Think about the alliances among people in your workplace. Are there people who consistently agree with one another? Or would you find this difficult to anticipate? Do you have predictable divisions in your work group? All the time? On certain issues? Or are disagreements more likely to come and go as discussions progress? 
The fluidity of subgroups in a work group or organization provides an indicator of its health. Sensitivity to subgrouping can be a useful tool to managers and HRD professionals in helping people work together towards common goals.

What is Subgrouping?
Every person holds a unique perspective. We all have areas of agreement and disagreement with others. We never fully align with another person, even those whom we love and admire the most. In a group, we should expect to find many perspectives on any issue, and in a perfect world we would find the group in constant flux as individuals voice their thoughts and alignments ebb and flow. In such a scenario, people form subgroups around similar perspectives on the issue at hand, and as the issue changes the subgroups change. Within each subgroup we would expect to find shades of difference. However, people have a tendency to identify increasingly with others who hold similar views. Over time alliances form, and it may follow that we formalize these alliances. We form political parties and labor unions. In the process we identify groups that differ from us and eventually may come to see them as opponents.

Subgroup Development
When left unchecked, subgroups tend to become more fixed overtime. We all have difficulty hearing and understanding the perspectives of those who disagree with us. It takes conscious and sustained effort to communicate across these barriers, and each time differences are not resolved, the gulf gets wider. 

As we begin to formalize our subgroups, we do an interesting thing with differences and similarities inside and between groups. We emphasize the similarities and minimize the differences in our own group. Conversely, we emphasize our differences with the other group and minimize any resonance we feel with them. The subgroups become increasingly rigid, polarized, and unrepresentative of the more ambiguous reality. 

In this process, communication in the larger group develops a pattern that is increasingly more fixed and reduced in diversity of interaction. Each subgroup's members tend to stop talking among themselves in the whole group and talk more to those the other subgroup. From what is said - or not said - it seems as if members of each subgroup are in complete agreement. Internal differences are played down in the interest of presenting a united front. 

In such cases, good discussion in the whole group becomes difficult if not impossible. Good discussion aims to increase understanding of issues so that decisions are made on the best information. Members listen to and question one another to gain clarity. Conversation flows freely without taking sides because there is a common aim to understand. Ideas can be presented in a tentative and partially formed way and built upon by the group. Learning can be drawn from a variety of perspectives. 

When rigid subgroups develop, discussion takes the form of a debate in which each subgroup presents positions as forcefully as they can. They listen only to discover weaknesses in opposing arguments. If one side wins, the wisdom of only part of the group informs decisions. 

Fixed subgroups deplete the resources of the larger group. They draw members' energy away from the work of the whole group into the subgroup. The real ideas and concerns get discussed in the corridors, and the events in the meeting room grow into a facade. 

You will probably recognize some of these patterns in your work place and your community. Use the questions at the beginning of this article to assess conditions in the groups that you are associated with.