LECTORAAT CHANGE MANAGEMENT – De Haagse Hogeschool

I recently had a very interesting conversation with two students who are researching the culture of their department—a department I am unfamiliar with. They shared that there was a bad atmosphere in their program, particularly in certain years; there were cliques, gossip, and exclusion.

“Students from the same cultural background tend to group together,” one of them explained. “Also, the ones who get good grades tend to have more power and influence over others. And if someone doesn’t fit in, they’re just left out.”

The student went on to share how outsiders often face silent hostility: “Some start rolling their eyes if you say something, and you just know they’re gossiping about you behind your back.”

It made me think about the ways gossip, exclusion, and power structures operate in social settings. It also reminded me of Norbert Elias and John Scotson’s influential study, The Established and the Outsiders, where they explore how power dynamics are maintained through similar processes of exclusion and stigmatization.

The authors study two neighborhoods in Winston Parva, a suburb of Leicester, where there is a sharp division between the old established residents of one neighborhood, and the newer residents of the other.

On the surface, the two groups were very similar: the house values were pretty much the same, and there were no noticeable differences in ethnicity, nationality, race, occupation, income or education levels.

However, the established residents of one area felt a deep sense of superiority over the newcomers. Exclusion, stigmatization, and gossip were powerful weapons used by the established group to assert their superiority.   

By deploying both “praise gossip” to uplift their own group and “blame gossip” to vilify the outsiders, the established residents effectively maintained a hierarchical boundary, keeping the newcomers firmly in their place. Elias argued that such practices are tied to a belief in the “charisma” of one’s own group, and the “disgrace” of others, which in turn shapes individuals’ personal identities.

Listening to the students, I realize that, like in Winston Parva, a typical academic program often has such invisible dynamics. And everyone plays a role in this.

As Ralph Stacey (2018) suggests: “As soon as we enter into a relationship with someone else, we constrain and are constrained by others, and of course we also enable and are enabled by others.” What is important, according to the author, is to examine the “ongoing, ordinary every day local interactions” to see how power relations are formed and certain behaviors justified. 

Talking to the two student researchers, it was clear they had quite a negative perception of the role of gossip and cliques. In the case of their classmates, gossip was used as a weapon to marginalize and exclude other students.  

Yet, by being a member of such a clique, do we not also protect ourselves from being marginalized or bullied?

My students replied that still, the world would be a much better place without cliques and gossip. If we could just openly say what we think, things would be much more open and inclusive.

While such openness may seem more desirable and inclusive, it’s not necessarily a ticket to success.

There’s a great scene in Tim Park’s novel, Italian Life: A Modern Fable of Loyalty and Betrayal that illustrates the importance of being able to speak freely only to a few trusted allies.

James, an English teacher from the UK, tries to integrate Italian society, and more specifically, the world of academia at a private university in Milan. During an official ceremony for the Inauguration of the Academic Year at the university, Professor Modesto, the Head of Department, gives a pompous and incoherent speech, which drags on and on. James feels especially frustrated when the Rector jumps to his feet to give Modesto a standing ovation. 

“It must be some kind of joke,’ James found himself saying afterwards. He said it to Federica, first, then to Alessio and Antonio. He said it to Domenico Galli and Professor Scilli, to a researcher in economics and a professor ordinario in marketing. He said it to people he hardly knew, to secretaries and administrators. He even said it to two students from his class who greeted him on the stairs. For the whole of that afternoon James just couldn’t restrain himself. He even made jokes with the janitors. It was as if a spring screwed up tighter and tighter during the hours [spent sitting] on the podium must now be released.”

James’ indiscriminate gossip was catastrophic for his career. Some of the colleagues he spoke to went straight to Modesto and to the Rector. With two new powerful enemies, James was constantly undermined and nearly lost his job. Luckily, he found a few allies to gossip with and defend himself.

As this anecdote illustrates, having allies and being part of a network, very often, can be a question of survival. As is the case with gossip, here too, there is a sweet spot!

So, how can we avoid the nasty gossip and cliques? I asked the students.

“We noticed that in years where the lecturer created the groups, or when we had to work in groups of twos, there were a lot less of these cliques,” one observed.

According to the Forbes article 4 Tactics to Turn Cliques Into Collaborative and Inclusive Teams, companies can indeed derail toxic cliques by reorganizing them. When managers are creating project teams or self-steering teams, they should also try to dismantle existing cliques, as much as possible. By paying attention to team dynamics as to the gossip they may hear, managers (and teachers) can at least try to tackle the problem!  

References

Elias, N. & Scotson, J.L. (1994). The Established and the Outsiders, 2^nd ed., Sage Publications.

Elias, N. (1998). On civilization, power, and knowledge: selected writings, University of Chicago press.

Stacey, R. (2007). The challenge of human interdependence. Consequences for thinking about the day to day practice of management in organizations. European Business Review, 19 (4), 292-302.