Inclusiveness is definitely important. I'd be interested about the following trade offs in a more practical, balance sheet, sense:
1. Does providing job security at the expense of pay increase or decrease loneliness? Obviously if the pay is too low there will be turnover, but is there an amount X, where X is not market rate, but still high enough so that if there were security people would just stay? Surely low turn over will result in more relationship formation which can be positively correlated with not feeling lonely.
2. How does a dining area and free food affect loneliness? Will it make it worse by highlighting things, or will it encourage everyone to eat in the [company provided] dining area, sparking new relationships? If both, what's the distribution?
3. If measures to reduce loneliness results in the formation of cliques, is that a positive outcome if those left out feel alienated?
In general, to what extent should employers focus on this? This reminds me of how some employers try to encourage an active lifestyle, which is generally positive, but at what point are things simply intrusive?
> How does a dining area and free food affect loneliness? Will it make it worse by highlighting things
This is my experience exactly. I'm sure at a certain company size it might help form connections, but at my larger company people arrange into cliques. It's like the high school cafeteria all over again.
I've switched to eating at my desk, not because I don't want to be social, but because it's less painful than being rejected by the cliques.
If you're at a company where you can't find a place to sit in the cafeteria because you're being rejected by cliques, holy shit. Get out of there this instant. To be honest, I'm so surprised by this statement that I can't help but feel skeptical about it, but if it's true, then you must've found one of the worst places to work in the entire world.
In my darker moments, I feel like a social cancer sometimes, and am no doubt really abrasive and unfun to hang around with some days. But even so, in the 2 decades I've been in the tech workforce, I have never felt like my coworkers were cliques of snotty teenagers looking down on me to such a degree that they wouldn't let me sit with them in the cafeteria. If this is your environment, it's not you, it's them, and you need to get out of that company ASAP. Basic adult respect should be a precondition for working at any professional workplace.
Most likely it's not that they're outright telling him to move, instead they probably show disinterest or make it clear in some other non-confrontational way that they'd rather not have him sit with them.
> but because it's less painful than being rejected by the cliques.
Have you asked to sit with these groups of people and been verbally rejected? To belong, you will need to make the social effort.
EDIT: Hey folks, I'm not trying to be rude. I am genuinely trying to help OP. If you want to join a group for lunch, walk up to them with your lunch and say "Would you mind if I join you?" Don't wait for an invitation that might never present itself. You have nothing to lose except a possible rejection (which is important to learn is minor).
Is there a particular reason you'd like to join with one, some or all of the cliques?
It's quite natural for people who get along to group together because in the group you can act and speak more freely with the friends you know. When a new person joins the discussion easily dies because everybody suddenly has to start thinking again what you can and cannot say. It doesn't mean the people in a clique would be actively rejecting you but just that they're quite happy as they are and more interested in relaxing on their lunch break rather than working to make new friends.
Does being rejected by cliques at lunch make your experience worse than be rejected by cliques in other activities at work? Would a non-cafeteria workplace, where cliques went outside to eat, or brown-bagged in the break area, or sat each at their own desk, felt less painful?
> Does being rejected by cliques at lunch make your experience worse than be rejected by cliques in other activities at work?
Fair point. I'd say the frustration comes more from the double-talk of "look how inclusive our workplace culture is: everyone eats together in the cafeteria!" The company admitting "we don't have any norms around lunch; everyone is on their own" would not be an objectively better experience, but at least would be honest.
Another option would be to have more official team, group, or project-based lunches, rather than a free-for-all, where specific members of a team privately invite other specific members of a team.
I don't mean to turn this into a rant, just adding a data point :)
> Another option would be to have more official team, group, or project-based lunches, rather than a free-for-all, where specific members of a team privately invite other specific members of a team.
That would just lead to people doing small talk and then being on their phones for the whole lunch because they aren't sitting with people they want to talk to.
1) I'm pretty sure this is how various levels of public service work. Pay below market rate, but offer extremely good job security. As a result, many people stick around and form long-term relationships. Where I can see this going poorly is when personal disputes bleed into work situations. I've worked with people whom I have disliked working with, but loved hanging out with, and vice-versa. As long as there is respect for the reason you are there (i.e. to work), it's not so bad.
2) I've never worked anywhere with free food, so I don't know if that would change things, but have worked at places with a full-service cafeteria, a lunch/break room, and no break/lunch room. The place that only had the lunch room seemed to have the most socialization, with all levels/types of staff bringing their lunch and chatting as a group. Even people who didn't bring a lunch would still pop in. Surprisingly, no real cliques ever formed (even people who came, sat and never said a word seemed very welcome).
The cafeteria workplace seemed to only attract those who needed to purchase food. Though, it did seem like more of a social place around morning coffee break (again, mostly people purchasing coffee).
The place without a lunchroom pretty much had everyone either eating at their desks or leaving for lunch. I found this pretty abysmal and I'd classify myself as an introvert. Compared to the lunchroom situation, I certainly knew less about what everyone actually did in their jobs, so it really was a net loss even in terms of productivity.
3) That's a hard one. I think it's okay for people to be left out if they choose to, but I think if your culture relies on cliques, then it will eventually drive out anyone who doesn't fit (and I'm sure at some places, that's seen as a positive).
Worked in a large lab that had a pretty good cafeteria, where they would rotate caterers in over time. Lunch meetings were regular, and when there wasn't an actual meeting, I'd grab a co-worker or one of the project leads to have lunch with. Really laid back affairs over all, but I feel like I learned a lot during these impromptu meetings. Often, about things that had nothing to do with what we were working on, but ended up being useful. Got to meet a lot of people I wouldn't have otherwise because people would show up mid-conversation looking for a place to eat.
On the opposite end, my current job is effectively a cubicle farm. No one talks to each other unless necessary, and only a handful of people ever go to lunch together. Cliques are a fact of life here, but I'd bet the average person feels more lonely here than at the previous office.
I'm not saying it's entirely caused by the dining area. But the dining area certainly encouraged the culture at the previous office, at the least.
>2. How does a dining area and free food affect loneliness? Will it make it worse by highlighting things, or will it encourage everyone to eat in the [company provided] dining area, sparking new relationships? If both, what's the distribution?
We have a dining area that no one uses due to fear of being seen as lazy.
>"Surely low turn over will result in more relationship formation"
This might be true, but it also isn't necessarily a good thing. What kind of relationships? And with whom?
The kinds of people who will accept below-market compensation in return for "security" are likely to be relatively risk-averse, passive, disinterested and uncommitted. Which in turn would create what would be, for many people, a stale, depressing and moribund environment. Some
amount of turnover is healthy. Fresh personalities, energy, ideas and perspectives spark conversation, connection and change. And the impermanence of workplace relationships is part of what makes them meaningful and worthwhile. Kind of like what mortality does for human relations on a slightly longer scale.
I think you’re projecting too much onto someome just because they accept slightly below market compensation. Yes you may filter out the superstars but many jobs do not require or really benefit from very above average performance. And Risk aversion is neutral at worst, reliability, character, conscientiousness are highly valuable in most jobs.
The jump from risk-averse to passive and disinterested is absurd. You are tying up unrelated personality traits. Just because you fancy yourself risk-taker does not mean that risk averse people are everything bad. Why people do that?
> And the impermanence of workplace relationships is part of what makes them meaningful and worthwhile.
No impermanence does not makes them relationship worthwhile. I had a lot of impermanent relationships, they are fun because everything is fresh, but not really worth much effort.
The kinds of people who will accept below-market compensation in return for "security"
You are conflating "compensation" with "salary" which is invalid. The public sector package was traditionally relatively lower salary but relatively higher pension, and there is a cash-equivalent value to other benefits as well. Job security is one. If your job is absolutely safe then you have fewer worries about saving for a rainy day for example (but still, nonzero).
> Does providing job security at the expense of pay increase or decrease loneliness?
Hmm. I am thinking kind of orthogonal (independent) of it mostly. On one hand with high turnover, you might lose connections quicker so it's harder. On the other, the person in question might be the one moving on to a better company and thus be less lonely as a result.
> Will it make it worse by highlighting things, or will it encourage everyone to eat in the [company provided] dining area, sparking new relationships? If both, what's the distribution?
Could make it worse, definitely. I like think of it as a necessary thing -- if the person is the only one eating at their desk then they are probably missing out on important gossip. And gossip can be important - what's coming up next in projects, who is leaving. Some stuff is boring, some stupid but some important. Unfortunately it's probably better to think of it as part of the job duty but it's also kind of a forced socialization and it might help with loneliness.
> If measures to reduce loneliness results in the formation of cliques, is that a positive outcome if those left out feel alienated?
The article touches on that. It's the part about some managers just organizing Christmas parties for example, it provides for a chance for interaction but doesn't increase necessarily the chance of forming relationships.
I'd say a better way to form relationships is to get people to work together on ... actual work stuff. Problems they can think through, solve and ship together as a team.
Check out the book “First Break all the Rules”, which is based on many years of survey data.
Basically, they correlated about 20 questions that were predictive of job performance across many different verticals, from the Air Force to McDonalds to software.
The most successful managers cultivated environments where employees are friends, and generally weren’t lonely. There were other interesting factors too. It’s worth reading.
> 1. Does providing job security at the expense of pay increase or decrease loneliness? Obviously if the pay is too low there will be turnover, but is there an amount X, where X is not market rate, but still high enough so that if there were security people would just stay? Surely low turn over will result in more relationship formation which can be positively correlated with not feeling lonely.
To be honest, if you offered me a 40 hour a week max, $60k (increasing with inflation), and something similar to tenure after working there 1 year...yeah I'd take it. The core problem every adult runs in at some point is their outside-work responsibilities and long term stability is the most valuable commodity you can offer them.
That offer doesn't really exist right now, even where employees are "highly valued" like software development.
My only real stress in life is the possibility of unemployment that might require me to relocate to some place I don't want to be (like SF) with a high cost of living and high levels of urbanization.
Maybe you could look into moving to Europe. You can even live in a village if you want in Germany, since many of the world market leaders in very specific things have headquarters there.
My current job makes me feel very lonely. I’m not close in age to many of my coworkers and the place is very cliquey. It feels awful. I was on the verge of leaving, but actually ended up staying when I made a close friend. When that relationship dissipated, I interviewed elsewhere and put in my notice.
The social climate really makes a difference in a way I didn’t appreciate until I started this job!
I'm in the same boat. I recommend anyone reading this that feel the same way to start looking for other jobs immediately. If not for your career, at least do it for your own mental health. (I'm also leaving soon)
I haven't made friends at my job. I don't have the same interests as any of the other developers.
On the other hand, I have a group of five friends that I made at my previous job that I keep in touch with in a private Slack group and we meet for lunch once or twice a month.
I knew I was going to be a short timer at this job for various reasons and never bothered.
I do keep in touch with one former coworker at a job I had in 2011. I married her....
I personally require more, like, personal engagement with my colleagues, I guess. I want to feel like I’m working with friends, but some cultures can make it feel like I’m often working with adversaries.
Some workplaces require you to “break into” the cliques in order to progress or work on high-visibility projects. This can make career progression feel like a political issue more than a technical issue.
That said, I also coincidentally married a woman I met at work :) And also keep up with friends from old jobs. This will likely be the first job that I’ll end up leaving without keeping in touch with anyone. That’s how isolating some places can be!
Here in Poland it's very risky to connect with your colleagues. I think it's the case for all countries with low social trust rating. In theory, you're working together for common gain, because if your company is better off you should earn more and work should be easier and quality better, right? Yet in Poland people are very eager to get advantage of one another. It's got to the point where I don't trust coworkers by default. I'm helpful, but careful.
Hostile workplace culture is a thing everywhere. You don't have to and you shouldn't have to be friends with all your colleagues. Loneliness is not a problem that can or should be solved at work. You should make sure nobody is marginallized but trying to make people feel at home while they're not is deceptive, it really complicates simple things, and it's not good for anyone.
The article says we should deceive employees into thinking we're all a family so we can make more money out of them. As far as I know there's a lot of effort in that direction by the american industry (ie forcing wallmart employees to do a humiliating group dance/song at the start of their shifts).
However there's one thing the author forgets: If you actually create strong relationships in your office, you run into the danger of them unionizing! Uh-oh! Time to do a U-turn. What if your workers demand higher wages collectively? What if they protest the firing of one of their friends? So I guess now their goal becomes "how to make people think they're in good company while making sure they're not". Fortunately it's rather hard to trick people into this.
My view is the opposite - Poles are more honest (which usually translates to - more whiney) at their jobs than Western people, where centuries of capitalism have taught people that it's best to keep your thoughts to yourself and pretend to be happy/content. Poles have yet to internalize this lesson.
It depends what you mean. To Poles Americans look quite fake with their smiling mask, and adjectives ranking from "good" to "awesome". The world "beautiful" sticks out like a sore thumb when you read web frontend/design blogs. Words like that are reserved for truly astonishing works. There is no expectation that you feel great all the time. Ask and you usually get an honest answer(bragging on a job interview notwithstanding). It's not like I heard about India where I heard IT workers often don't ask questions or are afraid to admit they don't understand something. There is also no strong expectation to participate in polite small talk like in UK. Gosh, it's hard to say, I'll have to travel a bit to see Poland from outside.
But leave your bike, or even an umbrella unattended for a few moments and it's likely to get stolen. If you drop money in a public place, it's very unlikely to be returned anywhere - it's seen as a windfall. Fenced houses and (multi-flat) blocks are getting VERY popular. In fact, people bring screens to beaches to separate themselves from each other (usually by family), sometimes even "reserving" spots on public beaches(they have no right). Some foreigners half-jokingly use the term "polish disease" to describe materialistic attitude of many Polish girls. Government clerks are famously unhelpful and make you do their job. Recruitment agencies are almost entirely focused on employer needs. Cheating in school is widespread and very rarely reported by classmates. You're seen as a snitch. It's similar with reporting bad drivers. Tax avoidance and frauds are more tolerated, even among politicians("Everyone does that / all political parties do it anyway"). There are many laws and rules which are not used in practice - the most spectacular example is the Smoleńsk plane crash in 2010 where most of the political elite, including the president, died.
Also keep in mind Poles working abroad are usually the most ambitious and honest ones, because they understand Westerners appreciate that. It's refreshing being able to just focus on doing a good job, and with expensive equipment.
I guess the bottom line is Poles often don't trust you, but are honest about it.
This is of course largely a product of Soviet influence (technically Poland was a part of Warsaw Pact, but NOT a part of Soviet Union) and resulting material powerty. Romania, Russia are similar but even more grim.
What is jaw-dropping to a Pole?
"I was a construction worker in Denmark. At the end of the shift, I suggested that we store our tools indoors. - Why? We'll be working in the same place." (expecting theft)
That until recent years Swedes didn't lock their homes.
In a swedish fairy tale "Moonintrolls", one of characters suggest that they repair an old boat they found, so that they can use it better or give back a nice boat if the owner shows up. The idea that you might be happy about giving back an object you put your work into like that.
That in other countries ministers delegate work and important decisions up to their subordinates, and that most of civil service and (local) administration stays when the ruling party changes. Polish politicians like to micromanage, and behavior like that is seen as sign of weakness.
I agree with most of this (I'm a Pole, currently living in Poland). I'd say that we're closer to the world norm and the Westerners are the outliers - universal wealth on an unprecedented scale has created some paradise-like conditions in those countries. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world (most of Africa, Asia, South America, Eastern Europe) people are scamming and robbing each other left and right, which creates a justified amount of mistrust. My prediction is that further automation and globalisation will be the great leveler, and in 50 years people in the West will be considerably worse off (it's already happening, hence Trump, Brexit etc.) while the rest will improve.
You are probably right. We, members of the western civilization (Europe + America) increasingly live in a bubble. This is unfortunate, because Europe used to be open to the world and used to profit from that. I'm not in favor of exploitation, just pointing out there's barely any news from Africa, Asia, etc. Polish news are almost all about west and east. Barely any time is devoted to northern and southern neighbors.
What would happen to you in the workplace if you behaved like a Westerner and looked for opportunities to contribute to others' priorities, praised others' work, and shared your productivity enhancers?
You're totally correct that it's refreshing to just be able to focus on doing a good job. I work so much voluntary overtime just because I know that it's a rare time when you are someplace your contributions are needed and welcome. A lot of times you have a lot to offer and no organization that can get it to people who need it.
> What would happen to you in the workplace if you behaved like a Westerner and looked for opportunities to contribute to others' priorities, praised others' work, and shared your productivity enhancers?
I curently work in a large Western Europe organization (30k employees), which does a lot of its software development in Poland. I'd say the work is in many ways organized in a terrible way (courtesy of the higher-up geniuses in the HQ). My observation is that the rank-and-file employees in the Western Europe branches tend to more often eat shit and smile about it than people in Poland. That may be because I don't know them as well as my Polish collegues though.
ad. 1:
There's an 8 chapter document "Intrukcja HEAD" (HEAD instruction) about transporting the most important officials of the country. It was established 1 year before the crash, and was partially ignored.*
- the flight was meant to be organized by the chancellery of prime minister, but wasn't. The PM vs the president and the ruling party were political enemies. Instead, the flight was organized by people of the now dead president.
- although the request with HEAD status was sent to the chancellery of PM, it was also sent (violating the instruction) to BOR (government bodyguards) and 36th Special Regimen of Air Transport (36. Specjalny Pułk Lotnictwa Transportowego).
- the content of the request sent to the chancellery of PM was also violating the instruction (no mention of number of people, unspecified type(s) of the airplane(s), unspecified planned time of departure and arrival, unspecified dispatcher, unspecified cargo).
There's also some stuff that I don't know how to neatly translate, but suffice to say it wasn't an isolated case. When Donald Tusk, the PM at the time, earlier flew to Smoleńsk, the HEAD instruction was also partially ignored.
The reason the chancellery of PM abstained from its duties was an earlier (2008) conflict between Donald Tusk (PM) and Lech Kaczyński (the dead president), when the PM denied the request of the president, when the latter wished to fly to Brussels.
There were also other problems, like insufficient training (ignoring the messages PULL UP, TERRAIN AHEAD), and recorded presence of superiors in the cockpit, pressuring the pilots to land (likely gen. Błasik's voice, but no 100% certainty).
And last, but not least, don't put all your eggs in one basket. The number and status of officials who ended up on that single plane is mind-boggling. And why so much pomp?
ad. 2:
Most likely people would enjoy your productivity tips and not credit you for them. If you tried to contribute to others' priorities? There's an informal term "spychologia", from pushing down worn onto someone else. Ask someone to help you by doing unglamorous work, while you do something more spectacular. Works better if you have tits and your coworker doesn't.
I was recently applying for a job in a German company. The interviewer mentioned they have an "all hands on the deck" approach to when someone is not going to make it with a deadline: instead of making one person triple his efforts, several people do 1 hour of (voluntary) overtime. Sounds good. It was the first time I've heard about something like that, and it took me 3 years to find a job (I signed the contract today, with another company). Other than the subject of their work, it sounded like a very interesting and laid back workplace.
* Note ignoring some rules is a common theme in Polish culture. Poland is a bit anarchistic, and many laws exist mostly on paper. Like policemen not fining drivers who park cars taking over 1/3 of sidewalk. Problems are sometimes "solved" with new laws which are impractical. I'm not sure how it came to be, but I have two ideas:
- the time when Poland was partitioned didn't help. All laws were occupants' laws.
- earlier, in XVI century, when feudalism was at its height, Poland had two distinct classes: peasants, at least 80% of population, and noblemen. Past kings had granted noblemen numerous privileges in exchange for support of various political initiatives. In time, it resulted in a weak state, and decision paralysis. There was a famous law, "Liberum Veto", which allowed a single member of parliament (nobleman) to cancel the session. I mean it was legal, although sometimes it made others mad and the person had to run for his life.
This anarchism of sorts sometimes makes life easier (mutually beneficial informal agreements), but at other times complicates it. It can also enable coteries and cartels.
What I've always been taught is when you go into work, you cease to be a person, and become a thing. You have no dreams, desires, wants, emotions, or needs (You may be hired to project an emotion, but you're not to have any authentic emotions yourself). Your sole reason for existence is to provide the labor your employer is buying.
Your own loneliness is your sole responsibility. If you don't have the information you need to do your job that is your manager's responsibility to remedy, but their job stops the instant you have the tools you need to do yours.
I've worked as a developer where we weren't expected to talk to each other for non work related stuff. To the point where it would be brought up by managers, or even an employee pulled and told they were talking too much.
You are expected to go in, head down, do your 8 hours work, go home. Non work stuff was expected to be kept to non work hours.
I've also worked at highly social workplaces, drinking on the job, people playing guitar in office, everyone going out for lunch together, everyone felt like a good friend (and even after leaving are still good friends).
I preferred the second, I'm not sure which was more productive though...
I think the 2nd waa great few years but it probably wasn't sunstainable and I kinda understand an employer would prefer me to be a code creating robot rather than a human.
This was every company I've ever worked at or consulted to, which is in large part at the root of why I went freelance. Are there really great companies with culture that treats highly-paid, highly-skilled professionals as professionals? Yes, I'm sure there are, but they are rare.
Maybe it's my Midwestern upbringing, but I'd rather just get my job done than be an emotional sop for my coworkers, or worse have other people be an emotional sop for me.
Go work for a big 4 as a consultant in your specialty? Sure you’ll work 80 hours a week and travel basically all the time, but you get a lot of latitude and professionalism in exchange for that.
My (anecdotal) observation is that this big4 "professionalism" is mostly a self-imporant delusion (probably imprinted into people by years of company culture and trainings), and that a lot of senior people in there are insufferable wankers. That's from my experience with senior managers from Deloitte and PwC.
Haha, completely true, but you get a lot of latitude and you are actually valued as an employee — unlike most salaried jobs, there is a direct correlation between your paycheck and the company’s revenue. There is also a high incentive for the company to pay to keep your skills up-to-date.
The culture in consulting has its problems, but things are getting better and we’re seeing a lot more women entering senior roles which is starting to fix some of the bad behavior that has traditionally gone on.
As for acting self-important? It takes a fucking ego to have a 27 year old kid tell a 50 year old SVP how to do his job. But as a result, people in consulting generally respect each others large egos, which gets you some degree of professionalism.
Your point of view is considered scandalous by the local audience, but I'm inclined to agree. I was born in the Soviet Union and grew up in 1990s Russia after history threw a few sucker punches in our direction. I can say from watching my parents and other adults that "shut up & do your job no matter what" was a common enough sentiment that to me it might as well be the only possible truth.
Here and now, in late capitalism, we seem to be aspiring to some other arrangement, which is commendable in itself, but I observe it with healthy skepticism. It is my responsibility to make myself happy. I'm lucky to have a boss who cares about my well-being, but I see his efforts as secondary and something to be leveraged in order to improve the company as a whole, not somehow make me happier as a person. I'll take care of that last part myself.
Edit: a late-breaking thought I would like to include. He who externalizes happiness is bound to be disappointed, as the incentive is simply missing to make others happy without asking for anything is return. Better learn to DIY happiness.
I was born in US midwest, and am in my mid 30s. I do not go to work to make friends or to be social. I will be polite, but I am there to get paid. I provide labor, and in return I receive money.
Socializing is for outside my 40 hours/week, with those I chose, not those my employer chooses. The touchy feely family feeling isn't for me.
That seems healthy. I am a newly minted manager and maybe I'm going about this the wrong way, but I try to ensure the people reporting to me are happy at work. Within the bounds of meeting the needs of the company, of course, since we are professionals. I try to encourage my people to have a healthy relationship with the office and their peers, be realistic, etc, partly because I like them as people but a certain aspect of it is that I want us all to be successful and productive as a team. As to their personal happiness it really isn't my place nor within my skills to work on. I'm not a therapist.
That's wonderful philosophizing, but if you RTFA the entire point is that it affects productivity and so it would be negligent for employers to ignore it.
A manager's job is to deliver business value. A manager's job is not to hypothetically deliver business value if their employees were less emotional.
If the manager chooses to deliver business value by hiring humans instead of robots, the manager is obligated to care about the fact they are human and help them improve their productivity, to ensure that effort the company spends training the employee is not wasted if they lose morale and leave, and so forth.
A manager who ignores these responsibilities might be great at pursuing an ideal, but their job is not pursuing an ideal. Their job is delivering business value.
If the human you hire needs to socialize to be productive, that's no different from the printer you bought needing toner to be productive. Telling a printer without toner "You're paid for your output" is shirking your responsibilities.
(There are certainly a lot of managers—and a lot of businesses—that are more interested in pursuing some philosophy of how business should be run than effectively delivering business value. They are objectively wrong.)
> You're lonely, your problem.
If it causes lower productivity, then it's the company's problem. Unless they're skilled at hiring people who don't have this problem.
> At every job I've ever worked, you're paid for your output, not to socialize.
Of course, but if socializing increases output, then aren't they the same thing?
Correct. Which is one of the reasons many people who transition to management from tech suck at it: Humans are not machines. If they have problems outside their work those problems will leak into the work and will influence it. So, you better try to help them if you expect them to work at their best capacity. Or you ignore it, bleed people out and then cry that no one there does good work, everyone quits all the time and you are such a misunderstood poor manager.
The idea that you can just hire people who will never feel lonely (or have some other problems in their life) is in itself quite amusing.
At every job I've ever worked, you're paid for your output, not to socialize.
There are three kinds of power in an organization role, expert, and relationship. Role power is actually the least effective and relationship power is the most.
It took me awhile to learn that. I've gotten a lot further in my career over the last 10 years than the 10 years before that based on building professional relationships and networks both inside and outside of work than I could have solely by becoming more of an "expert". I know people who are just as smart as I am and many who are better technically who haven't gotten as far because they don't build relationships, don't know how manage up, and can't interview well.
I work at a company that has grown and gotten very beuracratic. Other people on the team - including managers - who aren't as effective at getting things done because they have to go through official channels. I've been able to just send a message with a request directly to
a person who I knew could do it, get it done and then go through the official process for documentation.
The only thing management can do to "keep me happy" is to pay me market value and keep me on new technology so I can stay employable. If neither of those are true, I don't stay there.
I don't socialize at work to gain friends, I socialize to gain allies. I've had 5 jobs over 10 years.
I mean the fact that it does is the problem, and it shouldn't be on managers to fix it. You're lonely, your problem.
The funny thing is, for all your cynicism, the world is actually far bleaker than even you paint it. A manager sees being friends with your cow-orkers as a lever to extract unpaid overtime.
On one of my jobs the entire team was a certain nationality and spoke a different language (this was in a country where English is the default and dominant language). When they talked to me they talked in English otherwise they would talk in their own language even when having discussions about work. I felt very excluded. I tried to stay on but couldn't. I left just after three months.
I've experienced lonliness on the job but I've come to realize it has more to do with having meaningful work than meaningful relationships. If I'm doing work that is contributing and adding value I will not care at all about the people I'm surrounded by or if they even know I exist. When I'm underworked I start to feel excluded and isolated.
Currently I'm bordering on overwork and I find socializing taxing. When I work from home I do twice as much work but I don't need to sleep on the couch after work.
As a baby boomer, this would have confused me 'till recently.
I've been studying generational differences for an upcoming talk, so I'm tuned into generational attitudes.
We had a mail-list thread this past week about an employee who felt lonely. I found it hard to relate to, but someone on the thread mentioned a YouTube video by Simon Sinek, it's about Millennials in the workplace. It really clicked-- I can see how some people feel this way.
No op, but it's not surprising that someone might feel lonely in any context. What's surprising is that so many people would lack the social skills to rectify this problem that employers have created policies where they instruct your co-workers to be your "friend.". And it's equally surprising that an employee would have this expectation of their employer. It's rather juvenile, like parents setting up play dates for their kids.
You're assuming the mail-list thread was about managers ordering people to be friends with the lonely employee. Maybe that's what happened but I doubt it.
That's true, it may not have come from the top down, but it's still a foreign concept to me culturally. If I found out my coworkers were sending out communication regarding my perceived loneliness I would be mortified and GTFO asap.
As a developer, I've definitely felt lonely at work. I'd guess that it's caused by my personal feeling that development should treated as a collaborative effort by default; it's too hard to do solo most/all of the time, and yet my teammates & I are often expected/encouraged to work solo.
Inclusiveness is definitely important. I'd be interested about the following trade offs in a more practical, balance sheet, sense:
1. Does providing job security at the expense of pay increase or decrease loneliness? Obviously if the pay is too low there will be turnover, but is there an amount X, where X is not market rate, but still high enough so that if there were security people would just stay? Surely low turn over will result in more relationship formation which can be positively correlated with not feeling lonely.
2. How does a dining area and free food affect loneliness? Will it make it worse by highlighting things, or will it encourage everyone to eat in the [company provided] dining area, sparking new relationships? If both, what's the distribution?
3. If measures to reduce loneliness results in the formation of cliques, is that a positive outcome if those left out feel alienated?
In general, to what extent should employers focus on this? This reminds me of how some employers try to encourage an active lifestyle, which is generally positive, but at what point are things simply intrusive?
> How does a dining area and free food affect loneliness? Will it make it worse by highlighting things
This is my experience exactly. I'm sure at a certain company size it might help form connections, but at my larger company people arrange into cliques. It's like the high school cafeteria all over again.
I've switched to eating at my desk, not because I don't want to be social, but because it's less painful than being rejected by the cliques.
If you're at a company where you can't find a place to sit in the cafeteria because you're being rejected by cliques, holy shit. Get out of there this instant. To be honest, I'm so surprised by this statement that I can't help but feel skeptical about it, but if it's true, then you must've found one of the worst places to work in the entire world.
In my darker moments, I feel like a social cancer sometimes, and am no doubt really abrasive and unfun to hang around with some days. But even so, in the 2 decades I've been in the tech workforce, I have never felt like my coworkers were cliques of snotty teenagers looking down on me to such a degree that they wouldn't let me sit with them in the cafeteria. If this is your environment, it's not you, it's them, and you need to get out of that company ASAP. Basic adult respect should be a precondition for working at any professional workplace.
Most likely it's not that they're outright telling him to move, instead they probably show disinterest or make it clear in some other non-confrontational way that they'd rather not have him sit with them.
> but because it's less painful than being rejected by the cliques.
Have you asked to sit with these groups of people and been verbally rejected? To belong, you will need to make the social effort.
EDIT: Hey folks, I'm not trying to be rude. I am genuinely trying to help OP. If you want to join a group for lunch, walk up to them with your lunch and say "Would you mind if I join you?" Don't wait for an invitation that might never present itself. You have nothing to lose except a possible rejection (which is important to learn is minor).
Is there a particular reason you'd like to join with one, some or all of the cliques?
It's quite natural for people who get along to group together because in the group you can act and speak more freely with the friends you know. When a new person joins the discussion easily dies because everybody suddenly has to start thinking again what you can and cannot say. It doesn't mean the people in a clique would be actively rejecting you but just that they're quite happy as they are and more interested in relaxing on their lunch break rather than working to make new friends.
I'm curious if the cliques are actively rejecting you, or you're rejecting yourself by assuming they don't want you?
Just because no one has invited you to sit with them doesn't mean that you'd be unwelcome.
Does being rejected by cliques at lunch make your experience worse than be rejected by cliques in other activities at work? Would a non-cafeteria workplace, where cliques went outside to eat, or brown-bagged in the break area, or sat each at their own desk, felt less painful?
> Does being rejected by cliques at lunch make your experience worse than be rejected by cliques in other activities at work?
Fair point. I'd say the frustration comes more from the double-talk of "look how inclusive our workplace culture is: everyone eats together in the cafeteria!" The company admitting "we don't have any norms around lunch; everyone is on their own" would not be an objectively better experience, but at least would be honest.
Another option would be to have more official team, group, or project-based lunches, rather than a free-for-all, where specific members of a team privately invite other specific members of a team.
I don't mean to turn this into a rant, just adding a data point :)
> Another option would be to have more official team, group, or project-based lunches, rather than a free-for-all, where specific members of a team privately invite other specific members of a team.
That would just lead to people doing small talk and then being on their phones for the whole lunch because they aren't sitting with people they want to talk to.
> rather than a free-for-all, where specific members of a team privately invite other specific members of a team.
You might not have realized this before, or you may have, but you too can privately invite a bunch of people to lunch. Form your own clique!
Are they cliques or rather groups of friends?
1) I'm pretty sure this is how various levels of public service work. Pay below market rate, but offer extremely good job security. As a result, many people stick around and form long-term relationships. Where I can see this going poorly is when personal disputes bleed into work situations. I've worked with people whom I have disliked working with, but loved hanging out with, and vice-versa. As long as there is respect for the reason you are there (i.e. to work), it's not so bad.
2) I've never worked anywhere with free food, so I don't know if that would change things, but have worked at places with a full-service cafeteria, a lunch/break room, and no break/lunch room. The place that only had the lunch room seemed to have the most socialization, with all levels/types of staff bringing their lunch and chatting as a group. Even people who didn't bring a lunch would still pop in. Surprisingly, no real cliques ever formed (even people who came, sat and never said a word seemed very welcome).
The cafeteria workplace seemed to only attract those who needed to purchase food. Though, it did seem like more of a social place around morning coffee break (again, mostly people purchasing coffee).
The place without a lunchroom pretty much had everyone either eating at their desks or leaving for lunch. I found this pretty abysmal and I'd classify myself as an introvert. Compared to the lunchroom situation, I certainly knew less about what everyone actually did in their jobs, so it really was a net loss even in terms of productivity.
3) That's a hard one. I think it's okay for people to be left out if they choose to, but I think if your culture relies on cliques, then it will eventually drive out anyone who doesn't fit (and I'm sure at some places, that's seen as a positive).
RE:2) Anecdotal confirmations:
Worked in a large lab that had a pretty good cafeteria, where they would rotate caterers in over time. Lunch meetings were regular, and when there wasn't an actual meeting, I'd grab a co-worker or one of the project leads to have lunch with. Really laid back affairs over all, but I feel like I learned a lot during these impromptu meetings. Often, about things that had nothing to do with what we were working on, but ended up being useful. Got to meet a lot of people I wouldn't have otherwise because people would show up mid-conversation looking for a place to eat.
On the opposite end, my current job is effectively a cubicle farm. No one talks to each other unless necessary, and only a handful of people ever go to lunch together. Cliques are a fact of life here, but I'd bet the average person feels more lonely here than at the previous office.
I'm not saying it's entirely caused by the dining area. But the dining area certainly encouraged the culture at the previous office, at the least.
>2. How does a dining area and free food affect loneliness? Will it make it worse by highlighting things, or will it encourage everyone to eat in the [company provided] dining area, sparking new relationships? If both, what's the distribution?
We have a dining area that no one uses due to fear of being seen as lazy.
>"Surely low turn over will result in more relationship formation"
This might be true, but it also isn't necessarily a good thing. What kind of relationships? And with whom?
The kinds of people who will accept below-market compensation in return for "security" are likely to be relatively risk-averse, passive, disinterested and uncommitted. Which in turn would create what would be, for many people, a stale, depressing and moribund environment. Some amount of turnover is healthy. Fresh personalities, energy, ideas and perspectives spark conversation, connection and change. And the impermanence of workplace relationships is part of what makes them meaningful and worthwhile. Kind of like what mortality does for human relations on a slightly longer scale.
I think you’re projecting too much onto someome just because they accept slightly below market compensation. Yes you may filter out the superstars but many jobs do not require or really benefit from very above average performance. And Risk aversion is neutral at worst, reliability, character, conscientiousness are highly valuable in most jobs.
The jump from risk-averse to passive and disinterested is absurd. You are tying up unrelated personality traits. Just because you fancy yourself risk-taker does not mean that risk averse people are everything bad. Why people do that?
> And the impermanence of workplace relationships is part of what makes them meaningful and worthwhile.
No impermanence does not makes them relationship worthwhile. I had a lot of impermanent relationships, they are fun because everything is fresh, but not really worth much effort.
The kinds of people who will accept below-market compensation in return for "security"
You are conflating "compensation" with "salary" which is invalid. The public sector package was traditionally relatively lower salary but relatively higher pension, and there is a cash-equivalent value to other benefits as well. Job security is one. If your job is absolutely safe then you have fewer worries about saving for a rainy day for example (but still, nonzero).
>"If your job is absolutely safe"
Gonna have to stop you right there, amigo. No such job exists.
> Does providing job security at the expense of pay increase or decrease loneliness?
Hmm. I am thinking kind of orthogonal (independent) of it mostly. On one hand with high turnover, you might lose connections quicker so it's harder. On the other, the person in question might be the one moving on to a better company and thus be less lonely as a result.
> Will it make it worse by highlighting things, or will it encourage everyone to eat in the [company provided] dining area, sparking new relationships? If both, what's the distribution?
Could make it worse, definitely. I like think of it as a necessary thing -- if the person is the only one eating at their desk then they are probably missing out on important gossip. And gossip can be important - what's coming up next in projects, who is leaving. Some stuff is boring, some stupid but some important. Unfortunately it's probably better to think of it as part of the job duty but it's also kind of a forced socialization and it might help with loneliness.
> If measures to reduce loneliness results in the formation of cliques, is that a positive outcome if those left out feel alienated?
The article touches on that. It's the part about some managers just organizing Christmas parties for example, it provides for a chance for interaction but doesn't increase necessarily the chance of forming relationships.
I'd say a better way to form relationships is to get people to work together on ... actual work stuff. Problems they can think through, solve and ship together as a team.
Check out the book “First Break all the Rules”, which is based on many years of survey data.
Basically, they correlated about 20 questions that were predictive of job performance across many different verticals, from the Air Force to McDonalds to software.
The most successful managers cultivated environments where employees are friends, and generally weren’t lonely. There were other interesting factors too. It’s worth reading.
> 1. Does providing job security at the expense of pay increase or decrease loneliness? Obviously if the pay is too low there will be turnover, but is there an amount X, where X is not market rate, but still high enough so that if there were security people would just stay? Surely low turn over will result in more relationship formation which can be positively correlated with not feeling lonely.
To be honest, if you offered me a 40 hour a week max, $60k (increasing with inflation), and something similar to tenure after working there 1 year...yeah I'd take it. The core problem every adult runs in at some point is their outside-work responsibilities and long term stability is the most valuable commodity you can offer them.
That offer doesn't really exist right now, even where employees are "highly valued" like software development.
My only real stress in life is the possibility of unemployment that might require me to relocate to some place I don't want to be (like SF) with a high cost of living and high levels of urbanization.
Maybe you could look into moving to Europe. You can even live in a village if you want in Germany, since many of the world market leaders in very specific things have headquarters there.
I will keep that in mind but moving to a new country as a solution is something I'm hoping to avoid. :)
There are plenty of cities for software developers where the salary/cost of living equation makes more sense than the west coast.
There are but every time I change jobs I relocate. Hence valuing security.
My current job makes me feel very lonely. I’m not close in age to many of my coworkers and the place is very cliquey. It feels awful. I was on the verge of leaving, but actually ended up staying when I made a close friend. When that relationship dissipated, I interviewed elsewhere and put in my notice.
The social climate really makes a difference in a way I didn’t appreciate until I started this job!
I'm in the same boat. I recommend anyone reading this that feel the same way to start looking for other jobs immediately. If not for your career, at least do it for your own mental health. (I'm also leaving soon)
I haven't made friends at my job. I don't have the same interests as any of the other developers.
On the other hand, I have a group of five friends that I made at my previous job that I keep in touch with in a private Slack group and we meet for lunch once or twice a month.
I knew I was going to be a short timer at this job for various reasons and never bothered.
I do keep in touch with one former coworker at a job I had in 2011. I married her....
I personally require more, like, personal engagement with my colleagues, I guess. I want to feel like I’m working with friends, but some cultures can make it feel like I’m often working with adversaries.
Some workplaces require you to “break into” the cliques in order to progress or work on high-visibility projects. This can make career progression feel like a political issue more than a technical issue.
That said, I also coincidentally married a woman I met at work :) And also keep up with friends from old jobs. This will likely be the first job that I’ll end up leaving without keeping in touch with anyone. That’s how isolating some places can be!
Here in Poland it's very risky to connect with your colleagues. I think it's the case for all countries with low social trust rating. In theory, you're working together for common gain, because if your company is better off you should earn more and work should be easier and quality better, right? Yet in Poland people are very eager to get advantage of one another. It's got to the point where I don't trust coworkers by default. I'm helpful, but careful.
Hostile workplace culture is a thing everywhere. You don't have to and you shouldn't have to be friends with all your colleagues. Loneliness is not a problem that can or should be solved at work. You should make sure nobody is marginallized but trying to make people feel at home while they're not is deceptive, it really complicates simple things, and it's not good for anyone.
The article says we should deceive employees into thinking we're all a family so we can make more money out of them. As far as I know there's a lot of effort in that direction by the american industry (ie forcing wallmart employees to do a humiliating group dance/song at the start of their shifts).
However there's one thing the author forgets: If you actually create strong relationships in your office, you run into the danger of them unionizing! Uh-oh! Time to do a U-turn. What if your workers demand higher wages collectively? What if they protest the firing of one of their friends? So I guess now their goal becomes "how to make people think they're in good company while making sure they're not". Fortunately it's rather hard to trick people into this.
Is this a general thing in Poland? Any other Polish people feel like this?
A lot of my work is being outsourced to Poland and I am thinking I could use their distrust of each other to my advantage in some way.
My view is the opposite - Poles are more honest (which usually translates to - more whiney) at their jobs than Western people, where centuries of capitalism have taught people that it's best to keep your thoughts to yourself and pretend to be happy/content. Poles have yet to internalize this lesson.
It depends what you mean. To Poles Americans look quite fake with their smiling mask, and adjectives ranking from "good" to "awesome". The world "beautiful" sticks out like a sore thumb when you read web frontend/design blogs. Words like that are reserved for truly astonishing works. There is no expectation that you feel great all the time. Ask and you usually get an honest answer(bragging on a job interview notwithstanding). It's not like I heard about India where I heard IT workers often don't ask questions or are afraid to admit they don't understand something. There is also no strong expectation to participate in polite small talk like in UK. Gosh, it's hard to say, I'll have to travel a bit to see Poland from outside.
But leave your bike, or even an umbrella unattended for a few moments and it's likely to get stolen. If you drop money in a public place, it's very unlikely to be returned anywhere - it's seen as a windfall. Fenced houses and (multi-flat) blocks are getting VERY popular. In fact, people bring screens to beaches to separate themselves from each other (usually by family), sometimes even "reserving" spots on public beaches(they have no right). Some foreigners half-jokingly use the term "polish disease" to describe materialistic attitude of many Polish girls. Government clerks are famously unhelpful and make you do their job. Recruitment agencies are almost entirely focused on employer needs. Cheating in school is widespread and very rarely reported by classmates. You're seen as a snitch. It's similar with reporting bad drivers. Tax avoidance and frauds are more tolerated, even among politicians("Everyone does that / all political parties do it anyway"). There are many laws and rules which are not used in practice - the most spectacular example is the Smoleńsk plane crash in 2010 where most of the political elite, including the president, died.
Also keep in mind Poles working abroad are usually the most ambitious and honest ones, because they understand Westerners appreciate that. It's refreshing being able to just focus on doing a good job, and with expensive equipment.
I guess the bottom line is Poles often don't trust you, but are honest about it.
This is of course largely a product of Soviet influence (technically Poland was a part of Warsaw Pact, but NOT a part of Soviet Union) and resulting material powerty. Romania, Russia are similar but even more grim.
What is jaw-dropping to a Pole?
"I was a construction worker in Denmark. At the end of the shift, I suggested that we store our tools indoors. - Why? We'll be working in the same place." (expecting theft)
That until recent years Swedes didn't lock their homes.
In a swedish fairy tale "Moonintrolls", one of characters suggest that they repair an old boat they found, so that they can use it better or give back a nice boat if the owner shows up. The idea that you might be happy about giving back an object you put your work into like that.
That in other countries ministers delegate work and important decisions up to their subordinates, and that most of civil service and (local) administration stays when the ruling party changes. Polish politicians like to micromanage, and behavior like that is seen as sign of weakness.
Interesting read on social trust in various countries: http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/uncategorized/social-tr...
I agree with most of this (I'm a Pole, currently living in Poland). I'd say that we're closer to the world norm and the Westerners are the outliers - universal wealth on an unprecedented scale has created some paradise-like conditions in those countries. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world (most of Africa, Asia, South America, Eastern Europe) people are scamming and robbing each other left and right, which creates a justified amount of mistrust. My prediction is that further automation and globalisation will be the great leveler, and in 50 years people in the West will be considerably worse off (it's already happening, hence Trump, Brexit etc.) while the rest will improve.
You are probably right. We, members of the western civilization (Europe + America) increasingly live in a bubble. This is unfortunate, because Europe used to be open to the world and used to profit from that. I'm not in favor of exploitation, just pointing out there's barely any news from Africa, Asia, etc. Polish news are almost all about west and east. Barely any time is devoted to northern and southern neighbors.
Which rule was not used in the Smolensk crash?
What would happen to you in the workplace if you behaved like a Westerner and looked for opportunities to contribute to others' priorities, praised others' work, and shared your productivity enhancers?
You're totally correct that it's refreshing to just be able to focus on doing a good job. I work so much voluntary overtime just because I know that it's a rare time when you are someplace your contributions are needed and welcome. A lot of times you have a lot to offer and no organization that can get it to people who need it.
> What would happen to you in the workplace if you behaved like a Westerner and looked for opportunities to contribute to others' priorities, praised others' work, and shared your productivity enhancers?
I curently work in a large Western Europe organization (30k employees), which does a lot of its software development in Poland. I'd say the work is in many ways organized in a terrible way (courtesy of the higher-up geniuses in the HQ). My observation is that the rank-and-file employees in the Western Europe branches tend to more often eat shit and smile about it than people in Poland. That may be because I don't know them as well as my Polish collegues though.
ad. 1: There's an 8 chapter document "Intrukcja HEAD" (HEAD instruction) about transporting the most important officials of the country. It was established 1 year before the crash, and was partially ignored.* - the flight was meant to be organized by the chancellery of prime minister, but wasn't. The PM vs the president and the ruling party were political enemies. Instead, the flight was organized by people of the now dead president. - although the request with HEAD status was sent to the chancellery of PM, it was also sent (violating the instruction) to BOR (government bodyguards) and 36th Special Regimen of Air Transport (36. Specjalny Pułk Lotnictwa Transportowego). - the content of the request sent to the chancellery of PM was also violating the instruction (no mention of number of people, unspecified type(s) of the airplane(s), unspecified planned time of departure and arrival, unspecified dispatcher, unspecified cargo).
There's also some stuff that I don't know how to neatly translate, but suffice to say it wasn't an isolated case. When Donald Tusk, the PM at the time, earlier flew to Smoleńsk, the HEAD instruction was also partially ignored.
The reason the chancellery of PM abstained from its duties was an earlier (2008) conflict between Donald Tusk (PM) and Lech Kaczyński (the dead president), when the PM denied the request of the president, when the latter wished to fly to Brussels.
Source, in Polish: https://oko.press/ignorowanie-instrukcji-head-kancelarie-org...
There were also other problems, like insufficient training (ignoring the messages PULL UP, TERRAIN AHEAD), and recorded presence of superiors in the cockpit, pressuring the pilots to land (likely gen. Błasik's voice, but no 100% certainty).
And last, but not least, don't put all your eggs in one basket. The number and status of officials who ended up on that single plane is mind-boggling. And why so much pomp?
ad. 2: Most likely people would enjoy your productivity tips and not credit you for them. If you tried to contribute to others' priorities? There's an informal term "spychologia", from pushing down worn onto someone else. Ask someone to help you by doing unglamorous work, while you do something more spectacular. Works better if you have tits and your coworker doesn't.
I was recently applying for a job in a German company. The interviewer mentioned they have an "all hands on the deck" approach to when someone is not going to make it with a deadline: instead of making one person triple his efforts, several people do 1 hour of (voluntary) overtime. Sounds good. It was the first time I've heard about something like that, and it took me 3 years to find a job (I signed the contract today, with another company). Other than the subject of their work, it sounded like a very interesting and laid back workplace.
* Note ignoring some rules is a common theme in Polish culture. Poland is a bit anarchistic, and many laws exist mostly on paper. Like policemen not fining drivers who park cars taking over 1/3 of sidewalk. Problems are sometimes "solved" with new laws which are impractical. I'm not sure how it came to be, but I have two ideas: - the time when Poland was partitioned didn't help. All laws were occupants' laws. - earlier, in XVI century, when feudalism was at its height, Poland had two distinct classes: peasants, at least 80% of population, and noblemen. Past kings had granted noblemen numerous privileges in exchange for support of various political initiatives. In time, it resulted in a weak state, and decision paralysis. There was a famous law, "Liberum Veto", which allowed a single member of parliament (nobleman) to cancel the session. I mean it was legal, although sometimes it made others mad and the person had to run for his life. This anarchism of sorts sometimes makes life easier (mutually beneficial informal agreements), but at other times complicates it. It can also enable coteries and cartels.
What I've always been taught is when you go into work, you cease to be a person, and become a thing. You have no dreams, desires, wants, emotions, or needs (You may be hired to project an emotion, but you're not to have any authentic emotions yourself). Your sole reason for existence is to provide the labor your employer is buying.
Your own loneliness is your sole responsibility. If you don't have the information you need to do your job that is your manager's responsibility to remedy, but their job stops the instant you have the tools you need to do yours.
I haven't worked for an employer that's held that view since high school (when I bagged groceries).
I'm skeptical any successful business treats high-skilled employees that way.
I've worked as a developer where we weren't expected to talk to each other for non work related stuff. To the point where it would be brought up by managers, or even an employee pulled and told they were talking too much.
You are expected to go in, head down, do your 8 hours work, go home. Non work stuff was expected to be kept to non work hours.
I've also worked at highly social workplaces, drinking on the job, people playing guitar in office, everyone going out for lunch together, everyone felt like a good friend (and even after leaving are still good friends).
I preferred the second, I'm not sure which was more productive though...
I think the 2nd waa great few years but it probably wasn't sunstainable and I kinda understand an employer would prefer me to be a code creating robot rather than a human.
You just described two extremes, surely there is a middle ground somewhere?
This was every company I've ever worked at or consulted to, which is in large part at the root of why I went freelance. Are there really great companies with culture that treats highly-paid, highly-skilled professionals as professionals? Yes, I'm sure there are, but they are rare.
The worst are the ones that constantly say, "We're like a family here." Family of psychopaths maybe.
YMMV, I find companies in the Midwest would rather you check your empathy at the door.
You detailed my thoughts much better than I did.
Maybe it's my Midwestern upbringing, but I'd rather just get my job done than be an emotional sop for my coworkers, or worse have other people be an emotional sop for me.
> but I'd rather just get my job done than be an emotional sop for my coworkers, or worse have other people be an emotional sop for me
I don't think you have to be in THAT kind of relationship with coworkers.
>We're just one big family and, when you've been to a few domestic disputes, Littlebottom, I can assure you that you'll see the resemblance.
- Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay
Ironically not many people can bear to work with their relatives!
They are rare, but I've found myself at one so I can say with certainty that they do exist.
And it's in the company's best interest: Turnover is extremely low, which means that knowledge and talent are retained. It makes business sense.
Go work for a big 4 as a consultant in your specialty? Sure you’ll work 80 hours a week and travel basically all the time, but you get a lot of latitude and professionalism in exchange for that.
My (anecdotal) observation is that this big4 "professionalism" is mostly a self-imporant delusion (probably imprinted into people by years of company culture and trainings), and that a lot of senior people in there are insufferable wankers. That's from my experience with senior managers from Deloitte and PwC.
Haha, completely true, but you get a lot of latitude and you are actually valued as an employee — unlike most salaried jobs, there is a direct correlation between your paycheck and the company’s revenue. There is also a high incentive for the company to pay to keep your skills up-to-date.
The culture in consulting has its problems, but things are getting better and we’re seeing a lot more women entering senior roles which is starting to fix some of the bad behavior that has traditionally gone on.
As for acting self-important? It takes a fucking ego to have a 27 year old kid tell a 50 year old SVP how to do his job. But as a result, people in consulting generally respect each others large egos, which gets you some degree of professionalism.
Your point of view is considered scandalous by the local audience, but I'm inclined to agree. I was born in the Soviet Union and grew up in 1990s Russia after history threw a few sucker punches in our direction. I can say from watching my parents and other adults that "shut up & do your job no matter what" was a common enough sentiment that to me it might as well be the only possible truth.
Here and now, in late capitalism, we seem to be aspiring to some other arrangement, which is commendable in itself, but I observe it with healthy skepticism. It is my responsibility to make myself happy. I'm lucky to have a boss who cares about my well-being, but I see his efforts as secondary and something to be leveraged in order to improve the company as a whole, not somehow make me happier as a person. I'll take care of that last part myself.
Edit: a late-breaking thought I would like to include. He who externalizes happiness is bound to be disappointed, as the incentive is simply missing to make others happy without asking for anything is return. Better learn to DIY happiness.
I was born in US midwest, and am in my mid 30s. I do not go to work to make friends or to be social. I will be polite, but I am there to get paid. I provide labor, and in return I receive money.
Socializing is for outside my 40 hours/week, with those I chose, not those my employer chooses. The touchy feely family feeling isn't for me.
Exactly! That's why we have separate words for "family" and "colleagues".
That seems healthy. I am a newly minted manager and maybe I'm going about this the wrong way, but I try to ensure the people reporting to me are happy at work. Within the bounds of meeting the needs of the company, of course, since we are professionals. I try to encourage my people to have a healthy relationship with the office and their peers, be realistic, etc, partly because I like them as people but a certain aspect of it is that I want us all to be successful and productive as a team. As to their personal happiness it really isn't my place nor within my skills to work on. I'm not a therapist.
There may be an expectation at work for you to have the desire to advance within the organization, i.e. career ambition.
That's wonderful philosophizing, but if you RTFA the entire point is that it affects productivity and so it would be negligent for employers to ignore it.
What does "RTFA" mean?
Read the featured article.
Read the f(obscene gerund) article.
RTFA = Read the [Expletive] Article.
I mean the fact that it does is the problem, and it shouldn't be on managers to fix it. You're lonely, your problem.
At every job I've ever worked, you're paid for your output, not to socialize.
A manager's job is to deliver business value. A manager's job is not to hypothetically deliver business value if their employees were less emotional.
If the manager chooses to deliver business value by hiring humans instead of robots, the manager is obligated to care about the fact they are human and help them improve their productivity, to ensure that effort the company spends training the employee is not wasted if they lose morale and leave, and so forth.
A manager who ignores these responsibilities might be great at pursuing an ideal, but their job is not pursuing an ideal. Their job is delivering business value.
If the human you hire needs to socialize to be productive, that's no different from the printer you bought needing toner to be productive. Telling a printer without toner "You're paid for your output" is shirking your responsibilities.
(There are certainly a lot of managers—and a lot of businesses—that are more interested in pursuing some philosophy of how business should be run than effectively delivering business value. They are objectively wrong.)
> You're lonely, your problem. If it causes lower productivity, then it's the company's problem. Unless they're skilled at hiring people who don't have this problem.
> At every job I've ever worked, you're paid for your output, not to socialize.
Of course, but if socializing increases output, then aren't they the same thing?
Correct. Which is one of the reasons many people who transition to management from tech suck at it: Humans are not machines. If they have problems outside their work those problems will leak into the work and will influence it. So, you better try to help them if you expect them to work at their best capacity. Or you ignore it, bleed people out and then cry that no one there does good work, everyone quits all the time and you are such a misunderstood poor manager.
The idea that you can just hire people who will never feel lonely (or have some other problems in their life) is in itself quite amusing.
At every job I've ever worked, you're paid for your output, not to socialize.
There are three kinds of power in an organization role, expert, and relationship. Role power is actually the least effective and relationship power is the most.
It took me awhile to learn that. I've gotten a lot further in my career over the last 10 years than the 10 years before that based on building professional relationships and networks both inside and outside of work than I could have solely by becoming more of an "expert". I know people who are just as smart as I am and many who are better technically who haven't gotten as far because they don't build relationships, don't know how manage up, and can't interview well.
I work at a company that has grown and gotten very beuracratic. Other people on the team - including managers - who aren't as effective at getting things done because they have to go through official channels. I've been able to just send a message with a request directly to a person who I knew could do it, get it done and then go through the official process for documentation.
Have you ever been paid for eating lunch, drinking coffee or going to the bathroom?
Management is not required to keep me happy, but I'm also not required to work there.
The only thing management can do to "keep me happy" is to pay me market value and keep me on new technology so I can stay employable. If neither of those are true, I don't stay there.
I don't socialize at work to gain friends, I socialize to gain allies. I've had 5 jobs over 10 years.
I mean the fact that it does is the problem, and it shouldn't be on managers to fix it. You're lonely, your problem.
The funny thing is, for all your cynicism, the world is actually far bleaker than even you paint it. A manager sees being friends with your cow-orkers as a lever to extract unpaid overtime.
Yikes. That is bleak.
On one of my jobs the entire team was a certain nationality and spoke a different language (this was in a country where English is the default and dominant language). When they talked to me they talked in English otherwise they would talk in their own language even when having discussions about work. I felt very excluded. I tried to stay on but couldn't. I left just after three months.
I never really liked co-workers.
But I never really liked most people.
Started remote working, because it gave me more time to meet with people of my own choosing.
I've experienced lonliness on the job but I've come to realize it has more to do with having meaningful work than meaningful relationships. If I'm doing work that is contributing and adding value I will not care at all about the people I'm surrounded by or if they even know I exist. When I'm underworked I start to feel excluded and isolated.
Currently I'm bordering on overwork and I find socializing taxing. When I work from home I do twice as much work but I don't need to sleep on the couch after work.
As a baby boomer, this would have confused me 'till recently.
I've been studying generational differences for an upcoming talk, so I'm tuned into generational attitudes.
We had a mail-list thread this past week about an employee who felt lonely. I found it hard to relate to, but someone on the thread mentioned a YouTube video by Simon Sinek, it's about Millennials in the workplace. It really clicked-- I can see how some people feel this way.
What about this confuses you? Is it that someone could be lonely at work, that someone would expect not to be lonely at work, or something else?
Your confusion is as surprising to me as workplace loneliness is to you and I'm genuinely curious to see your answer.
No op, but it's not surprising that someone might feel lonely in any context. What's surprising is that so many people would lack the social skills to rectify this problem that employers have created policies where they instruct your co-workers to be your "friend.". And it's equally surprising that an employee would have this expectation of their employer. It's rather juvenile, like parents setting up play dates for their kids.
I don't see the idea that managers should assign friends in this interview. Where are you getting that from?
I was referring to this comment in the grandparent post:
>We had a mail-list thread this past week about an employee who felt lonely.
You're assuming the mail-list thread was about managers ordering people to be friends with the lonely employee. Maybe that's what happened but I doubt it.
That's true, it may not have come from the top down, but it's still a foreign concept to me culturally. If I found out my coworkers were sending out communication regarding my perceived loneliness I would be mortified and GTFO asap.
What was the 'ah ha' concept from that video? What was the difference it made in your perception?
As a developer, I've definitely felt lonely at work. I'd guess that it's caused by my personal feeling that development should treated as a collaborative effort by default; it's too hard to do solo most/all of the time, and yet my teammates & I are often expected/encouraged to work solo.