Thursday, September 15, 2011

Building Relationships at Work

Friendships at work have historically been frowned upon; in the past they’ve been viewed as a drain on time and productivity. But modern companies are slowly moving away from this norm, and instead embrace the idea that friendships at work are critical to the bottom line. Literature supports this. LaFasto and Larson, authors of the book When Teams Work Best, write that:
 “There is some recent evidence that old-fashioned notions about keeping friendship out of the workplace are ill-informed and extremely misguided. In fact, friendships tend to move working relationships in the direction of higher quality and more productivity in work outcomes”.
They go on to say that, “…warmth, affection, liking, and friendship are properties that are much more likely to be found in good [organizations] than in poor ones”[1].

How and Why do Men and Women Build Work Relationships
Acknowledging that work friendships are important paves the way for a discussion on this question: How and why do men and women build work relationships?
One large study that included subjects from New Zealand, the United States, Australia, and the UK found that there were specific differences in both the form and outcome of work friendships for men and women[2].

How and Why Men Build Work Friendships
Men’s work friendships tend to be defined by the sharing of work tasks and activities. This accounts for the biggest differences between men and women on this topic. Men’s friendships at work are often described as instrumental, organized around shared interests and activities. They are action-oriented, not person-oriented. Men make friends when they’re working closely with others. When workload can be shared, this further cements friendships.
When a man is in a job with little opportunity to share activities with colleagues, he is significantly less likely to have work friends, according to this study. He is also less likely to make friends from different departments, owing to a strong us-and-them mentality in male workers. Just like male communication being more task oriented, a male friendship at work centers around day-to-day responsibilities.
An interesting find in this study is that job satisfaction is significantly correlated with friendship for men: When a man indicates that he is satisfied with his job, he is also likely to indicate that he has work friends. Note that this does not mean that one causes the other; there are other situational variables to account for causality.

How and Why Women Build Work Friendships
Women’s work friendships are built on a communal experience and usually involve self-disclosure and supportiveness. They are more complex than men’s friendships, involving layers of understanding and empathy. Sharing a workload or working closely with others is not significantly correlated with work friendships for women.
The study found that women are significantly more likely to make friends at work during stressful situations: this is congruent with the “tend and befriend” response to stress exhibited by females. Women seek out the comfort and support of others in stressful situations, leaning on them for social and emotional support. This explains the interesting finding that when women have friends at work, they are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their jobs.
Another finding indicated that women are so strongly affected by their work friends that they make career decisions (leaving or taking a job) based on the social opportunities offered on the job.

Overall Relevance
This study reiterated that, overall, friendships at work were related to job satisfaction and that they are an important aspect of any person’s work experience. This is proving to be a cross-cultural truth. In the United States, a Gallup study found that when subjects said they had a good friend at work, they also said they were more committed to their work. In other countries, chatting (non-task-oriented communication) at work has been shown to increase productivity.
One important point is that the strongest friendships were built between coworkers who had an unfair boss. When one employee is treated unfairly, all employees tend to band together. The relationship between poor-quality leadership and employee bonds also translates to how employees feel about their organization as a whole.

Carmel for
The GenderGurus


[1] “When Teams Work Best” by Frank LaFasto and Carl Larsen
[2] “Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Workplace Friendships and Organisational Outcomes” by Rachel Morrison 

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Gender Differences in Groups

We have previously spoken of the complexity of the communication process, and when used with groups the  process is further complicated by what is often perceived as the two “competing” priorities in a group: tasks and relationships[1].

Based on Tannen’s ‘genderlect’ styles (see previous article ‘How Men and Women Communicate and Why’  task priorities can be considered a male concentration, while relationship priorities are female.

Task priorities are the mechanics. They address the questions, “What is our goal and when do we have to meet it?” Each element of the project, from who does what to what tools to use to what timeline to follow are situated here. Men in groups often find themselves entirely focused there. Women, on the other hand, view relationship priorities as very important. Those are group dynamics, how people are relating to one another, what the energy of the group is, and whether each person feels like they are a part of something.

Oftentimes the alternate focuses can come into competition. A task-oriented man may view the non-work-related conversation that his female team member is having as a waste of time. He may get frustrated and think he has to do the whole project by himself, leading to withholding information and refusing to co-operate. That same relationship-oriented woman may be surprised and troubled by his impersonal nature. She might consider his refusing to work with her as a reflection on her skills. 

What these two don’t realise is that neither priority is more important than the other; in fact, effective groups must have both.



 [1] When Teams Work Best by Frank LaFasto and Carl Larson