I just entered the company and found that there are many gangs in the company. What should I do?

In an organization like a company, it can be said that it is a common phenomenon to pull the mountain and engage in small gangs. Sometimes you can't hide if you want to. As the saying goes, "Where there are people, there are rivers and lakes". You want to stay away from the right and wrong in the Jianghu, but the Jianghu insists on involving you.

Whenever faced with such a dilemma, many people in the workplace will be in a dilemma, especially newcomers who have just joined the work. Because of their lack of experience in the workplace, they are more likely to into the pit.

But as long as you pay attention to observation, be calm and be good at using skills and methods, you can also gain a foothold in the workplace and even get your own place. And you will find that there are still some rules to follow in these small groups. For example, some people are based on organizational roles, some are based on the same interests, some are based on nepotism, some are based on the concept of similar people, and some are both. It can be said that there are all kinds of people in the world.

In various small groups, some people enjoy it, some people are at a loss, and more people have no choice but to be involved. The ideal is always full, and the reality is always skinny. Speaking of it, I don't want to stoop for five buckets of rice, but when I think of bringing home the bacon, I have to consider the immediate interests ... When encountering this phenomenon, people in the workplace are always contradictory and painful, but they have to face it.

So, as a member of the workplace, is it to remain independent and uncontaminated? Or do people have to be in the Jianghu? Do you want to stay and work hard or find another job and get away with it? Here, let's have a deep discussion and find the answer you want:

First, is there really a clique in the company? What are the characteristics and hazards of various small groups? To see if a company has a small group, we can actually understand it through several simple indicators:

First, whether the communication is smooth. If there is little communication between the departments of the company, they are always separated by a layer, do not enjoy information, do not cooperate, and go their own way. If something goes wrong, no one will bear it, and some even wait to see each other's jokes.

Second, whether it is difficult to cooperate. A simple thing can be solved in one process. After the results are distributed, each department only focuses on its own small piece, especially the work vacuum area and the overlapping part of responsibilities, until the problem is finally exposed. Everyone only cares about their own land, regardless of the overall interests of the company.

Third, whether to fight for power and profit. Looking inside, there are many hills and serious egoism, and they don't know how to respect each other at all. They are always wrangling and shirking their responsibilities, and have no idea what a "customer" is.

If there is only one problem mentioned above or the degree is slight, the situation of small groups may not be serious. If the three questions are correct, it means that the small group of this company is already very serious.

The typical characteristics of various small groups are cliques, standing in line, expressing loyalty, regardless of the overall interests of the company.

As the saying goes, managing a business without a family or a house is actually similar. An enterprise has the characteristics of an entrepreneur, specific to various departments and small groups, has its own characteristics, bears a distinctive professional brand, and some will form a behavior habit.

You can't get up early without welfare. In essence, some leading colleagues set up small groups mainly for interests and benefits-only a brainless fool will ignore gains and losses and fan the flames of interests. It is precisely because some people have interests that small group alliances are formed, but such small groups do great harm to an organization and a company.

1, which is likely to pose a threat to the company as a whole. If a small group does not intervene, it will continue to develop, affect internal unity, cause internal friction, and then become bigger and stronger, threatening the overall interests of the organization. If the company's top leader/boss allows the following people to be large and small groups, it will be a great threat to the company. From time to time, I will see someone digging the corner of the company, and even starting a business with a group of people, becoming a competitor of the company, which has brought great losses to the company.

2, bring harm to a small group of people outside the body. For their own interests, various cliques may do things that harm the interests of other teams or members of "cliques without cliques", and they will inevitably be opposed by others. The internal game is out of control, the weak party is eliminated, and the strong party survives. If this struggle continues for a long time, it will inevitably bring great internal friction to the company, affect its business performance, and even fail to carry out normal business, making it difficult to survive, thus hurting the bones.

Second, why does the company exist in small groups, and where is the root of small groups? First of all, as I said, small groups exist mainly for local interests. These people form a small team, which can both damage and honor. But is this really a personality problem?

Of course, it is best not to take sides, but it is very likely that in an organization that needs to take sides to survive, how to choose sides accurately is the best survival strategy! Don't try to be a centrist without choosing a side station, as it may not please both sides, and the result will be even worse.

So, what is the root cause of small groups? The following is a brief analysis:

1, organizational problem.

Outdated organizational design often leads to various "departmental walls" and small groups. For example, the traditional bureaucratic linear structure has layers of command and layers of responsibility, and the people below must obey the leadership above and report to the next line. The advantage of this is that the structure is simple, and everyone has their own clear boss, but it is also easy to cause fragmentation, involving cross-departmental work, and it is easy to cause internal friction.

Bureaucratic organizational structure is clear, emphasizing the responsibility and authority of departments and posts, and considering the position of "people"; The process is chain-like, emphasizing running through the whole process, outputting results and focusing on "things"; When "people" and "things" cross and mismatch occurs, contradictions arise, which are difficult to reconcile in management, and this is often attributed to people's problems, in fact, organizational structure problems.

Because everyone is at the node of the organizational structure, where they are determines where they are and how they think. This is the same as the sense of presence. With departments, there will be sites. With the site, we can drive our responsibilities and protect our own rights and interests. Under the bureaucratic organizational structure model, the division of departments is actually the division of "spheres of influence"

The existence of such an organizational structure, coupled with people's instinct to seek advantages and avoid disadvantages, for example, requires that on the one hand, they should protect themselves from harm, on the other hand, they all want to exchange the least investment for the greatest return. Since small groups can get more and more returns and avoid losses and risks to the greatest extent, of course, small groups should be formed!

2. The group leader's "leading exemplary role".

We say that leadership is like a locomotive. Whether the train runs fast or not depends entirely on the leader. Of course, it is up to the leaders to set an example and set an example first. But the demonstration here takes the lead in talking about good aspects and positive aspects, which is beneficial to the whole enterprise or at least can win.

However, "leaders" in small groups can only play a negative leadership role. It is very likely that he forced a group of people to follow him in order to satisfy his personal interests and promised the temptation of interests. Therefore, when the overall interests and local interests are inconsistent, such small group leaders will naturally follow suit on the side of local interests, and the following people will naturally be willing to follow suit.

A leader who values the collective interests will take good care of the employees below, and a leader who values personal interests will inevitably win over people and cultivate cronies to satisfy personal desires at the expense of collective interests. How can such a leader take good care of the people below?

Therefore, enterprises, especially leading cadres, must have both ability and political integrity, otherwise people will be led astray and lead to a dead end.

Third, as a newcomer in the workplace, how to survive in an unfavorable environment and how to choose? What principles should be adhered to? People can't help themselves in the workplace, especially the workplace is a place of great interest. Good men and women who don't care about interests may find it difficult to survive in the workplace.

As a newcomer to the workplace, from the original intention, no one wants to work in a company with many small groups from the beginning. After all, a company with a healthy culture must be transparent, simple and fair. For example, Bridgewater in the United States advocates a culture of "extreme transparency", and everyone must communicate with each other on the premise of being honest with each other.

Working in such a company, you only need to concentrate on doing your own thing and achieve results and achievements. You don't have to worry about dealing with interpersonal relationships, and you don't have to worry about how to choose sides in workplace politics.

But the problem is that companies that advocate a transparent and simple culture like this are rare. I can suggest to the subject that if you go to a company with more science and engineering men, such as paying special attention to scientific research and engineering technology, the culture will be relatively simple, at least you will not be so tired.

But not everyone who doesn't want to fight has such good luck. What should we do? Either stay in our present company and actively adapt to the environment, or have better job opportunities, but it's not up to you. Assuming it continues, it is not without some positive significance:

First, living in an unfavorable and hard environment tests a person's psychological endurance.

A person often grows up in adversity. Some people are full of complaints in the face of adversity, or are as confused as others. Some people don't lose their original heart and pure heart in adversity. No matter how others woo and shake, they always have their own principles and pursuits.

Secondly, living in a squeezed space can improve a person's viability.

If you want to survive in a marginalized environment, you must learn how to deal with different people and learn real skills. Once the time is right, you can find your own new opportunities.

In the final analysis, standing and not standing are not absolute, but standing and not standing must have a bottom line, which is the so-called "fighting without breaking"-everyone can have their own opinions and interests, but they must be consistent in the general direction. Otherwise, the result of the struggle will cause tears, and the lesson in this respect is profound!

For individuals, it is the principle and bottom line to win and not harm others. On this basis, it is successful to protect your own interests from damage.