Joel Spolsky: Lunch(joelonsoftware.com) Joel has a new post up on Joel on Software talking about his take on lunch and why its important for companies to think about it. |
Joel Spolsky: Lunch(joelonsoftware.com) Joel has a new post up on Joel on Software talking about his take on lunch and why its important for companies to think about it. |
Lately, I found a friend of the same mind (or close) and he also don't succeed to integrate smoothly into the community (although better than me, but has a girl friend). I then discovered that he does spend a good amount of his time alone. He'll just get a coffee and sit their browsing on his smart phone.
After that, I take it easy finding myself alone, even if there are lot of people near me gathering, talking and laughing... It doesn't bother me any more, I'm actually better off with it.
One advantage of the open, trading-floor layout is that you can chat with the people around you, if you want.
This summer, I visited a friend at Google and stayed for lunch (the food is incredible, better than most five-star restaurants btw). That day I noticed the same problem this article highlights. Either groups are meeting during lunch, or the remaining "loners" are reading the latest tech news on their computers and appear completely unapproachable. So if you don't want to eat alone and want to make new friends, what is the optimal way to overcome these barriers?
Some Google cafeterias have tables labeled for people interested in meeting new people. Lunch can be easier when you know that anyone sitting at those tables is open to new people joining their conversations.
I did some backpacking in Europe on my own several years ago, and one of the better experiences was a hostel in Prague that provided cheap home cooked meals in a dining room with big group tables. Made it really easy to meet people and was the time when everyone made plans for the day/night, so I always had the option of attaching to a group if I wanted to. I was only there for a week, but the group of travelers there at that time actually became fairly close knit, and I'm certain it was primarily due to the group meals.
1) Having lunch together 2) Having booze together 3) Going out together regularly
People that have difficulties socializing will probably benefit as well from a more informal setting. Some other people are so introverted that they will not -- but then they probably are not going to be good team players for that reason, no?
We have multiple professional chefs who serve the entire San Francisco, cooking only sustainable, locally grown ingredients. Please ping me if you want to chat first.
But if I reflect upon past job experiences, more often we (at least a good bit of the team) ate lunch together, the greater and more harmonious the team experience was.
Was it lunching together that made you a harmonious team? Or was it the good teamwork that lead to wanting to spend free time together as well as professional time?
Kind of like a snowball rolling downhill…
The problem is that at some point, I simply run out of people :( I am not that much of a social person who comes up to random people and socializes with them very well, so its really hard for me now, I'm not getting my daily dose of talking to people, its maddening.
Talking about work or not is irrelevant. What is important is that the conversation is completely friendly, enjoyable by all, not stressful, and does not in any way require immediate action. Also it means that at any point we can go off on a completely different direction talking one moment about building software and the next about how cats decide that your keyboard is a backscratcher.
To be honest, the lack of socializing is demoralizing and depressing :(
With that said, as I was reading the article, I kept thinking to myself, "The conditions where what Joel is saying hold true, and have the most benefit, are ones where you have a bunch of young adults, say early 20's or late teens, with lots of energy, lots of free time, a fairly simple life outside of work, little roots, and a sort of bright-eyed and arguably naive sense of wonder about things. Because then, by golly, you're just gonna lurv having lunch in a cafeteria with all your other young coworkers because you can goof around and talk about the latest Ruby PHP AJAX Agile blah blah blah blah or pop culture thing." And so I keep reading, and then there's this photograph of, ostensibly, their staff at the cafeteria table. And I see a lot of early 20's or late teens folks. Nailed it. Case closed.
Which isn't to say that older adults wouldn't like it. They do, clearly, sometimes. But when you're older and/or more experienced, or have a wider variety of interests, or more demands on your time, you're much more likely to want to either (a) spend time with friends/family during that period (meet them?), or (b) zone/veg out, or (c) knock out some non-work chores (appointment scheduling, calling people back, etc.), and so on. And bantering about tech stuff, again, further, in every spare moment, really grows old after a while. Once a geek, always a geek, but after you've done it for a decade or more, day in, day out, as a day job, a lot of people want to "claw back" as much non-tech/non-geek stuff then can into their lives, wherever they can find it. Speaking from direct experience anyway: doing mass grubs with all my corporate coworkers was kinda fun in my early 20's, but really loses its attraction by your 30's and beyond. Many people are just not that interesting to hang out with. And geeks, especially younger geeks, are often associated with annoying conversations and choice of topics -- though they usually mellow out with age.
In my experience, when my workspace has been more quiet/isolated, I've enjoyed lunch as an opportunity to get to know colleagues, wrap my head around what's going on, and otherwise get my quota of human contact for the day.
On the other hand, in more "social" work environments, i.e. stereotypical startup open floor plan, lunch is a nice opportunity to escape, walk in the park, watch kids chasing pigeons, reset my brain, process the morning, and figure out the rest of the day.
As Joel is a huge advocate of private offices in the work environment, the social lunch is a natural compliment to that.
I'm one of those people who eats lunch alone everyday, mostly just to take a break from work and catch up on my reading.
So the statement that bothered me the most was this one: "Maybe they’re reading a book or checking their email while they eat so they don’t look sad"
I don't understand why so many people think that reading a book is only something you do, when you don't have anything else better to do. I read 2-3 books a month and lunchtime is when I get a vast majority of my reading done. It annoys me to no end when people interrupt me because they think I’m “lonely”. No, I’m READING! If I was looking for conversation, the book would be closed and I would be looking around to make eye contact. What part of the whole nose-in-a-book-with-a-totally-engrossed-expression do you not understand?
Having said that, I do think Joel simply makes the office environment conducive to eating together. I just hope he doesn't look down on people who don't take advantage of it.
I work with some loud opinionated people all day, and look forward to my quiet walk around a park each day. Often I'm walking on complicated problems, and the last thing I need is an hour of listening to pointless arguments about movies or whatever.
Never work with or hire someone who you wouldn't want to run into at 3am.
That's where I was going with this.
However, I'm an introvert, and I pair program nearly every day. This tends to leave me wanting a nice break in the middle of the day where I can have some time alone. Also, my idea of a good/healthy lunch usually doesn't intersect with any sort of work-provided lunch, if such a thing is being provided.
We ate together every day. Every day of the week, it was someone's duty to make lunch. I mean that, make it. You started an hour before lunch, went to the kitchen and made a meal. Generally a full hot meal. We got every variety you could think of - people enjoyed the time out creating someting different, something else for their co-workers to enjoy, and it Worked.
We got to sit outside, in the garden, next to the pool, and eat lunch (and yes, there was beer). And if it was Friday, well. Then we started a fire, and had some more beer. And there may have been instruments. And our respective children running about.
Not bad for a bespoke dev company. Not bad at all.
To address some of the other points raised in the comments -
No-one was forced to be there, if they wanted to go out for lunch they could. Few did, and rarely. More important than an individual's 'desire to associate' is whether they fit in. If they don't, they likely don't belong on that team. Ditto for if they can't communicate honestly (positively or negatively) about/with peers/managers.
P.S. FC is a small company with offices literally adjacent to the New York Stock Exchange. That might meaningfully adjust one's perceptions of the amount of resources they have for a problem like this.
The caterer is great about not repeating meals very often (we probably go 2-3 weeks before seeing the same thing twice). Most everything is healthy, there's always a vegetarian option, salads, etc.
Some other reasons beside the obvious social ones:
1. If you aren't working on the same project you can use these lunch-discussions to generate ideas.
2. You can ask for feedback on any descision from people that are not actually involved in your project.
3. If you are working at a company where you can actually influence the company's principles, rules and processes you can make your job even better by improving the company's behavior. Which is far more fun if you are not doing it alone.
There are probably more reasons. This article is really missing some substance beside the psychological impact of social interactions. Common lunch can also provide value to the company itself.
I would detest it; I like to choose who I spend my spare time with, and for lunch that's often alone. Sometimes I go and have lunch with someone I consider a friend. Being just the two of us at least opens the window for good discussions.
Nothing against coworkers, really.
But it's hard to comfortably talk about anything else than work or perhaps some impersonal superficialities with people who aren't your friends in the deepest sense of the word. And I certainly do mind talking about work or impersonal superficialities when I'm supposed to have a nice time off to enjoy some food. It takes a special group where all members can talk openly about themselves without boring or irritating others; not going to happen at work.
One knows a friend when one sees one, and they're rare to come by. So the situation where most of your coworkers would also happen to be your friends is nearly impossible unless you only have one or two coworkers. I have one friend at work, another who's a very good acquaintance, but often I just hook up with some other friend not from where I work.
Also, I can vouch for the fact that cafeterias at Microsoft are NOT cheap - quite the opposite actually. You can get a better deal almost anywhere outside campus.
LOL @ "Excuse me, I’d love to introduce myself to you, but it’s very important that I update my cabbage."
When I worked at a company, I used lunch as a chance to go out into the sun and maybe meet a random nice girl. Don't date people at work, they say ... and they're probably right. Sometimes I would invite my co-workers to a new place. Why eat in the same cafeteria all the time?
I basically used lunch as a social building time. but that's just me, I'm kind of bored just eating by myself.
1. your mouth isn't stuffed and you can and want to talk during smoking. It's reflexive - as soon as you light the cigarette you're looking for a conversation;
2. you have more pauses per day;
3. the pauses are shorter;
Are there any downsides? Well, some say it's unhealthy... Anyway, I'm not smoking anymore, but back when I was, we solved lots of problems and came up with tons of ideas while smoking.
1. Expensive
2. Stinky
3. Addictive
:)
1. I don't want to talk about work at lunch.
2. I want to get out of the office and get some fresh air.
3. I often want to get away from the very people that Joel suggests spending time with on my break.
4. I'm a "food outlier". I hate pizza, deli, and fast food. I won't eat it away from work. Why should I eat it there?
5. Sometimes I want a beer with my lunch.
6. Sometimes I just want to close my eyes for 5 minutes.
7. If my work mates are talking about something other than work, I'm probably not interested. I'd rather chew razor blades than talk about traffic, weather, casino gambling, baseball, real estate taxes, gun control, politics, or Dancing with the Stars. I'd rather shoot myself than hear anything about their children.
8. If I am going to talk about work, I will want to bitch about the boss. Tough to do if he/she is there.
9. If I am going to talk about work, I want everyone else to talk freely and openly. This never happens. They will bitch about anyone else if they're not there, but when we're all together, they act like everything is just peachy. Phoneys.
10. "Enforced association" is phoney. I'd rather just make my own friends at work or out of work. So what if it appears to be a clique? All that means is that we are humans acting naturally.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I've always detested these "team-building" initiatives that intrude into my own private social life. To every company that tells its employees that "we're all a big family": I have my own family, thank you very much.
At the best place I've ever worked, the whole product team would frequently have lunch together. We were happy to do so and we did it on our own, because we really liked each other, not because the company tried to "cultivate" this habit.
You know what that company did right? It made sure to hire top-notch people. When you're surrounded by people who are smart, capable and interesting, when you're surrounded by people whose achievements constantly challenge you to do better, when you're surrounded by people you respect and admire, then there's no need to worry about lunch.
> You know what that company did right? It made sure to hire top-notch people. When you're surrounded by people who are smart, capable and interesting, when you're surrounded by people whose achievements constantly challenge you to do better, when you're surrounded by people you respect and admire, then there's no need to worry about lunch.
Totally, totally agreed. I enjoy grabbing lunch -- and even going out for dinner/drinks -- with my coworkers. Why? Because I work with a bunch of awesome people. None of us have to do it, but we do it anyways.
Who suggested eating together the first time?
If no one takes the initiative, it might not happen, even if everyone would enjoy it, given the chance. I think Joel is just trying to create an environment where getting invited is the default.
Of course, there is the problem of creating a social obligation for those who really do want to eat alone. It's a tough balance to achieve.
It seems like you mostly object to one line in Joel's post:
when new people start work at the company, they’re not allowed to sit off by themselves in a corner
I agree with you that it sounds a bit Draconian. But I don't think that was Joel's primary point. It's more of an implementation detail. He's contrasting his efforts with other environments, where people don't naturally get included. Point being, by deliberately defaulting to inclusion, corporate culture can be improved. You might disagree with his implementation technique, but I think his objective is noble.
The overarching risk Joel is highlighting is the risk of "programming by accident" applied to corporate culture -- as is done at many companies.
My reading was that this was not an employer rule, but a part of their employees' inclusiveness, wanting to invite new people.
I actually subscribe to the view that lunch is free time, and because of this I agree with the parent comment and disagree with Joel dictating my lunch choices. At the end of the day, everyone wants to get something different out of their free time, including their free time at lunch.
- Some people want to relax, so then getting out of the office is the natural choice for them.
- Some people want to socialize and get to know their co-workers better, so going to lunch with the team is the natural choice.
- Some people want to have interesting conversations, so they seek people with similar interests to talk about the topics that are close to their hearts (it's the evil cliques, I tell you!).
- Some people want to use lunch for business and get outside their department to interact with internal clients and figure out their pain points.
It's all about what you want to get from your free time at lunch, and different people want different things.
Joel dictating my lunch choices
Personally I think this is an utterly ridiculous idea. Perhaps you love it. Perhaps many others do too. But perhaps also there are those of us who want to spend their lunchtimes not socialising but meditating; who want to be alone rather than with others; who want get outside and have a change of scenery. Gosh, perhaps they even want to meet other people for lunch! As shocking as it may seem to you, all of these things are entirely compatible with enjoying one's job.
At my last job (which I can only I assume I must have hated, although to be honest it didn't seem like it at the time) I almost always went out for lunch, on my own. Sometimes I made a sandwich that morning; often I bought something from the market. I bought a coffee; I took my time. I thought about the problems I was working on, and often, it was the most productive time of the whole day. I figured out the architecture of the applications I was building, and wrote code in my head. When I got back to the office, I sat down at the computer and typed it in. In fact, I'd probably go so far as to say that if I'd been sitting down and chatting while I had lunch, my overall productivity would have dropped precipitously.
This is by no means an argument against socialising with one's coworkers; it's not even an argument against having lunch with them. All I'm saying is that we're not all like you.
Applying the concept of love to something as mundane as a job is ridiculous. Just a couple of generations ago, a job was a job was a job? Why, because a job meant survival. You either work your ass off, or you and your family starve. Did all these people love the hard labor, getting up at 4am to tend to a withering field? These generations were much more fatalistic about life and accepted bad things as an inevitable part of life.
Of course, nowadays, the idea that someone tolerates something stressful or taxing is seen as ludicrous.
You work at a company similar to some I've worked at. The day is constant interruption i.e. low-quality conversation and low-quality work, so lunch feels like more of the same and you seek the pleasant contrast of actually having some time to yourself for once.
So, you and Joel are seeking the same thing, except his company is better run than your boss's company so the quiet and noisy times are in the right places.
Yup. Now I wear Bose headphones (the kind which seal around your ear, but no noise cancellation). Incredible productivity listening to jazz all day, feels like a vacation.
I think Joel has the right idea if you want to inspire a cult-like work environment which is probably very good for getting things done, but I worry that these type of things also cause a group think, as you notice people start sharing the same opinions about everything because of peer pressure.
Do you realize the hypocrisy of what you are saying? You criticizes that taking things literally is bad by taking Schmidt's comments literally.
I don't see anything depressing about having a walk in the sun, and then eating whatever I like, while either focusing on the food or a book or whatever I actually want to.
And then there's this prevalent assumption that this means I wouldn't get along with my colleagues, or that I would hate my job. Well, you're wrong, I'm just a person that needs actual alone time. Not headphones-on-head simulated alone time (I actually rarely do that) but real alone time when the nearest coworker is half a mile away.
I don't need to work with best friends, but if I hated spending any social time with my co-workers I would find another job.
Most people had pretty common answers ("A smile, a greeting, etc") but one engineer said something that really confused the class: "Just don't bother me." That answer instantly expanded my understanding of team interaction. He wasn't saying it to be rude-he sincerely meant that letting him concentrate on his own business was a sign of endearment.
Most people enjoy (or, at least, don't mind) the lunches, group activities, etc. but some people don't. The job of management is to cultivate a productive group environment. Whether this includes regular group activities or not depends upon the individuals in the group.
I don't agree with all your points but being constrained to a work environment for a social lunch is ridiculous.
Alternatively you might try finding a job where you don't hate your boss.
For me lunch is a time to stop thinking about work and get out of the office.
If people don't like sitting together at lunch, all you do is force them to think about creative things to say rather than letting them rest their mind and come back to work more productive after lunch.
It's another one of those time where I don't agree with Joel.
It also leaves another thirty to excuse yourself and take a hike.
I like to spend some of my lunches reading a book. It's relaxing, keeps me from thinking about work, and let's face it, when you get busy, reading for pleasure is often one of those things that gets pushed aside.
It isn't, really. Proximity is a pretty good predictor of friendship or relationships -- partly for the purely mechanical reason that you need to be near to someone to relate at all, but partly because repeated exposure to people makes them less threatening and therefore more likeable. It's why, when I first got to university, I made a point of only sitting next to beautiful classmates.
"Familiarity breeds contempt" is wrong.
It should be: "Familiarity breeds".
"Enforced association" sounds just like something that would come from someone who could say the following, without irony and without laughing, years after leaving junior high:
"...particularly Junior High, where who you eat with is of monumental importance. Being in any clique, even if it's just the nerds, is vastly preferable than eating alone."
But, for those rare times when I might eat at work, I like the idea of a few long tables, for the reasons Joel outlined. It might solve some awkward problems for some people, and I don't see the harm in it for the rest.
I don't even think there's social pressure to go to lunch. People do because they enjoy it. Sorry if this wasn't clear from the article. It's not a weird cult where I'm forcing introverts into cult-like hanging out with people that they hate or already spend too much time with. That would be inconsistent with our goal of making a humane, friendly, and fun workplace, which was the point of the article.
We very rarely talk about work at lunch. I've never met anyone who visited us for lunch and thought that it was weird. I have met some pretty anti-social people in my time and some of them work for us and somehow they don't seem to mind sitting at the table during lunch and listening to everyone else enjoying the conversations.
I'm not down on his idea of eating lunch together - it's probably fun and productive. But if someone spots me eating lunch by myself while reading (a book, a magazine, on my phone, on my computer), it's not because I "don't like people," or, sadder, that I pretend not to like people because I've been rejected socially. It's because I find dealing with people all day somewhat wearying and I enjoy having time to myself doing things that I like, such as catching up on reading I can't do during work hours.
At lunch, people rarely seem to talk about work (or at least, in a specific "x,y,z tasks need to be done" kind of way), and generally talk more about topics I can only really describe as technology and liberal arts. We don't really talk sports or reality tv, as pretty much no one in the office watches.
After lunch usually a few people play Street Fighter 4 for 20-30 minutes or so in our common area which adjoins the lunch room.
When i interned at pentagram's ny office, one of the nice things was lunch, which was served tue-thu. It was totally optional and you could eat with members from your team or others, whatever. It sounds similar to what you're describing and i thought it worked really well, i liked it, and it always bummed me out a little when it wasn't there on those bookend days. sometimes i'd be busy during lunch and there might be something waiting in the kitchen or i'd go out to eat with a friend.
I don't think it really works if you force this sorta thing, but if the food is compelling (i really liked the cheese, personally) and everyone's on good terms, i think the staff lunch works really well. the exception here is if there's a toxic team member or individual, which i think really sours the experience and which many people may be also reacting to.
When i worked as a line cook, staff lunches were also equally gratifying, but for entirely different reasons.
I work for Google in one of the larger offices (New York). Here we have several cafeterias. You go at anytime (in the meal times), take what you want, eat it there or eat it at your desk.
You can eat with team mates, by yourself, with friends from other teams, with random strangers or whatever.
I love this for several reasons:
1. There is obviously the cost aspect (not having to pay for lunch) but for me this is probably the least important part;
2. It saves so much time. Other places I've worked, going out to lunch means 30-60 minutes for a lunch break. Here you can eat and be back at your desk, if you want to, within a few minutes. Waiting for elevators, waiting in line, etc are all such incredible time wasters;
3. When choosing where to go and what to get for lunch, you're basically asking me to make decisions I don't care about. This I hate. Here I simply choose what cafeteria to go (typically the closest one) and take from the selection. I don't have to decide about where to go, what to get. I simply taken what's (generously) offered.
(3) for me is probably the most important. This one applies to software and hardware too and is (IMHO) one of the key reasons for Apple's success: Apple is unafraid and unapologetic about making most decisions for you. These decisions are right for most people most of the time.
Joel had an old blog post on this (probably the famous "Controlling Your Environment Makes You Happy" one that everyone should read) that said something like this: every option you give someone forces them to make a decision. I would go on to add that every decision has a cognitive cost, which simply annoys the decider if they're deciding on something they don't really care about.
Now, on a smaller scale I can see work lunches being a problem. If you need to be there at a set time, have limited opportunity for mingling or your team is so small that if you don't want to get stuck with someone (eg you don't like them or you simply don't want to talk about work).
So I see edw519's point. On a sufficiently large scale however, provided meals are fantastic.
I'm sure anyone who has ever worked in a team where things weren't going so well has tried the whole "let's go to lunch together!" thing but it's never a solution.
Good teams tend to eat lunch together = true. Good teams are good because they eat lunch together = false.
A good team evolves from a consistent and careful approach to hiring and organisation and when a manager groups people together based on common principals, approaches and motivating factors. Or they form themselves when people who realise they see eye to eye decide to team up and build stuff.
If people who don't agree on the basics or just plain don't get along get together and try to be productive, there will always be that loss of focus and resentment when compromises have to made. Getting together for one hour a day to make small talk doesn't change that.
All it takes is one off-color joke.
And good luck with your 'one big happy lunch' when there's a rift.
Now Alan Chynoweth mentioned that I used to eat at the physics table. I had been eating with the mathematicians and I found out that I already knew a fair amount of mathematics; in fact, I wasn't learning much. The physics table was, as he said, an exciting place, but I think he exaggerated on how much I contributed. It was very interesting to listen to Shockley, Brattain, Bardeen, J. B. Johnson, Ken McKay and other people, and I was learning a lot. But unfortunately a Nobel Prize came, and a promotion came, and what was left was the dregs. Nobody wanted what was left. Well, there was no use eating with them!
Over on the other side of the dining hall was a chemistry table. I had worked with one of the fellows, Dave McCall; furthermore he was courting our secretary at the time. I went over and said, "Do you mind if I join you?" They can't say no, so I started eating with them for a while. And I started asking, "What are the important problems of your field?" And after a week or so, "What important problems are you working on?" And after some more time I came in one day and said, "If what you are doing is not important, and if you don't think it is going to lead to something important, why are you at Bell Labs working on it?" I wasn't welcomed after that; I had to find somebody else to eat with! That was in the spring.
In the fall, Dave McCall stopped me in the hall and said, "Hamming, that remark of yours got underneath my skin. I thought about it all summer, i.e. what were the important problems in my field. I haven't changed my research," he says, "but I think it was well worthwhile." And I said, "Thank you Dave," and went on. I noticed a couple of months later he was made the head of the department. I noticed the other day he was a Member of the National Academy of Engineering. I noticed he has succeeded. I have never heard the names of any of the other fellows at that table mentioned in science and scientific circles. They were unable to ask themselves, "What are the important problems in my field?"
The office is generally quiet except for lunch. Lunch gets pretty loud when Fog Creek and Stack Exchange gather around two long tables to eat great food. Sometimes we talk about work, but most of the time it's off-topic. Occasionally people eat at their desks, but most of the time everyone is together for lunch.
The people I work with are incredible and I'm excited to join them for lunch every single day. Perhaps I get an extra boost at lunchtime because I'm an extrovert, but I think even the introverts enjoy this time together with great people.
I see a lot of comments here about how awful it is that introverts are forced to sit with others at lunch. I suppose that's possible, but I don't get the slightest impression from anyone that they'd rather be eating alone. Since most developers are shielded from distractions most of the day and are heads-down in code, lunch allows them to connect socially with other people at the company.
Maybe you'd have to experience lunch with great coworkers day-in and day-out to understand Joel's perspective. I couldn't agree more with what he wrote.
But everyone else tended to bunch together. (The boss actually vetoed that, requiring that at least 1 person remain in the tech room. (Which was me, obviously.) After the team grew, it became '3' for the requirement.) They would all have lunch together, going somewhere they decided on, or playing pool upstairs in the breakroom.
It was obviously something that was strengthening them as a team, and despite my anti-social tendencies, I really wanted to join them.
I don't doubt for a minute that Joel is on the money with this issue.
While we all need our times off, a team needs to mesh well enough to be able to eat with each other at least a few times a week. If that can't happen, there's something profoundly wrong with the team.
If "Joe" doesn't ever want to eat with the team, I would prefer not to work with "Joe", given the choice. I'd like to work with humans, not with "Joe who doesn't want to talk about anything but work".
Well, that's how I feel. Others may differ.
From then on I realized that the culture was that everybody always eats together there. That way I got to know loads of people, many of whom I otherwise never would've talked to because they'd work in an entirely different department. This is just 1 example of the awesome culture at IKEA.
At my current job, I'm sad, because generally I don't have anyone to do that with, as most people are only interested in empty socializing.
Frankly I'm so uninterested in my current job, I'd rather eat while working and go home that much earlier. Which is sad, but there you have it.
Going to lunch with people affords me the opportunity to hear them complain about their job. Sometimes, although they might not realize, their complaints are things that I can fix for them. They're my best source of ideas for projects.
"GUH! I keep asking $so_and_so for new $office_supply, but I guess we're out of it, WTF!?"
Hmm...maybe we need an inventory tracking system for the office supplies?
"$so_and_so is gone today, and she is the only one with the $excel_spreadsheet on her computer. It sucks because I can't get ahold of her and I need $excel_spreadsheet!"
Well how can we solve this? Why aren't they using the file server for this stuff?
And so on.
"Where do you work?"
"HP"
"Oh, I have a problem with my printer/laptop"
"Actually, I work on superdome specific optimizations for the HPUX compiler."
"So why does printer ink cost so much?"
....
Being compelled to have lunch with colleagues every day sucks. Sometimes you are feeling cranky, want some fresh air, need to run errands, or have a hot date.
Not having the opportunity to lunch with colleagues also sucks. It provides a great opportunity for employees to get to know each other, make friends, and informally discuss company business.
Seems the onus is on the company to make lunch pleasant, and perhaps to steer newcomers into the middle of the crowd. After that, create the kind of environment where no one feels compelled to do anything, but employees want to eat with each other at least a lot of the time.
This isn't so quotidien, but still has a bonding effect, diffusing group tensions while satisfying the need for self-time.
I think daily mandatory would be weird, but I'd be up for 1-2 days a week where the team meets over food.
There is nothing better than a 2-hour team lunch in a park, on nice sunny day. You don't need to do it every day, or even every week, but it has many of the advantages without robbing people of their personal time (which is what lunch break is meant to be).
This strikes me way too much of the, "I see people doing something I don't do, so there must be something wrong with them." mentality.
I like leaving the office. Go outside for a good long, quiet walk along the creek to think about non-work stuff. Or going home and enjoying some left overs.
When I come back to the office, I'm fully refreshed and ready to jump right back into things.
Just because you get lonely eating alone doesn't mean everybody does.
"Being in any clique, even if it’s just the nerds, is vastly preferable than eating alone."
This is just bullshit. I don't want to be part of a clique. Or a group. Or anything of the sort. My lunch time is a time to get AWAY from people and recharge. Take that away from me and I get stressed out and my productivity suffers massively.
"For loners and geeks, finding people to eat with in the cafeteria at school can be a huge source of stress."
For a lot of us, feeling pressured into "socializing" because some bigwig decided that it's good for us is a huge source of stress. Just leave us be! Please! It's my time, so let me do my thing. Alone.
There goes my career at Fog Creek!
Ultimately, I'd say it depends a lot on who your coworkers are. If you enjoy your coworkers, you will enjoy lunchtime with them and it won't be a chore. On the other hand, if they annoy you the second they open their mouth...
Some days I don't even feel like eating at lunch, and prefer to have a late lunch in the afternoon.
And why the compulsion to sit with people that I already interact with the entire day? Nothing wrong with being social with your co-workers, but it ought to be natural. This isn't kindergarten.
People often need a bit of space in order to work together better.
Also, in a group > 2 there's huge potential for conversational drift. So, if two people want to talk about a certain topic, it becomes too easy to derail.
Embrace the quiet.
It makes us closer as a team and some of our best ideas come out over lunch when we're not trying to brainstorm or think about business issues.
It's the idea of making it mandatory that I consider domineering.
Great for a cult ... not so good for herding cats.
Sometimes we talked about work, and sometimes not. When we did, we often discussed higher level stuff rather than quotidian matters. We had our boss there, so anything we decided at lunch was ready to go ahead with.
Back at the office we almost never had to have meetings, because we didn't need them. This alone is pure gold.
Outside of work some of us were actively friends, and others not. But this really didn't change lunch. Nobody was forced to go to lunch, and there was no unwritten rule that non-lunchers were outsiders. It's that lunch was pleasurable, relaxing, with good food, and we naturally talked about what we had in common.
Since that time it's never quite reached that level, but I've come close occasionally. If you've never experienced it I imagine that it might be hard to grasp how nice it can be.
I think some of what I've said above is inline with what Joel is talking about, but it's a slightly different take. Make of it what you will.
The idea that new starters are "not allowed to sit by themselves in a corner" is draconian, and in my case, it would prove counterproductive. It would make me feel like I was back in school, being told where to sit by my teacher. This is not the mindset you want to instil in your employees.
I think the best approach is to provide a working environment where people have the opportunity to gather together. Those that want to socialize can do so, and those that prefer periods of solitude aren't made to feel guilty for spending time alone.
Fog Creek has pretty obviously done that; it's one of their top priorities. I've worked at companies where lunch is communal and companies where it isn't, and it seems to me that the difference has less to do with personality types and more to do with cohesion.
Put differently, the types of teams who want to eat lunch together are the types of teams you should want to be on. The company shouldn't need to enforce it; they should just help to facilitate it.
So perhaps that's what "cohesion" really means in this context: hire a bunch of extroverts. Bully for Joel.
There are introverted people who are largely introverted because they find the dance of formal social interaction puzzling or unrewarding. Once that's taken care of for them, they're perfectly happy interacting with others and crave being social.
Then there are sorts who are fine with social interaction but rebel against perceived social obligation or pressure to enjoy or do something. They become angry at this pressure and instead choose to alienate themselves.
I don't think I'm necessarily in the last group. However, I bristle at the idea of not being able to have my own personal time to daydream without interruption while I cram food into my fat idiot face.
Sometimes I want to read the Bible at lunch. I don't mind if we talk shop about which chapters we're reading, which Biblical story best fits our challenges at work, or maybe even discuss differing viewpoints from differing faiths, etc, but a lot of times reading the Bible requires some personal concentration and contemplation.
In that case, I wouldn't mind eating at a big table - just don't expect me to join in talking about the latest movies, or which MacBook Pro is better to buy, or which web server we should use.
For me, I can handle reading in solitude while also being in the middle of a group. If the group of coworkers can understand and accept that idea, then I'm all for eating together.
However, if my religion makes other people at the table uncomfortable, I'd rather sit and lunch on my own.
Why on earth would I want to spend it jammed shoulder to shoulder with people chewing and talking about work?
Typically, I go for a walk and get some errands done. Or sit quietly and reflect. Or I'll go have lunch with non-work friends.
Occasionally I'll go out with work friends.
Sounds like pretty strong social pressure to me.
It sounded good to me.
Other people are reading it as a dictat. It sounded bad to them.
But Joel just explained what he meant explicitly, you can't keep on challenging him after that.
It could definitely get lonely if a new person starts and they don't develop a regular lunch routine with a group when they are used to it (from their previous job?).
People who actually prefer to sit alone and aren't making this up should be able to sit alone (or do their own thing).
The reason that lunch here works so well is because the people we hire are fun and enjoyable people (even the introverts) so you don't have to pretend to like the other people at the lunch table, you actually do.
On your assertion that Joel is an introvert:
[...] but you'll also see a distressing number of loners eating by themselves.
Distressing? Really? I don't think an introvert would say that, and his later assertion that
Being in any clique, even if it's just the nerds, is vastly preferable than eating alone.
, and the "obligated to pretend" language, seems to indicate that he's an extrovert. I'm not sure if he's claimed to be an introvert, but if so, it's a pretty weird juxtaposition.
Then again, I didn't eat with all of my coworkers, just my friends.
There's obviously some upfront extra consumption of energy in getting to know new co-workers, but at least to me that's well worth the price.
(I actually do work at home now, but I've worked in office environments in the past, which I've liked fine, not least because I got to spend lunchtime when, where, and with whom I chose.)
In my case, I like to take little breaks when I need to so don't tend to work in 2 solid 4 hour blocks so I'll be in the office quite awhile. Plus if I'm just going to go home and catch up on a couple of shows on Hulu, I may as well do that in the office. It's nicer than my apartment. :) I do live in walking distance to the office too.
But I guess my main point is that I'm not clock-watching. I leave when I have something else to do and/or feel like I've done what I need to do. I like what I do. I'm not waiting for the clock to hit 5 so I can leave. YMMV.
Honestly this is another huge positive for me. I once worked at a place where I worked from 7 to 4 with half an hour for lunch (due to market times and a time difference). The rest of the team turned up at 9-9:30 and all they noticed was I left at 4 and I was called up on it. The net result was I turned up at 9, left at 5-5:30 and took an hour for lunch (resigning a month or two later).
Google, at least in my limited experience (I've only been here ~6 months), is much more results-oriented. We trust you to do what you need to do. I know some guys that routinely turn up at 1pm or later or skip a weekday and work on Saturday instead. I've seen no issues of "face time".
I know I work longer than a 40 hour week, sometimes substantially longer. But I don't mind. I have no other pressing responsibilities pulling me away. For those that do, it doesn't seem to be an issue.
But in the absence of responsibilities pulling you elsewhere (which are perfectly understandable) if you're watching the clock, IMHO you're probably in the wrong profession.
Otherwise, I'd rather spend those thirty minutes interacting with my co-workers and relaxing.
Either way, 30-60 minutes are not wasted, every day from your life.
The key part is "if you want to".
Some days I use the extra time just to get more done, because it's crunch time. Some days I use the extra time to get home earlier. Some days I spend lunch-time playing soccer and grab something on the way back to my desk. Most days I enjoy a relaxed lunch.
The best thing is that I have choices. It just so happens that the easiest choice is usually to round up some co-workers and walk down to the closest cafe :-) But nobody is going to say anything if I want to do my own thing and have some time to myself.
> Applying the concept of love to something as mundane as a job is ridiculous
Please, speak for yourself. You might find it ridiculous, you might not think it important to do something you love, and you'd be joining the 99.999% of people out there who live their lives treating the vast majority of their waking hours as being somehow irrelevant to happiness. But consider this - you might be wrong.
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Russell
>Just a couple of generations ago, a job was a job was a job? Why, because a job meant survival. You either work your ass off, or you and your family starve. Did all these people love the hard labor, getting up at 4am to tend to a withering field? These generations were much more fatalistic about life and accepted bad things as an inevitable part of life."
Yes - some generations ago, work meant misery for the majority of people but - newsflash - we're not a couple of generations ago. We have experienced miraculous changes in the way the majority of people live, and it would be quite the insult to all those who have struggled to change things to say 'well it was misery generations ago, so why treat it any differently now?' - I can't think of a more retrograde or negative attitude. A few generations ago people died from simple infections - so why bother administering antibiotics? You could go on in that vein.
For some of us there is more to engaging in a certain activity than its ends, where the work itself transcends its purpose and becomes a pleasure in itself - a craftsman who really cares about his work sees the world very differently from a administrative functionary whose work is, by definition, mundane, repetitive and meaningless to them.
It's not all jobs, hell it's very few jobs out there, and certainly not for everybody - not everybody has it in them, or even the desire, to love their work but for those of us that do it is a very real possibility.
A lot of the problem I have with your attitude is that, for the minority who do see work as more than just a means-to-an-end, it is quite a struggle to fight against the prevailing attitude that you demonstrate and I really find it surprising that an HNer feels that way, and is especially frustrating for me as I am stuck in a job I emphatically am very unhappy in, fighting and struggling to get myself up to a level of ability where I can get a job in which I can practice my craft happily, and as a result I am considered fairly mad by a chunk of my friends + family.
pg puts it far more eloquently than I could [1]:-
"The test of whether people love what they do is whether they'd do it even if they weren't paid for it—even if they had to work at another job to make a living."
A few generations ago getting a job you love just wasn't possible for the vast majority. Now, and especially in software development, it is, and in fact as a result of the cheapness and ubiquity of computers + open source, etc. it is possible for somebody (at least in the west) to really pursue the craft regardless of circumstances. Please don't downplay that - it's nothing short of a damn miracle, really.
Joel is a very influential person. And the perspective that some boss in a not-so-nice environment as Fog Creek understand the "policy" like we have and "copy" it is really really scary.
It's just the case described by the original comment is one of someone who doesn't hate lunch, it's a case of someone who hates their job. There's a difference.
Eating a delicious launch and focusing on it sounds like heaven. Except eating it with your SO, everything else in the lunch category is down a rank in my opinion.
Nothing wrong with going for a walk, either. I would usually eat lunch alone when I was in a corporate environment. It's really just the anti-social and frankly mean approach taken to normal conversation and interaction by edw that put me off.
To illustrate you how badly skewed it is: for a few years, me and my partner had a foster home for stray kittens. In Poland. That means lots of hard work that rarely pays off (by having a healthy kitten that gets adopted, there is no money in it, obviously), depressing amount of death and suffering, participating in such great activities as autopsies and interventions.
It was a significant part of our lives, our passion and when it paid off, it brought immense satisfaction. It was a very natural subject of talk for us, but really -- do you want to hear about the state of an inflamed heart we found in a dissected kitten, what happens to bodily functions when some dude flails a cat while holding it by the tail, how a neglected cat lost her eye to disease or other fascinating subjects from this category? All those conversations while eating?
Then why should people who aren't passionate about children endure conversations about children defecating? Really. I can handle it, of course (while I don't love it), but I can repay with a story about a dog eating her own intestines, so I'm probably not a benchmark for most sensitive listener.
People not wanting to hear about babies are just like people not wanting to hear about eyes falling out of sockets, it's only ours (yeah, I can talk about babies too) presuppositions that make the subjects seem so different.
(btw, if you rob me of my daily walk, I will fall asleep in your office)
I think it's probably a great thing at FogCreek, because everyone is isolated in private offices all day, so forcing everyone to come together is probably a good idea. But I don't think it would be the best idea at all offices, especially those with open floor plans where lunch is the only time you can get some peace and quiet.
Wow, you really need to get perspective or a different job.
I have tons of choices every day at work. Lunch is one of the more mundane (but important) ones. If I was offered the option to go to a company cafeteria (I've worked at places like this before), I'd probably go as often as not.
Actually the whole of (7) is way over the border of anti-social:
If my work mates are talking about something other than work, I'm probably not interested. I'd rather chew razor blades than talk about traffic, weather, casino gambling, baseball, real estate taxes, gun control, politics, or Dancing with the Stars. I'd rather shoot myself than hear anything about their children.
That's pretty naked contempt.
Right now I'm not a fan of children, this will probably change when I get my own (in many years), but until then I'd rather talk about something else.