Friendship in Team Dynamics: Translating Research Into Organizational Practice

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Workplace friendships represent a critical yet underexplored dimension of team effectiveness and organizational performance. Drawing from human resource development scholarship, this article examines how interpersonal bonds among colleagues influence both organizational outcomes and individual wellbeing. Research demonstrates that workplace friendships significantly impact employee engagement, knowledge sharing, team cohesion, and retention, while also presenting challenges related to favoritism, conflict spillover, and boundary management. Organizations that strategically cultivate friendship-supportive environments—through intentional socialization practices, participative leadership, and psychologically safe climates—experience measurable gains in performance and employee satisfaction. However, these benefits require careful stewardship to mitigate potential downsides. This article distills key research findings into actionable guidance for practitioners, emphasizing the importance of designing work structures that facilitate authentic connection while maintaining professional boundaries. By recognizing friendship as an organizational asset rather than a peripheral social phenomenon, leaders can build more resilient, collaborative, and high-performing teams equipped for contemporary workplace demands.

The nature of work has fundamentally shifted. As organizations increasingly rely on knowledge work, cross-functional collaboration, and distributed teams, the quality of interpersonal relationships at work has emerged as a decisive factor in organizational success. Yet despite spending significant portions of our lives alongside colleagues, workplace friendships remain surprisingly absent from mainstream management discourse. While HR practitioners invest heavily in team-building exercises and culture initiatives, few organizations deliberately consider how genuine friendship among team members influences performance, innovation, and retention.

This gap carries real consequences. Employees who report having close friends at work demonstrate markedly different engagement patterns, knowledge-sharing behaviors, and organizational commitment compared to those who maintain purely transactional relationships with colleagues (Berman et al., 2002). For team leaders and HR professionals navigating hybrid work models, retention crises, and demands for more human-centered workplaces, understanding friendship dynamics offers practical leverage.

The timing proves particularly relevant. Post-pandemic work arrangements have disrupted traditional friendship formation mechanisms—spontaneous hallway conversations, after-work gatherings, shared meals—forcing organizations to become more intentional about facilitating connection. Simultaneously, younger generations entering the workforce increasingly prioritize social connection and meaningful relationships as core employment criteria, not peripheral benefits (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010).

This article synthesizes research on workplace friendship within team contexts, translating academic findings into practical organizational strategies. We examine what constitutes workplace friendship, its prevalence and drivers, its documented impacts on organizational and individual outcomes, and evidence-based approaches for cultivating friendship-supportive environments that enhance team dynamics while managing inherent tensions.

The Workplace Friendship Landscape

Defining Friendship in Organizational Teams

Workplace friendship differs meaningfully from both broader workplace relationships and personal friendships outside work. Rather than viewing all colleague interactions through a single lens, researchers distinguish workplace friendships by several characteristics: voluntary association, genuine affection, trust, commitment, and shared interests that extend beyond formal work requirements (Berman et al., 2002; Nielsen et al., 2000). These relationships involve both instrumental and socioemotional dimensions—friends help each other complete work tasks while simultaneously providing emotional support and companionship.

These friendships exist on a continuum. Some remain bounded within organizational walls—colleagues who genuinely enjoy working together but rarely interact outside office hours. Others extend into personal domains, with friends socializing outside work, sharing personal challenges, and maintaining relationships even after one party leaves the organization (Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018). Both types matter, but they function differently within team dynamics.

The team context adds distinctive elements. Unlike dyadic friendships between isolated individuals, friendships within teams create network effects—patterns of who connects with whom that shape information flow, influence distribution, and subgroup formation (Shah et al., 2018). A team where everyone shares moderate friendship ties operates differently from one where intense friendship clusters exist alongside purely professional relationships. Understanding these network configurations helps explain varying team dynamics and outcomes.

Prevalence, Drivers, and Distribution

Workplace friendships are remarkably common, though unevenly distributed across organizational contexts. Significant proportions of employees report having close friends at work, with many considering these relationships among their most important social connections (Berman et al., 2002). However, friendship formation patterns vary systematically based on organizational design choices.

Several factors reliably predict where and when workplace friendships develop. Proximity and interaction frequency create foundational opportunities—teams with shared physical spaces, regular face-to-face meetings, and collaborative work structures demonstrate higher friendship prevalence (Morrison, 2009). The shift to remote work has disrupted this traditional driver, requiring new mechanisms for facilitating connection.

Task interdependence also proves critical. When team members must coordinate closely to accomplish shared goals, friendship opportunities multiply (Van der Vegt et al., 2003). Projects requiring joint problem-solving, mutual accountability, and complementary expertise create natural contexts for relationship deepening beyond surface-level interaction.

Organizational culture and leadership approach significantly influence friendship formation. Organizations that explicitly value relationship quality, allocate time for social interaction, and model vulnerability from leadership demonstrate higher friendship rates (Jiang et al., 2019). Conversely, hyper-competitive cultures or those emphasizing strict professional boundaries see lower friendship prevalence.

Demographic and identity factors shape friendship patterns through homophily—the tendency to form relationships with similar others (McPherson et al., 2001). While common across contexts, organizational diversity initiatives and inclusive practices can broaden friendship networks beyond demographic clustering. Teams with moderate diversity combined with strong inclusion practices often achieve both diverse friendship networks and high overall friendship prevalence.

Understanding these drivers allows organizations to diagnose why certain teams develop strong friendship networks while others remain relationally fragmented, even when team members express desire for closer connections.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Workplace Friendship

Organizational Performance Impacts

The business case for workplace friendship extends beyond feel-good platitudes. Research documents measurable performance advantages when team members share genuine friendships, though effects vary based on context and implementation.

Knowledge sharing and collaboration improve substantially within friendship networks. Friends transfer knowledge more readily, share tacit information that resists formal documentation, and invest greater effort in helping colleagues understand complex concepts (Casciaro & Lobo, 2008). This proves especially valuable for innovation processes requiring experimentation, where friendship-based trust enables the risk-taking necessary for breakthrough ideas. Teams with stronger friendship ties demonstrate enhanced knowledge integration and creative problem-solving compared to teams lacking such bonds (Reagans & McEvily, 2003).

Employee retention and engagement show marked friendship effects. Employees with close workplace friends demonstrate significantly lower turnover intentions and higher engagement levels across multiple studies (Berman et al., 2002; Morrison, 2004). The friendship bond creates additional incentive to remain with the organization beyond compensation or role satisfaction alone. Given organizational costs of turnover—recruitment, onboarding, productivity loss during transition—this retention advantage carries substantial financial implications, particularly for roles requiring specialized knowledge or extensive relationship-based client work.

Team coordination and efficiency benefit from friendship through multiple mechanisms. Friends develop shared mental models more quickly, anticipate each other's needs without explicit communication, and resolve misunderstandings more efficiently (Jehn & Shah, 1997). In time-pressured contexts or crisis situations, these coordination advantages compound, allowing teams to execute complex workflows with less formal oversight.

However, these benefits aren't automatic. Friendship's performance impacts depend critically on friendship network characteristics. Exclusive friendship cliques that hoard information or resist newcomer integration can harm overall team performance despite strong bonds among subgroup members (Methot et al., 2016). Similarly, friendships that prioritize harmony over honest feedback may suppress productive conflict necessary for high-quality decision-making.

Individual Wellbeing and Experience Impacts

Beyond organizational metrics, workplace friendships profoundly influence individual employee experience and wellbeing—outcomes that matter both intrinsically and instrumentally, as they ultimately shape engagement and performance.

Psychological wellbeing and stress buffering represent primary friendship benefits. Work represents a significant source of stress for most individuals. Workplace friendships function as critical stress buffers, providing emotional support, practical assistance, and perspective during challenging periods (Morrison, 2009). Employees facing difficult projects, organizational changes, or personal crises report that workplace friends offer validation and companionship that reduces distress. This support proves especially important given the hours spent at work—having access to support where stressors arise enables more effective coping than waiting until evening to debrief with non-work friends.

Sense of belonging and meaning deepen through workplace friendship. Humans are fundamentally relational beings who derive meaning partially through connection with others. Workplace friendships transform jobs from mere economic transactions into sources of belonging and community (Berman et al., 2002). Employees with close workplace friends report experiencing work as more meaningful, feeling greater organizational identification, and viewing their roles as more central to their identities.

Career development and opportunity access flow through friendship networks. Friends serve as sponsors who recommend colleagues for opportunities, share information about organizational changes or job openings, and provide honest developmental feedback that accelerates learning (Morrison, 2004). However, this same dynamic creates potential inequity if friendship networks systematically exclude certain groups, limiting their access to career-critical information and sponsorship—a concern requiring proactive organizational attention.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Designing for Relationship-Enabling Structures

Organizations cannot mandate friendship, but they can design environments where authentic connections flourish. The structural foundation matters enormously—work arrangements, team composition, and collaboration norms either facilitate or obstruct friendship formation (Jiang et al., 2019).

Research emphasizes creating what might be termed "friendship-adjacent" conditions: opportunities for repeated interaction, shared experiences beyond purely task-focused work, and interaction formats that permit personal connection (Morrison, 2009). This differs from forced fun or mandatory team-building that often feels inauthentic.

Effective structural approaches include several key elements:

• Stable team configurations: Maintaining core team membership for extended periods (measured in quarters or years, not weeks) while periodically introducing new members balances relationship depth with fresh perspectives. Frequent reorganizations disrupt friendship development (Shah et al., 2018).

• Spaces for informal interaction: Creating break rooms, collaboration zones, or virtual channels where colleagues can interact voluntarily without specific task agenda. These spaces work when genuinely optional and when organizational culture treats informal interaction as legitimate rather than time-wasting.

• Task interdependence requiring collaboration: Structuring work so team members must coordinate meaningfully rather than simply working in parallel. Joint problem-solving, shared accountability for outcomes, and role complementarity create natural interaction contexts that facilitate friendship formation (Van der Vegt et al., 2003).

• Work rhythms including relationship time: Building meeting agendas that allocate time for personal check-ins, incorporating social activities into work processes, or scheduling periodic team offsites that balance business objectives with connection opportunities.

Many technology companies have adopted sprint structures that combine intensive collaborative work periods with built-in social time—morning conversations before work sessions, team lunches mid-sprint, and retrospective celebrations afterward. These rhythms normalize relationship investment as integral to team functioning rather than separate from task work. Healthcare organizations implementing team-based care models report that regular huddles combining patient coordination with personal check-ins strengthen both care quality and team cohesion.

Cultivating Psychological Safety and Inclusive Climates

Friendship thrives in psychologically safe environments where individuals feel comfortable being authentic, taking interpersonal risks, and expressing vulnerability. Leaders play decisive roles in establishing these conditions through both structural interventions and personal modeling (Edmondson, 1999).

Psychological safety—the shared belief that team members can take risks without fear of embarrassment or punishment—represents a prerequisite for deeper friendship development. In its absence, relationships remain superficial and guarded. Research demonstrates that leader behaviors significantly influence psychological safety levels (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).

Evidence-based practices include several leadership approaches:

• Leader vulnerability and self-disclosure: When leaders share appropriate personal information, acknowledge mistakes openly, and demonstrate comfort with uncertainty, team members feel permission to do likewise. This modeling cascades through teams, creating norms where authentic connection becomes acceptable (Jiang et al., 2019).

• Explicit inclusive behaviors: Actively inviting quieter members' input, distributing speaking time equitably, and publicly valuing diverse perspectives signal that all team members' contributions and identities matter. Inclusive climates broaden friendship networks beyond homophilous patterns (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).

• Constructive conflict management: How leaders address friendship-related tensions—favoritism perceptions, conflict spillover, boundary disputes—shapes whether teams view friendship as asset or liability. Addressing concerns directly while reaffirming relationship value demonstrates that friendship and professionalism coexist (Jehn & Shah, 1997).

• Recognition of whole persons: Acknowledging team members' lives outside work—family situations, personal interests, challenges—communicates that the organization values humans, not merely human capital. This recognition creates space for friendships that honor individuals' full identities.

At Pixar Animation Studios, leadership deliberately cultivates psychological safety through practices like "Braintrust" meetings where directors receive unvarnished feedback on works-in-progress in environments explicitly designed to separate critical input from hierarchical judgment (Catmull & Wallace, 2014). This approach demonstrates how safety mechanisms enable both honest professional discourse and deep collegial relationships that fuel creative excellence.

Supporting Friendship During Work Transitions

A distinctive challenge emerges during work transitions: remote/hybrid shifts, team reorganizations, role changes, or organizational restructuring. These transitions disrupt established friendship patterns while creating anxiety precisely when social support proves most valuable. Organizations that proactively support friendship maintenance during transitions demonstrate superior adjustment outcomes (Morrison, 2009).

During the pandemic-driven remote work transition, many organizations discovered that existing friendships largely persisted when given minimal structural support—regular video check-ins, virtual social events, explicit encouragement to maintain connection. However, new friendship formation nearly ceased without deliberate intervention, highlighting friendship's resilience once established but fragility during formation stages.

Transition support practices include several approaches:

• Structured onboarding facilitating relationship building: Assigning onboarding buddies, creating small-group integration activities, and explicitly discussing relationship development as an onboarding objective accelerates newcomer friendship formation that otherwise might take months (Bauer et al., 2007).

• Maintaining connection rituals during remote work: Establishing regular synchronous gatherings (in-person or virtual), team traditions that persist regardless of location, and communication norms that preserve informal interaction opportunities. Teams that maintain ritual practices report friendship persistence despite distance.

• Transparent communication during organizational changes: When restructuring affects team composition, providing clear timelines, rationales, and opportunities for closure helps friends navigate changes without experiencing abrupt relational severing that damages trust (Mishra & Mishra, 2012).

Microsoft's transition to hybrid work included explicit attention to relationship maintenance through flexible policies encouraging employees to prioritize in-person connection with colleagues. This approach signals organizational recognition that relationships require investment and that such investment deserves support.

Establishing Boundaries and Managing Friendship Tensions

While friendship offers substantial benefits, organizations must simultaneously address inherent risks: favoritism, exclusion, conflict spillover, and blurred boundaries. Pretending these challenges don't exist or assuming goodwill suffices ignores evidence that friendship, like any organizational dynamic, requires governance (Methot et al., 2016).

Research identifies several problematic patterns requiring proactive management. Favoritism and inequitable treatment occur when friends unconsciously or consciously advantage one another in resource allocation, project assignments, evaluation, or promotion decisions (Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018). This favoritism damages both perceived and actual procedural justice, harming non-friend team members' outcomes and motivation.

Exclusive cliques and information hoarding develop when tight friendship groups form boundaries that exclude others or hoard information. These dynamics fracture teams, create knowledge silos, and disadvantage those outside friendship networks—particularly problematic when exclusion follows demographic or identity lines (McPherson et al., 2001).

Conflict spillover and amplification emerge when friends experience interpersonal conflict that spills into work domains or involves other team members who feel forced to choose sides. Friendship intensifies conflict's emotional charge, making resolution more difficult (Jehn & Shah, 1997).

Boundary-setting approaches include several organizational practices:

• Clear decision criteria and transparency: Establishing explicit criteria for resource allocation, assignments, and evaluations—then applying them consistently and transparently—reduces favoritism opportunities. Documentation and stakeholder involvement in decisions limit single-person discretion where friendship bias might operate (Greenberg, 1990).

• Conflict management protocols: Providing mediation resources, training teams in constructive conflict navigation, and intervening early when friendship-related tensions emerge prevents escalation. Acknowledging that workplace friendships sometimes involve disagreement normalizes healthy boundary maintenance.

• Monitoring friendship network diversity: Assessing whether friendship patterns systematically exclude certain groups (demographic, role-based, location-based), then addressing structural barriers to cross-difference connection through cross-functional projects, mentoring programs, or inclusive event design (Reagans & McEvily, 2003).

A global financial services firm addressed favoritism concerns by implementing decision review panels for significant team decisions—promotions, high-profile assignments, budget allocations. These panels include members from outside immediate work teams, require documentation of decision criteria applied, and specifically flag potential conflicts of interest, including close friendships. This approach maintains friendship's benefits while establishing governance that protects equity.

Building Long-Term Relationship Infrastructure

Embedding Friendship Value in Organizational Culture

Sustainable friendship benefits require cultural integration—moving beyond episodic interventions toward embedded organizational systems that continuously support authentic connection. This cultural shift involves reframing how organizations conceptualize productivity, work time allocation, and relationship legitimacy (Berman et al., 2002).

Traditional models treated relationships as external to productivity—pleasant but peripheral social phenomena. Contemporary understanding recognizes relationships as productivity infrastructure, particularly for knowledge work requiring trust, coordination, and creative collaboration (Casciaro & Lobo, 2008). Embedding this recognition into organizational culture involves several interconnected elements.

First, normalizing relationship investment as legitimate work requires consistent leader messaging that building team relationships represents productive work time, not time stolen from "real work." This normalization appears in multiple cultural artifacts: how meetings allocate time, whether informal interaction receives recognition alongside task completion, and whether performance discussions acknowledge relationship-building contributions.

Second, creating connection rituals and traditions that outlast individual leaders or temporary initiatives establishes permanence. Annual team offsites, monthly social gatherings, daily check-in practices, or celebration traditions become cultural touchstones that signal relationship importance. These rituals work best when co-created with teams rather than imposed uniformly, allowing local customization while maintaining organizational commitment (Trice & Beyer, 1984).

Third, storytelling that elevates relationship examples reinforces cultural values through heroes celebrated and stories told. Highlighting instances where workplace friendships enabled breakthrough innovations, supported colleagues through crises, or exemplified organizational values reinforces friendship's legitimacy. Internal communications, leadership talks, and onboarding narratives should feature relationship stories alongside traditional achievement metrics.

Patagonia, the outdoor apparel company, embeds friendship value through policies like on-site childcare, flexible schedules, and extended lunch periods—all explicitly designed to support whole-life integration and relationship building. The company's cultural narrative emphasizes that these practices enhance rather than detract from business performance, creating permission structures for friendship investment.

Developing Leaders as Relationship Facilitators

Leadership capability represents critical friendship infrastructure. Many leaders, promoted based on technical expertise or individual achievement, lack training in relationship facilitation. Developing this capability requires targeted interventions that shift leader mindsets and equip practical skills (Jiang et al., 2019).

Leader development should address several competency areas. Diagnosing team relationship dynamics enables leaders to observe friendship patterns, identify relationship gaps or exclusive cliques, and assess whether current dynamics support or hinder team objectives. This diagnostic capability enables proactive intervention before relationship problems escalate.

Modeling appropriate friendship boundaries helps leaders navigate complex territory regarding their own team friendships. Too distant, they seem aloof and fail to create psychological safety. Too enmeshed, they risk favoritism perceptions or boundary violations. Developing judgment about appropriate leader friendship requires ongoing reflection and feedback (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).

Facilitating cross-difference connection equips leaders with practices that bridge demographic, functional, or hierarchical divides within teams. This includes designing inclusive social activities, creating connection opportunities for typically excluded members, and addressing exclusive dynamics when they emerge (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).

Organizations can develop these capabilities through leadership programs combining conceptual frameworks, skill practice, and ongoing coaching that helps leaders apply learning in context. Peer learning communities where leaders discuss relationship challenges they face offer particularly valuable development mechanisms.

Designing for Hybrid and Distributed Friendship

The widespread shift toward hybrid and distributed work fundamentally disrupts traditional friendship formation mechanisms while potentially democratizing friendship access. Organizations must deliberately redesign friendship infrastructure for these contexts rather than assuming office-based approaches translate directly.

Research on distributed teams reveals several friendship patterns. Existing friendships generally persist despite distance when given minimal support—regular communication, occasional in-person gathering. However, new friendship formation proves dramatically more difficult remotely, requiring much more intentional effort and structural support (Morrison, 2009).

Hybrid-appropriate friendship infrastructure includes several key elements:

• Intentional synchronous gathering design: When teams gather in-person or synchronously online, explicitly allocating substantial time for connection rather than filling every moment with task focus. Hybrid work means less frequent interaction, so each interaction must serve multiple purposes including relationship maintenance.

• Asynchronous relationship practices: Creating channels for ongoing connection between synchronous gatherings—virtual spaces for casual conversation, photo sharing, interest-based affinity groups—that enable low-friction interaction accumulation. Small, frequent interactions compensate partially for proximity loss.

• Equitable hybrid participation norms: Avoiding patterns where in-office employees form closer friendships while remote colleagues experience exclusion. This requires conscious effort to include remote participants fully in social aspects, not just task discussions, during hybrid meetings.

• Technology choices that humanize interaction: Selecting communication technologies that preserve nonverbal cues (video over audio-only), enable spontaneous interaction (presence awareness, easy calling), and support relationship contexts beyond task discussion (personal channels, social spaces).

GitLab, operating as a fully distributed company, implements extensive remote relationship practices including scheduled informal video calls between randomly paired colleagues, asynchronous channels where employees share personal projects or interests, and annual company-wide gatherings explicitly designed for connection over content. These practices demonstrate that distributed friendship is achievable but requires intentional organizational investment.

Conclusion

Workplace friendships represent far more than pleasant social amenities decorating the periphery of organizational life. Evidence demonstrates that authentic connections among team members fundamentally influence organizational performance, innovation capacity, employee wellbeing, and retention outcomes (Berman et al., 2002; Morrison, 2004). For practitioners navigating contemporary workplace challenges—hybrid work adaptation, retention crises, demands for human-centered culture—friendship offers practical leverage often overlooked in traditional management frameworks.

Several key insights emerge from research synthesis. First, friendship's benefits aren't automatic or universal. Context matters enormously—friendship networks that enhance performance in some configurations create exclusion or favoritism in others (Methot et al., 2016). Organizations must deliberately design for friendship-supportive conditions while simultaneously establishing governance that addresses potential downsides.

Second, leadership proves decisive. Leaders who model appropriate vulnerability, facilitate inclusive connection, and address relationship tensions directly create environments where friendship flourishes productively (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Jiang et al., 2019). Third, structural factors—work design, team composition, rhythm and ritual, space configuration—shape friendship possibilities more powerfully than exhortation or episodic team-building. Organizations must embed relationship support into fundamental work structures rather than treating it as supplementary programming.

The practical implications are straightforward: audit current practices for friendship support or obstruction; establish clear boundaries that preserve equity while enabling connection; develop leaders as relationship facilitators; design work structures that create repeated, meaningful interaction opportunities; and recognize that relationship investment represents productivity infrastructure, not time stolen from productive work (Casciaro & Lobo, 2008).

As work continues evolving—more distributed, more collaborative, more reliant on knowledge and innovation—the quality of workplace relationships will increasingly differentiate high-performing organizations from those that struggle. Organizations that proactively cultivate friendship-supportive environments while managing inherent tensions will capture significant competitive advantage through enhanced engagement, retention, knowledge sharing, and innovation. The question isn't whether workplace friendship matters, but whether organizations will strategically steward this critical asset or leave it to chance.

References

1. Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707–721.

2. Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, M. N. (2002). Workplace relations: Friendship patterns and consequences (according to managers). Public Administration Review, 62(2), 217–230.

3. Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 655–684.

4. Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in the way of true inspiration. Random House.

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

6. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43.

7. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.

8. Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 775–790.

9. Jiang, K., Chuang, C. H., & Chiao, Y. C. (2019). Developing collective customer knowledge and service climate: The interaction between service-oriented high-performance work systems and service leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(3), 336–350.

10. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.

11. 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.

12. Mishra, K., & Mishra, A. K. (2012). Linking trust and commitment to individual and organizational performance. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 7(1), 7–17.

13. Morrison, R. L. (2004). Informal relationships in the workplace: Associations with job satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intentions. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33(3), 114–128.

14. Morrison, R. L. (2009). Are women tending and befriending in the workplace? Gender differences in the relationship between workplace friendships and organizational outcomes. Sex Roles, 60(1–2), 1–13.

15. Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on millennials' organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 225–238.

16. Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966.

17. Nielsen, I. K., Jex, S. M., & Adams, G. A. (2000). Development and validation of scores on a two-dimensional workplace friendship scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(4), 628–643.

18. Pillemer, J., & Rothbard, N. P. (2018). Friends without benefits: Understanding the dark sides of workplace friendship. Academy of Management Review, 43(4), 635–660.

19. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.

20. Shah, P. P., Peterson, R. S., Jones, S. L., & Ferguson, A. J. (2018). Things are not always what they seem: The origins and evolution of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4), 793–824.

21. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 653–669.

22. Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (2003). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 51(1), 51–69.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Friendship in Team Dynamics: Translating Research Into Organizational Practice. Human Capital Leadership Review, 27(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.27.4.1