

 

But an "informal and unthreatening approach" from a higher up isn't an ultimatum? How do you think the "clique" is going to feel once you give them this talk about excluding other people in the office from saying "Good morning"... I mean... "bullying".

 

Just imagine that your boss came to you to say that you aren't including "Sarah" in your good mornings and your group lunches. Feels great and informal and unthreatening right? Not at all like you are being forced to hang out with Sarah from now on? Or that you have to say "Good morning" so as that she doesn't feel "bullied" just because your boss is watching?

 

Come on now, if you're going to blow things out of proportion, make the right choice here.

 

If the "nice guy" in the original scenario has a problem with this "clique", that person can go to HR if they feel any certain way about it. But to come down on a group of people for X or Y reason with whatever basis to go with it is irresponsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So wait... co-workers not saying "Good morning" to someone... is bullying now?

 

Again, did I say it was bullying? What I would say is that if somebody in the workplace appears to be getting excluded by others to the point that an observing colleague has concerns then that's something which can't be ignored.

 

Of course it's wrong to insist that employees have to socialise with the a person they don't really get along with outside of work. It's not wrong to insist that they help to create an inclusive (for all team members) environment at work. That's just about implementing a policy of respectful treatment within the workplace. Which helps to reduce the possibility of bullying becoming a problem. I'm not suggesting an approach to this issue that wouldn't be covered by/couldn't be justified with reference to guidance in official guidance such as this:

 

http://www.hr.gov.nt.ca/sites/default/files/guidetoapplyingtheharassmentfreeandrespectfulworkplacepolicy_v4_april_2014.pdf

 

I think you would struggle to find any official guidance on creating respectful working environments that doesn't make some mention of social isolation amongst examples of undesirable/unacceptable behaviour within the workplace. For me, I would prefer to adhere to the perspective provided in official guidance than rely on the opinions of people on a message board. I should think most employers aiming for excellence in terms of employee relations would feel the same way.

 

But an "informal and unthreatening approach" from a higher up isn't an ultimatum? How do you think the "clique" is going to feel once you give them this talk about excluding other people in the office from saying "Good morning"... I mean... "bullying".

 

I posted

 

If I were an employer and I saw that happening, I'd probably have a quiet word with the clique leader along the lines of "I've noticed G is a bit out of the group. You're good at drawing people out of themselves...do you think you could get him included in the group a bit more at lunch breaks? We're a team, and I don't like to see anybody being left on the fringes

 

You're describing that as an "ultimatum" to the clique. Good luck with arguing in any court or tribunal that an informal chat like that constitutes an ultimatum.

 

Just imagine that your boss came to you to say that you aren't including "Sarah" in your good mornings and your group lunches. Feels great and informal and unthreatening right? Not at all like you are being forced to hang out with Sarah from now on? Or that you have to say "Good morning" so as that she doesn't feel "bullied" just because your boss is watching?

 

Actually, if an employer had a chat with me about somebody being left out in that way my initial reaction would be to feel bad for the person. I'd assume that they'd said something about feeling left out. My next thought would be "have I picked up anything to indicate that Sarah herself has a problem with the rest of us?"

 

My verbal response would be "has Sarah spoken to you? What are her thoughts about this?" If the employer then said "well, Sarah herself hasn't said anything - but (another colleague) mentioned that she seemed to be a bit out of things then I would probably suggest that a bit more exploration with Sarah to see how she felt about it would be in order.

 

I wouldn't feel threatened by an employer approaching me like that. But I would suggest further investigation to find out how Sarah herself felt.

 

Come on now, if you're going to blow things out of proportion, make the right choice here.

 

If the "nice guy" in the original scenario has a problem with this "clique", that person can go to HR if they feel any certain way about it. But to come down on a group of people for X or Y reason with whatever basis to go with it is irresponsible.

 

No it's not irresponsible at all. It's an approach that sits well with the guidance government agencies in the West tend to issue with regard to creating respectful workplace environments. That a lot of employers out there don't bother acquainting themselves with such guidance or implementing it in their policies doesn't make it wrong.

 

I think the irresponsible approach involves being unacquainted with that sort of guidance. To see somebody left out of things and, as an employer, to think there was no obligation on you to address the situation - or worse still, to believe (as you appear to) that an employer has no business addressing it. If you have a generally cohesive team of people, and one person who is supposed to be part of that team isn't being included then it's absolutely in order for an employer to take the kind of steps I suggested to help them to be more included.

 

My suggestion does not involve "coming down on a group of people". It involves inviting an influential team member to help to make the entire team a more cohesive one. If they regarded that as me coming down on them unfairly, they would be more than welcome to raise a grievance against me for it....then leave and claim constructive dismissal if that didn't go their way. If we want to talk about disproportionate reactions, that would be one. They'd get nowhere in the Tribunal system with it, and there'd be no offer from me on the table.

 

An employer is perfectly entitled to have an informal chat with employees if they think a team member isn't being included. I'm not suggesting an accusatory manner. I'm suggesting broaching it in terms of wanting to improve team cohesion. If employees can't handle an employer having a discussion with them like that, then they're probably going to struggle in the larger modern workplace generally.

Edited by Taramere
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Diezel, I’m not going to read all of Taramere’s novel-length posts and links. However, an employer taking up company time to call in someone and talk about cliques is silly. Bullying??!! It’s almost laughable. To take disciplinary action against people for not including someone in chitchat or lunch/breaks is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Such a manager/supervisor should be tossed out immediately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Diezel, I’m not going to read all of Taramere’s novel-length posts and links. However, an employer taking up company time to call in someone and talk about cliques is silly. Bullying??!! It’s almost laughable. To take disciplinary action against people for not including someone in chitchat or lunch/breaks is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Such a manager/supervisor should be tossed out immediately.

 

Well, if they get tossed out for that in my jurisdiction I'll be happy to represent them. I haven't lost/failed to achieve a settlement in an employment case yet. How about you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if they get tossed out for that in my jurisdiction I'll be happy to represent them. I haven't lost/failed to achieve a settlement in an employment case yet. How about you?

 

How about ME? Well, I find it odd that such a busy, successful lawyer has so much time to play on the internet. ;)

Edited by applej4
Link to post
Share on other sites
How about ME? Well, I find it odd that such a busy lawyer has so much time to play on the internet. ;)

 

There are quite a number of lawyers on Loveshack. The practice of law rarely provides opportunities to argue to a degree that tv programmes like to pretend it does - since most cases settle extra-judicially. We're frustrated - so our love of arguing has to be satisfied in other ways. For instance, on message boards.

 

Also, getting a strong understanding of people whose opinions differ from mine helps me to become better at certain aspects of my job that aren't addressed by formal legal training. Being able to see things from a variety of perspectives - even perspectives you disagree with - is vital. Loveshack certainly offers a variety of perspectives on all sorts of issues. So while you're not interested in reading my posts, I'm certainly interested in reading yours. :)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
There are quite a number of lawyers on Loveshack.
And you know this how? (Oh. On the internet anyone can be anything! :D) Well, I'll let you get back to briefs, pleadings, and settlements. ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites
And you know this how?

 

I think I've shared enough.

 

OP (Bobbi7). Sorry about the threadjack. I'm curious as to whether you're a third party observing somebody else apparently being excluded in the workplace - or if you yourself are feeling excluded.

Edited by Taramere
Link to post
Share on other sites

The secret for success in business is to have employee's content. Period. Employee's are not drones, anything that fosters community in any company....large or small = Plus productivity. I land firmly on the side of teamwork and sensibility.

 

I think I agree with Taramere, too long to read but I agree.

Edited by Timshel
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...