Workplace friendships

It is said that 'the most beautiful relationship in the world is friendship', but can friendships can exist at work without compromising professional integrity?

Workplace friendships have been described as a non-exclusive, spontaneous relationship founded on shared interest, aligned values, mutual trust, commitment, and enjoyment (Berman et al., 2002). They are a relational forum, with socioemotional and instrumental function, that presents an informal, intimate, and voluntary connection between employees (Dobel, 2001).

What are the pros and cons of workplace friendships, and how might we draw on the psychological evidence to ensure they are positive and equitable?

The 'pro' camp

Workplace friendships can be instrumental to supportive working environments (Chen et al., 2013) and can develop a sense of belonging, encouraging sentiments of trust and support (Berman et al., 2002). In a study of 'best friends' at work, Gallup (2008) found that friendships can have demonstrable, beneficial effects on businesses. Friendships were related to fewer workplace accidents, which was attributed to people looking out for the safety of their friends.

There are several ways through which friendships facilitate greater authenticity and job satisfaction, such as through trust among colleagues, collaborative reciprocity, and attenuated stress. Each of these factors increase personal resources, through positive emotions, increased happiness, and psychological safety (Andrew & Montague, 1998; Carmeli et al., 2009). It comes to no surprise, therefore, that workplace friendships have been associated with creativity and innovation (Cao & Zhang, 2019). We also see positive impacts on turnover intention, emotional commitment, knowledge sharing, and overall performance (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). It seems work friendships can reduce the risk and cost of failing. Fear is alleviated so employees are more likely to adopt bold, open, creative behaviour, which is central to the survival and sustainable development of organisations (Berman et al., 2002).  

Together, these benefits at an individual and organisational level suggest that building friendships at work seems worthwhile. And we might expect doing so to be straightforward: as Alison Beard (2020) puts it, 'given the hours and interests we share with colleagues, work should be an easy place to build these relationships'.

The 'against' camp

Friendships at work can be problematic on a number of dimensions – rumours, sexual harassment, nepotism, and favouritism to name a few. Grayson (2007) showed that relationships that cross over 'work and play' can result in conflict because of incompatible expectations. Workplace friendships can reduce organisational loyalty, commitment, and productivity (Pillemer & Rothbard, 2016).

Why would workplace friendships have both positive and negative effects? A growing number of studies have looked to make sense of this paradox (D'Cruz & Noronha, 2011; Dunbar, 2004; Methot et al., 2016). Gossip, for example, may facilitate cooperation and cohesion on one end, but it can cause division and be distancing on the other end (Duffy et al., 2002). Humour, as well, can be a way of bonding with others and strengthening the sense of organisational identity, but its impact is contingent on the boundaries set for how it is used and accepted (Plester, 2009). For example, negative humour styles such as teasing or sexist jokes may be used to engender stronger bonds within those in the 'in-group', but this can lead to a pressure to conform, to become 'one of the boys' or risk being assigned outsider status (Fine & De Soucey, 2005).  

So, we see that workplace friendships can include but also exclude, through group homogeneity and barriers to opportunities. For instance, a recent study found that male employees who have more social interactions with their male managers were promoted at higher rates, irrespective of actual performance or effort (Cullen & Perez-Truglia, 2019).

Social capital and cronyism

Consider the concept of social capital: a resource created through relationships, predicated on the location and the social relation of another, that can be mobilised to facilitate action (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Coleman, 1988). It's how people are connected to each other, how they champion and exchange information with one another. This can be a source of advantage (Burt, 2000). Social capital can be leveraged to secure employment, promotion, raises, and other individual rewards across one's career span (Adler & Kwon, 2002). In an influential collection of studies on social capital and networks, Granovetter (1995) showed that who you know – one's social ties – is essential to accessing information about job opportunities. Social capital can also qualify as a job resource – collaboration, helping behaviour, and shared understanding among people can translate to greater motivation and work engagement. Ultimately, social capital can facilitate better inter-unit exchange, which can lead to higher performance and innovation (Clausen et al., 2019). But this is not true for everyone as, for some, these bonds can exclude rather than include.

Cronyism, the perceived and actual preference given by one friend to another, is a pervasive problem that can undermine social capital (Jones & Stout, 2015; Jawahar et al., 2021). Prioritising personal relationships at work and favouring people based on non-performance related factors can negatively impact the functioning of an organisation – exemplified by the US Enron scandal (Vickers et al., 2002). More specifically, cronyism is associated with unjustified prioritisation that can negatively impact job commitment, satisfaction, and performance as unfavoured employees naturally respond to unmerited conditions.

For instance, one recent healthcare study investigated organisational cronyism as a workplace stressor. Doctors and nurses who felt unfairly treated due to unfair assignment and reward allocations responded by disengaging, which led to poorer performance (Shaheen et al., 2020). Through this lens, if employees feel decisions are based on closeness rather than performance, workplace friendships can work counter to the meritocratic ideal of organisations – the idea that hard work is fairly rewarded. Importantly, this perception of cronyism can have long-term impacts, in spite of organisational attempts to eliminate it, as employees may not be convinced that the culture has changed and systems have become merit-based (Pearce, 2015).

Networking versus friendship

If friendships are detrimental, then what of networking? At face value they may seem the same, and there is a conceptual overlap, but the intent behind them is fundamentally different. Friendships are primarily vested in social gain, so tend to be more centrally focused on interpersonal benefits, including well-being, social interests, and shared values. By inference, people within friendships become less motivated by instrumental concerns, such as money, power, influence, and status (Grayson, 2007). Networks, by contrast, are more centrally focused on developing and maintaining relationships that can aid the achievement of specific professional goals (Forret & Dougherty, 2004). Of course, people may organically develop friendships while networking, but it is not the primary motive (Grayson, 2007). The purpose of networking is a clear and mutually agreed upon interaction, principally directed by career advancement efforts. It is transactional and, importantly, it is an endeavour that is available to all. Therefore, it is more objective than friendship, which is more heavily weighted on likeability.

When your friend becomes your boss

Navigating power dynamics within friendships can be particularly difficult when a co-worker is promoted, as it invariably changes the nature of the relationship. A narrative review of workplace experiences found that unilateral promotions can lead to a deterioration in workplace friendships. The newly acquired authority that one has over the over can fundamentally alter the nature of the friendship, and can incite concerns about cronyism (Sias et al., 2004). Thus, those who get promoted may lose workplace friendships by not adequately addressing the status quo (Laker et al., 2020). They may equally struggle to establish their authority and experience added difficulty in resolving conflict. Meanwhile, the promotion can elicit feelings of jealously and envy in those figuratively 'left behind', which can profoundly alter interpersonal communications (Perna, 2020). Feelings of diminished trust can also arise, as they feel less powerful, which can lead to lower morale and, eventually, decreased team performance (Brion et al., 2019).

Although research is limited, under such circumstances, the transformation of existing workplace friendships is inevitable; especially so when workplace tensions arise as a function of a unilateral advancement. However, some interesting strategies have been proposed to moderate the potential damages; separating between work and play by remaining strictly co-workers at work and friends elsewhere; selecting one role over the other by discriminating between the 'boss' or 'friend' roles; integrating roles by flexibly adapting each role to the circumstance (Bridge & Baxter, 1992). Still, such strategies can be difficult to implement, and organisations seldom address how to effectively manage such complex social dynamics (Shellenbarger, 2019). What it ultimately comes down to is boundaries.

The art of boundaries

How can people optimally approach friendships at the individual, group, and organisational level? According to Lee and Jablin (1995), there are four primary avenues to maintain friendships at work, while ensuring that boundaries are not blurred:

- Avoidance of interaction, which is the intentional attempt to avoid contact and communication with the friend while at work.

- Indirect conversational refocus, which is the deliberate, but indirect, redressing of a conversation from personal themes toward work-related themes.

- Direct conversational refocus, which is the explicit, and direct, refocusing a conversation toward work-related issues. Saying, for instance, that one wants to keep it professional and work centred.

- Openness, which is having direct and explicit discussions about the dynamics that can threaten the friendship, and infringe on professionalism, along with limits that need to be put in place.

Ultimately, we do not advocate for an all or nothing strategy for friendships at work. Instead, we recommend seven simple practices to ensure that workplace friendships are equitably beneficial among teams, and do not develop into unfavorable outcomes at the individual or group level.

1. Discuss friendships boundaries openly. Friendships can be beneficial when they are not held in silos and when everyone understands the pros and cons.
2. Look out for exclusionary behaviours. Consider members of your team who are not often called upon, asked to engage, or invited to social events. Be an entry point to the ingroup so that all can benefit.
3. Consider what is fuelling friendships. Friendships should foster sentiments of elation and security that translate to positive work experiences. Negativity, by contrast, can be a poison – to the friendship and the organisation more broadly, leading to diminished engagement, commitment, performance, and creativity. Plus, it is a major contributor to turnover! Be careful to avoid bonding solely on negative experiences.
4. Be your true authentic self. Granted, this is easier said than done. But you should not have to change who you are, share more than you feel comfortable, nor compromise on values to cultivate artificial friendships at work.
5. Do not expect to 'click' with everyone at work. There really is no requirement to be friends with everyone at work. Being friendly is not tantamount to being friends. It is also acceptable for different relationships to have different boundaries.
6. Be aware of team dynamics. You may be friends with people that are not friends with each other, so things said to you in confidence should remain with you. Avoid gossip like the plague it is!
7. Be mindful of the 'boss-friend' gap. It is especially important for managers to ensure that friendships do not lead to favouritism and biassing decision-making. This requires a candid approach to 'work-play' boundaries, ensuring that benefits are conferred equitably among the team. For example, invite the entire team to lunch - no exclusions - as opposed to just those you're friendly with. Doing so not only ensures fairness, but it can lead to the formation of constructive friendships between colleagues (Laker et al., 2020).

- Odessa S. Hamilton is a British Psychological Society member based in the Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

[email protected]

Jasmine Virhia is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Data Science at The Inclusion Initiative, London School of Economics.

Teresa Almeida is a Research Officer in Behavioural Science at The Inclusion Initiative.

References

1. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. 
2. Andrew, A., & Montague, J. (1998). Women's friendship at work. Women's Studies International Forum, 21(4), 355–361. 
3. Beard, A. (2020, July 1). True Friends at Work. Harvard Business Review. 
4. Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, M. N., Jr. (2002). Workplace Relations: Friendship Patterns and Consequences (According to Managers). Public Administration Review, 62(2), 217–230. 
5. Bridge, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1992). Blended relationships: Friends as work associates. Western Journal of Communication, 56(3), 200–225. 
6. Burt, R. S. (2000). The Network Structure Of Social Capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423. 
7. Cao, F., & Zhang, H. (2020). Workplace friendship, psychological safety and innovative behavior in China: A moderated-mediation model. Chinese Management Studies, 14(3), 661–676. 
8. Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 81–98. 
9. Chen, C.-Y., Mao, H. Y., Hsieh, A. T., Liu, L.-L., & Yen, C.-H. (2013). The relationship among interactive justice, leader–member exchange, and workplace friendship. The Social Science Journal, 50(1), 89–95. 
10. Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103. 
11. Clausen, T., Meng, A., & Borg, V. (2019). Does Social Capital in the Workplace Predict Job Performance, Work Engagement, and Psychological Well-Being? A Prospective Analysis. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61(10), 800–805. 
12. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
13. Cullen, Z. B., & Perez-Truglia, R. (2019). The Old Boys' Club: Schmoozing and the Gender Gap(Working Paper No. 26530; Working Paper Series). National Bureau of Economic Research. 
14. D'Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). The limits to workplace friendship: Managerialist HRM and bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 33(3), 269–288. 
15. Dobel, J. P. (2001). Can Public Leaders Have Friends? Public Integrity, 3(2), 145–158. 
16. Duffy, M., Ganster, D., & pagon,  milan. (2002). Social Undermining in the Workplace. The Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. 
17. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in Evolutionary Perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 100–110. 
18. Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 419–437. 
19. Granovetter, M. (1995). Getting a Job. A Study of Contacts and Careers. Second Edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL 60637.
20. Grayson, K. (2007). Friendship versus Business in Marketing Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 121–139. 21
21. Jawahar, I. M., Bilal, A. R., Fatima, T., & Mohammed, Z. J. (2021). Does organizational cronyism undermine social capital? Testing the mediating role of workplace ostracism and the moderating role of workplace incivility. Career Development International, 26(5), 657–677. 
22. Jones, R. G., & Stout, T. (2015). Policing Nepotism and Cronyism Without Losing the Value of Social Connection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 2–12. 
23. Laker, B., Patel, C., Malik, A., & Budhwar, P. (2020, September 24). What to Do When You Become Your Friend's Boss. Harvard Business Review. 
24. Lee, J., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Maintenance Communication in Superior-Subordinate Work Relationships. Human Communication Research, 22(2), 220–257. 
25. Methot, J. R., Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Christian, J. S. (2016). Are Workplace Friendships a Mixed Blessing? Exploring Tradeoffs of Multiplex Relationships and their Associations with Job Performance. Personnel Psychology, 69(2), 311–355. 
26. Pearce, J. L. (2015). Cronyism and Nepotism Are Bad for Everyone: The Research Evidence. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 41–44. 
27. Perna, M. C. (2020). That Moment When One Friend Is Promoted—And The Other Is Not. Forbes. 
28. Pillemer, J., & Rothbard, N. (2018). Friends Without Benefits: Understanding the Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship. Academy of Management Review, 43, amr.2016.0309. 
29. Plester, B. (2009). Crossing the line: Boundaries of workplace humour and fun. Employee Relations, 31(6), 584–599. 
30. Shaheen, S., Zulfiqar, S., Saleem, S., & Shehazadi, G. (2020). Does Organizational Cronyism Lead to Lower Employee Performance? Examining the Mediating Role of Employee Engagement and Moderating Role of Islamic Work Ethics. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 579560. 
31. Sias, P. M., Gallagher, E. B., Kopaneva, I., & Pedersen, H. (2012). Maintaining Workplace Friendships: Perceived Politeness and Predictors of Maintenance Tactic Choice. Communication Research, 39(2), 239–268. 
32. Vickers et al. (2002). The Betrayed Investor—Bloomberg. 
33. Wagner, R., & Harter, J. (2008). The Tenth Element of Great Managing.