Wipe the Floor with Cliques

Move around enough with your work; changing towns, states and even countries and continuing to play hockey, you will be repeatedly exposed to the ever-present malevolence of cliques in teams, clubs and even provinces. It is so boringly predictable it is risible. Have yourself routinely played out of position despite whatever legitimate playing pedigree you may have, rarely or never receive the ball, be excluded from the PC battery and never be asked to complete a shootout but make sure you pay your fees on time and laugh at the inane jokes. Cliques are a stain on the game and reflective of deeply dysfunctional personality types allowed to dictate terms to the detriment of the collective socially, emotionally and performatively. 

Cliques are often dismissed as “personality issues,” but psychosocial research shows they are structural phenomena rooted in insecurity, identity, and unmet needs for belonging (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). While insiders may feel protected, cliques routinely damage outsiders’ well‑being and fracture team performance. 

This article triggered as it is by years of cumulative exposure to toxic cliques, coaching incompetence and sports science ignorance explores why cliques form, why they are destructive, and how leaders can dismantle them to build inclusive, high‑performing cultures.

Why Cliques Form

Psychosocial Dynamics

• Social Identity Theory
  
  Individuals derive self‑esteem from group membership. When the team identity is weak, players default to smaller in‑groups for validation (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The clique microcosm blossoms or festers when the organisational identity is weak, inconsistent and non-engaging.
  

• Insecurity and safety needs
  
  Exclusion activates the same neural pathways as physical pain (Eisenberger et al., 2003). Cliques provide a “safe haven” for insecure members. The fact it may elicit emotional pain on the “ others “ may meet some sadistic need from clique members for assertion.
  

• Similarity attraction
  
  Players bond over shared backgrounds, positions, or off‑field interests, reinforcing subgroup boundaries (Byrne, 1971).Alcohol is often the common denominator here, perhaps it's a shared demography, faith or other interests. We even have raced-based and identified clubs.
  

• Leadership gaps
  
  When norms and roles are unclear, informal hierarchies emerge, often solidifying into cliques (Carron & Eys, 2012). Again, a reflection of poor organisational leadership, insufficient dialogue around the issue and of course no governance framework for monitoring.

Case study

Wagstaff, Martin, and Thelwell (2015) documented a rugby union team where cliques formed along positional lines. Over time, these subgroups shaped communication patterns and even influenced coaching decisions, undermining cohesion.

Why Cliques Are Destructive

• Psychosocial harm
  
  Outsiders experience anxiety, reduced self‑efficacy, and disengagement which are precursors to stress‑related physical decline, (Martin, Wilson, Evans, & Spink, 2015). Hardly performance boosting reactions are they?
  

• This makes cliques doubly destructive: they harm both psychosocial well‑being and physical health, undermining athlete resilience and team performance.Research shows it can trigger measurable physical health consequences such as cardiovascular strain, immune suppression, gastrointestinal issues, and sleep disruption. These effects arise because chronic social stress activates the body’s stress systems (HPA axis and sympathetic nervous system), leading to long‑term wear and tear.

Pathways From Psychosocial Harm to Physical Harm

Stress Physiology (Cortisol & Sympathetic Activation)

The evidence of the destructiveness of clique behavior is extensive.

• Social exclusion activates the same brain regions as physical pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003).
  

• Chronic activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis elevates cortisol, which over time contributes to hypertension, visceral fat accumulation, and impaired immunity; (McEwen, 1998).
  

• Kandola+ (2024): Even small acts of exclusion activate the same neural pathways as physical pain, showing the embodied nature of social rejection.
  

• Eisenberger et al. (2003): fMRI evidence demonstrates that social exclusion activates the anterior cingulate cortex — the same region involved in physical pain processing.

1. Cardiovascular Health
   

• Workplace psychosocial risks are linked to increased blood pressure, heart disease, and stroke (WorkSafe NZ, 2024).

• Team exclusion and chronic stress elevate sympathetic drive, raising resting heart rate and reducing heart rate variability — both predictors of cardiovascular disease.
  

2. Immune Function
   

• Prolonged psychosocial stress suppresses immune response, increasing susceptibility to infections and slowing wound healing (Cohen et al., 2012).

• Outsiders in cliques often experience chronic low‑grade stress, which can manifest as recurrent illness or fatigue.
  

3. Gastrointestinal Health
   

• Stress and exclusion are associated with GERD, IBS, and functional gut disorders due to altered vagal tone and increased gastric acid secretion (Mayer, 2000).Sleep Disruption

• Anxiety and hypervigilance from exclusion reduce sleep quality and duration (Åkerstedt, 2006).

• Poor sleep further amplifies inflammation, cardiovascular risk, and cognitive decline.

Trust erosion

Hidden alliances create suspicion and reduce psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999).When trust erodes in a team and individuals feel excluded, the impact extends beyond performance — it undermines social belonging, emotional stability, and psychological health. Excluded members often experience loneliness, anxiety, depression, and reduced self‑worth, all of which are well‑documented in psychosocial research.

• Loss of belonging
  
  Even the most steadfast of individuals  have a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). When trust is broken and cliques form, outsiders feel disconnected from the group’s identity. The more functionally secure individuals ostracised by cliques are confident enough to walk away.
  

• Isolation and stigma
  
  Exclusion fosters loneliness and social withdrawal, which are strongly correlated with poorer mental and physical health outcomes (Holt‑Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). How do you think this adds to team performance outcomes? It doesn’t; you morons.
  

• Reduced social capital
  
  Without trust, individuals lose access to informal support networks, limiting their ability to share concerns or seek help (Putnam, 2000). In extreme cases this disconnection can lead to self destructive behaviors and poor option taking.
  

• Anxiety and hypervigilance
  
  Suspicion and hidden alliances create uncertainty, leading to heightened stress and anticipatory anxiety (Edmondson, 1999). Affected individuals routinely underperform, exacerbating the gap until it becomes a chasm that cannot be spanned.
  

• Reduced self‑efficacy
  
  Excluded individuals doubt their competence and value to the team (Martin, Wilson, Evans, & Spink, 2015). Not only does this detract from overall team performance but also weakens the individual’s technical and physical capability and their self-perception if they choose to transfer elsewhere; it becomes a self-feeding spiral.
  

•  Depression and low mood
  
  Long‑term exclusion is linked to depressive symptoms and hopelessness (Lee, Surenkok, & Zayas, 2024). This affects not only their sporting life but potentially their home and work life; no sports team clique has that right, ever.
  

• Cognitive impairment
  
  Chronic distrust and exclusion impair concentration, decision‑making, and creativity (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009).

Case example

A longitudinal study of adolescent athletes found that those excluded from peer subgroups reported higher levels of depressive symptoms and lower self‑esteem, even when performance metrics were strong (Filia et al., 2025).

• Shame and insecurity
  
  Being excluded often triggers self‑blame, reinforcing feelings of inadequacy (Williams, 2007).
  

• Emotional exhaustion
  
  Constantly navigating distrust drains emotional resources, contributing to burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). A vast majority of players tend to walk away, to other teams or away from the sport entirely.More effort needs to be focused on identifying and rectifying falling particpation numbers.

Performance drag

Subgroups fragment communication, impairing adaptability under pressure (Carron & Chelladurai, 1981). This is often seen in passive aggressive negative performance behaviors where non-insiders are excluded from tactical dialog.

Culture distortion

Instead of one shared identity, multiple micro‑cultures compete, weakening resilience. Division and under-performance are the hallmarks of these teams.

Example

In intercollegiate sport, athletes reported that cliques led to “information silos” where tactical insights were withheld from outsiders, directly harming performance (Martin et al., 2015).

Breaking Down Cliques

• Foster psychological safety
  
  Leaders must model openness, inclusiveness and vulnerability (Edmondson, 1999).  A fish always rots from the head. If you have an erstwhile organisational leader routinely placing themselves and their insider lackeys over and above the “ rank and file “ at every turn, including their own playing and coaching if they are involved, it is no surprise the organisation and its coaches are similarly inclined. A practical example may be  when smaller country associations opt to form a coalition spread across remote regions rather than having to endure the ignorance and elitist cliques and nauseating self-flagellative behavior of the larger city-based association team culture.

• Cross‑group integration
  
  Rotate training partners, mix room assignments, and design drills requiring interdependence (Noll, 2023). This is common sense - do what you can to build communication, instill confidence and erode corrosive barriers. Clamp down on any overt negativity and obvious exclusive playing behavior. Sit people down on the bench, counsel, rinse and repeat.

• Shared goals and rituals
  
  Anchor the team in superordinate goals and inclusive rituals that reinforce “one team” identity (Carron & Eys, 2012). 

• Directly address exclusivity
  
  Research shows naming the behavior without shaming helps teams dismantle exclusionary patterns (Illumin8 Advisors, 2025).Admit there is a bloody problem from the outset, stop the rusted-on tendency to hope it will get better; it will not, not without intervention and honest exchanges. Build a better vision and means of reaching it together, enlist outside professional help if needed. 

Case example: A women’s collegiate basketball program broke down entrenched cliques by instituting “cross‑unit accountability partners.” Within six weeks, survey data showed improved trust and communication (Join the Collective, 2024).

Why Inclusive Team Culture Matters

• Maximizes human capital
  
  Every player’s skills are leveraged, not just those of insiders. Not only skills; knowledge, experience, passion, energy; try being a decent respectful and open individual to others FFS.
  

• Enhances resilience
  
  Inclusive teams adapt better under stress because trust is distributed (Edmondson, 1999). If you want evidence, I suggest  reading the detailed experiences of special force combatants from training through to operations; here trusting everybody is the foundation of survival.
  

• Improves performance
  
  Inclusive climates correlate with higher innovation and win‑rates in both sport and business (Forbes, 2019). Read extensively into the tech industry and not-for-profit successes - these groups are positive  testimony to common purpose and a no person left behind ethos.

Cliques are not trivial — they are psychosocial defense mechanisms born of insecurity.

In all levels of hockey including masters they are a skidmark on the laundry of the game. Left unchecked, they corrode trust, damage outsiders, and drag down performance. Leaders must deliberately dismantle exclusivity and replace it with inclusive structures, rituals, and norms that make belonging universal.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

• Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.

• Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447–454.

• Carron, A. V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). Cohesion as a factor in sport performance. International Review of Sport Sociology, 16(2), 21–41.

• Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.). Fitness Information Technology.

• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

• Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292.

• Filia, K., Teo, S. M., Brennan, N., Freeburn, T., Baker, D., Browne, V., … Killackey, E. (2025). Interrelationships between social exclusion, mental health and wellbeing in adolescents. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 34, e5.

• Holt‑Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta‑analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316.

• Illumin8 Advisors. (2025). Cliques on teams: What leaders unintentionally reinforce. Retrieved from https://illumin8advisors.com

• Join the Collective. (2024). How cliques affect peer group dynamics. Retrieved from https://jointhecollective.com

• Martin, L. J., Wilson, J., Evans, M. B., & Spink, K. S. (2015). Cliques in sport: Perceptions of intercollegiate athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 29(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2014-0003

• Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. 

• Noll, D. (2023). Sports team drama: 6 effective ways to manage cliques and prevent conflict. Retrieved from https://dougnoll.com

• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). 

• Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.