Why similar people stick together—and form closed circles

A project begins at the usual lunch table

A manager is looking for someone to take on an interesting assignment and starts by asking the colleagues he normally has lunch with. They know similar companies, share some interests and quickly find common ground. One of them joins the project, meets new decision-makers and later receives another opportunity. There is no need to assume deliberate hostility towards other employees to see the possible effect. A circle of everyday contacts can gradually become a circle that controls access to professional opportunities. Homophily describes the tendency for relationships to form between people who are similar in a particular respect. The similarity may concern experience, education, age, beliefs or ways of working. It is not synonymous with prejudice or deliberate exclusion. Understanding the mechanism nevertheless requires looking beyond intentions. A series of ordinary, convenient choices can create a pattern in which some people repeatedly encounter new opportunities while others hear about them only after the event. The relevant similarity does not have to be immediately visible. It may be shared experience at a particular company, a similar approach to solving problems or familiarity with the same professional environments. A demographically diverse organisation can therefore still have a very closed circle of influence. Conversely, people who are similar in one respect may bring many different perspectives in others. That is why a network of relationships should not be judged solely by appearances or basic HR data. The real questions are who is in contact with whom, what those contacts are about, and what opportunities follow from them. Only then is it possible to see whether similarity is simply making collaboration easier or beginning to restrict other people's access to information and development.

We choose people like us, but we also encounter them more often

McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook's review brought together the evidence on homophily in social networks. A more recent review by Ertug and colleagues examined its consequences. It is important to consider both personal preferences and the structure of opportunities for contact. If people with similar experience work in the same department or location, the fact that they form relationships more often does not necessarily mean that they are actively avoiding everyone else. McPherson et al., 2001; Ertug et al., 2022. This distinction changes the appropriate response. If the problem is a lack of shared opportunities, a call for greater openness may achieve very little. What may be needed instead is cross-departmental collaboration, access to the same meetings or a different way of distributing information. If the opportunities already exist but invitations keep going to friends, the selection criteria deserve closer examination. In both cases, the focus is on the specific conditions in which relationships form, not on passing moral judgement on every personal preference.

Similarity has benefits that do not need to be denied

A shared language and similar experiences can make it easier to begin working together. There is less shorthand to explain, expectations may be easier to anticipate, and common ground emerges more quickly. The mere existence of groups of similar people is therefore not evidence of a problem. A cost arises when convenience becomes the default basis for allocating resources and different perspectives have no genuine route into the process. Interpersonal familiarity then begins to replace an assessment of suitability for the task. In the project example, the manager's friend may genuinely be the best candidate. It is still worth asking whether anyone else was considered and whether the requirements were known. The question is not, “Am I allowed to work with someone I like?” It is, “Would an equally suitable person outside my circle have a fair chance of being noticed?” This test directs attention to access to the process instead of demanding that a leader feel the same degree of personal affinity with everyone. Ease of contact can also influence assessments of team fit. Someone who establishes rapport quickly may appear more promising, even though part of that impression comes from familiarity with the same social cues and experiences. It is worth asking whether the criterion concerns behaviour needed for the role or simply the ease of informal conversation. This is not about deliberately hiring people who are difficult to work with. It is about distinguishing communication skills from a similar background. A candidate may bring the expertise the team needs and work well across differences even if a conversation about shared interests does not flow naturally from the first minute. Clear criteria help reveal that potential before a first impression brings the assessment to a premature close.

Closed circles grow through accumulated small advantages

Someone who is regularly invited to projects gains experience that helps justify the next invitation. Someone who is repeatedly overlooked may end up with a weaker portfolio, even if the original difference arose mainly from their network of contacts. This is one possible mechanism through which unequal access to opportunities can grow; it is not a description of every career. It does show why assessing final achievements without examining earlier access can perpetuate an existing pattern. What looks like a neutral decision to choose the most experienced person has a history of its own. Information can circulate in a similar way. If important decisions are made after a shared training session or during an informal social event, those who were not there may struggle to keep up. There is no need to eliminate such gatherings. The information required for work does, however, need to reach the agreed channel as well. A private relationship can remain private, but a decision about a shared task should not be available only to the people involved in that relationship.

Broaden access through shared work, not compulsory closeness

Transparent project announcements, rotation in selected roles and collaboration on specific tasks create opportunities to learn about the abilities of people outside the usual circle. Their purpose is to open access, not to force everyone to maintain the same number of relationships. The conditions for that collaboration matter too: a shared objective, a clear division of responsibility and time to explain differences in working styles. Simply mixing the composition of a group does not guarantee mutual understanding. A leader can periodically review who has been offered development assignments and whose views they usually seek before making a decision. If the same names appear every time, it is worth asking why. The reason may be genuine expertise, availability or simply habit. Only after identifying the reason is it possible to choose an appropriate change. A map of traits or similarities cannot substitute for data about who actually speaks to whom and who receives opportunities; those questions need to be investigated separately. It is also important to avoid cosmetic solutions when broadening access. Compulsory social activities do not provide access to important projects, and a one-off introduction to people from other departments does not yet create sustained collaboration. People need a reason to remain in contact and clarity about how to draw on a new colleague's knowledge. One place to start is a task that requires a combination of different capabilities, with an agreed objective and time for people to explain their approaches to one another. Later, it is worth checking whether the new contacts are actually being used and whether opportunities are reaching a wider group. The number of relationships is not necessarily the best measure of progress. What matters more is whether someone outside the usual circle can obtain the information they need, express interest in a project and be assessed against criteria they understand.

Similarity can make relationships easier, but closed networks can restrict access to information and development. A well-run organisation does not try to manage private affinities. It does ensure that important opportunities do not depend solely on membership of an informal circle.

Using Empatyzer to prepare collaboration beyond the usual circle

Empatyzer can help you examine similarities and differences that may be relevant when starting a collaboration. The Similarity map shows similarities among the available profiles, but it does not show actual connections, influence or access to projects. It should therefore not be treated as a diagnosis of closed circles within an organisation. In Talk to Em about your team, you can prepare rules for exchanging information and ways to invite different perspectives into a shared task. You can also think through how to explain the purpose of the collaboration to people who have rarely worked together before. Em supports communication, but actual access to opportunities must be assessed through the organisation's decisions and practices. The tool cannot replace transparent project allocation or an assessment of competence. It can help prepare a conversation in which differences stop being a reason to avoid contact and instead become useful information about how to coordinate work more effectively.