6 ms·

Over time, I've realize that this view of work/team dynamics is overly unsophisticated. People are all really unique and viewing them as simply work-accomplishi

Over time, I've realize that this view of work/team dynamics is overly unsophisticated. People are all really unique and viewing them as simply work-accomplishing units misses a ton of the nuance in creating a successful team. On one team I worked in, we hired an older coder with bad knees and a couple of kids at home. Everyone in the team got along with him and generally liked him and he got his work done without too much fuss. But it was obvious that he didn't fit in with everyone else. We'd all hang out with each other socially (bars, clubs, weekend activities) and he opted out of those activities entirely and went home to his family every day at 5pm. And we saw other teams doing all these cool team activities (canyoneering, zip-lining, ski trips, etc) while we were limited to activities that were less physical and involved less alcohol. Over time, almost everyone in the team looked for opportunities to transfer to other teams (and sometimes companies) that looked like they were having more fun. Eventually, the team's output suffered as turnover increased, until eventually, he ended up leaving. The net effect was hugely disruptive to the company. I can absolutely appreciate the argument that these culture fit tests become a way to discriminate against minorities, genders and people of a different age...and that's absolutely wrong. But we also need to accept that employees don't view work as a 9-5 working sentence that's completely separate from their life outside of work. To the extent that employees want work to be part of their overall lives, you need to hire a cohesive group. It's a hard problem to solve simply because humans are social animals, there's no universally correct answer and so much of our psychology isn't well understood by so many of us.

wrs 8y ago
I guess I’m an “older coder”, though my knees are doing OK, but never in my life would I have wanted to work at a place where there’s mandatory attendance at ski trips and zip-lining. That sounds utterly awful. Maybe you’re attributing something to age that is just a matter of taste? And maybe that’s not a good way to limit your hiring?
- curun1r 8y ago
  Nothing was mandatory and, in fact, the team leads purposefully organized events to be inclusive to everyone on the team. That was the whole point...by including an older, less-physically-capable team member, it was no longer an option to do fun, youth-oriented team events. And that person was excluded from work-related conversations that happened at after-work bar trips, which caused some awkwardness when the rest of the team aligned behind a significant decision and the excluded team member felt like he wasn't consulted. The team had a 20s-oriented culture and all but one team member participated. You can call it age discrimination, but he didn't fit the culture. And by trying to force him into the culture, with the best of intentions, the company lost the rest of the team to other positions/companies. I guess what I'm saying is that many employees want their work to have a social component and will seek out employment that gives them that. So companies that don't include a culture fit criteria can risk alienating those employees. One would hope that a large enough company can use cultural fit as a sorting criteria more so than a filtering criteria. But the narrative that prevails here...cultural fit is just a code word for discrimination...feels too naive and lacking nuance. Human social interaction is complex and seeking to view workers as interchangeable cogs based on their capabilities to do work is much too simplistic. Which is not to say that cultural fit isn't an excuse to discriminate, which it often is. I'm only trying to point out that it's a really complex issue that has no universally correct side or answer. It's almost always situational and there's no blanket policy or rule that you can apply to address the issue. Trying to force companies to be culture-fit-blind causes its own set of problems. And I say all this as a 40s coder, so I'm sure I'd miss out on a number of positions based on cultural fit.
  - xyzzy123 8y ago
    Perhaps you could have had a variety of team (or wider company events) where not everybody needed to go to every one. On a practical basis, more “all hands” (aka mandofun) events do need to be inclusive. In normal companies at least. This is usually considered alongside basic personnel stuff like catering for allergies and dietary preferences at shared meals. In my experience most organisations don’t have huge problems with this although the mandatory fun often isn’t. I also believe that major company/team decisions probably shouldn’t be made at bars but I get that not all companies are for everyone.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - astura 8y ago
    >Nothing was mandatory Sounds like it was mandatory. >And that person was excluded from work-related conversations that happened at after-work bar trips, which caused some awkwardness when the rest of the team aligned behind a significant decision and the excluded team member felt like he wasn't consulted. If not going creates a problem, it's mandatory, period. Additionally, arranging your work discussions and decisions around alcohol consumption can absolutely be considered religions discrimination as many people don't consume alcohol for religious reasons and you certainly don't have any business justification for it. Also discrimination on pregnancy status. I'm sorry but "some employees desire youth-oriented forced 'socialization' after work hours" is not a justification for breaking the law, it just isn't.
    - baobabKoodaa 8y ago
      > Additionally, arranging your work discussions and decisions around alcohol consumption can absolutely be considered religions discrimination as many people don't consume alcohol for religious reasons and you certainly don't have any business justification for it. Also discrimination on pregnancy status. What a bizarre claim. Your parent poster explicitly said they tried to organize group activities where everyone - including the old man with bad knees - could participate. Knowing this, it's safe to assume they didn't have pregnant employees (if they chose alcohol related activities while striving to include everyone). > If not going creates a problem, it's mandatory, period. Again, such a weird position to take. So, in your opinion, no after work events should ever take place unless every single employee is present at all times and during all discussions? After all, that's what you were referring to with that "problem": a worker who is not present at an after-work discussion, leading to a slightly awkward situation the next monday.
monksy 8y ago
> Over time, almost everyone in the team looked for opportunities to transfer to other teams (and sometimes companies) that looked like they were having more fun. To me that sounds like the team was pretty immature and ended up failing the team. You can still do all of those things and work with people who don't.
flukus 8y ago
It's a shame the team didn't take the opportunity to learn from him, it's sounds like he knows far more about work-life balance than everyone else combined.
acheron 8y ago
Some people have real friends and don’t need to have pretend friends at work. Sounds like the guy you hired missed some red flags when accepting the job; hopefully he moved on to something better.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
petdance 8y ago
Sounds like your idea of "culture fit" means excluding married people or people with families. That's likely to run afoul of US EEOC guidelines. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_marital_status.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_marital_status...
tmwsiy 8y ago
How pathetically sad your workplace must be. No wonder people bailed.
pcwalton 8y ago
We don't even have to debate whether your reasoning makes sense, because we have laws against the hiring practices you advocate. You're advocating age discrimination. Don't do it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
astura 8y ago
Sounds like your problem is not the older gentleman with bad knees, its actually your company is more interested in skiing, zip lining, and drinking than it is in getting work done. Work is for work, right? If you create a "work culture" that defacto excludes protected class(es) (intentionally or not) without a legitimate business justification, you're breaking the law in the US. Sounds like this is what is happening, in this case the protected classes are age > 40 and disability status. You should take a break from the "canyoneering" and work on compliance. It's also just bad business to limit yourself to hiring such a small subset of the population - people who are young, single, and bored enough to spend all their free time doing company activities.
kanelbullar 8y ago
Over time, almost everyone in the team looked for opportunities to transfer to other teams (and sometimes companies) that looked like they were having more fun. You know, the actual work you have your people do (along with the monetary compensation, and of course the extent to which they're pleasant to work with, you know, while at work) really (really) ought to be sufficient motivation to show up in the morning and get stuff done, over the longer haul. By the same token -- if you feel you not only absolutely need extracurricular activities (let lone that your people need to "all hang out with each other socially" at odd hours of the day and night) to hold the team together... but feel the need to point to a deficit in this area as the primary reason why your team does not succeed... then you're definitely missing this bigger picture. Eventually, the team's output suffered as turnover increased, until eventually, he ended up leaving. The net effect was hugely disruptive to the company. Indeed. It sounds like you lost a good employee (and many others like him that he could have potentially recruited into your company) for the sake of the (perceived) benefits of maintaining a certain monoculture -- predicated in turn on a certain stereotype of fun and "energetic" younger employees. And how wonderful everything can be when you only hire people who fit that particular mold.
richpimp 8y ago
Perspectives change as we age, particularly if you decide to start a family. It's easy and fun to socialize with your coworkers when you're young and unburdened. After all, once you're out of school, where are your friends most likely to come from? Work, of course. I met my wife and some of my best friends at various jobs. When you're married with kids, you tend to want to spend as much time with them as you can. Spending all my time with work friends outside of work hours takes away from that family time. It's less about "I hate being here and only want to put in my 9 - 5" and more about engaging with my family and in activities that I'm more apt to like as each decade passes. The thing to be mindful of, especially when you're in your twenties, is those things you love about your work environment today, you may not like when you're in your thirties, forties, etc. I remember vividly and fondly of partying with work friends until the bars closed every weekend (and weekdays, too), going zip-lining, playing games together, and so on. I wouldn't trade those memories for anything, but I also would never want to relive that again. My point is, have fun, enjoy your youth, and make some good memories. But don't discriminate against others who just want to be professionals and do their job. One day it's very likely you will feel the same as they do...
kayoone 8y ago
I think it's quite wrong that this guy got basically penalized for just doing what he's paid for and getting along well with people. It's fine when teams get along so well that some people even spend their time with colleagues on the evenings and weekends, I do that too but please don't low-level force me to do it by applying social pressure.

wrs 8y ago

I guess I’m an “older coder”, though my knees are doing OK, but never in my life would I have wanted to work at a place where there’s mandatory attendance at ski trips and zip-lining. That sounds utterly awful. Maybe you’re attributing something to age that is just a matter of taste? And maybe that’s not a good way to limit your hiring?

curun1r 8y ago
Nothing was mandatory and, in fact, the team leads purposefully organized events to be inclusive to everyone on the team. That was the whole point...by including an older, less-physically-capable team member, it was no longer an option to do fun, youth-oriented team events. And that person was excluded from work-related conversations that happened at after-work bar trips, which caused some awkwardness when the rest of the team aligned behind a significant decision and the excluded team member felt like he wasn't consulted. The team had a 20s-oriented culture and all but one team member participated. You can call it age discrimination, but he didn't fit the culture. And by trying to force him into the culture, with the best of intentions, the company lost the rest of the team to other positions/companies. I guess what I'm saying is that many employees want their work to have a social component and will seek out employment that gives them that. So companies that don't include a culture fit criteria can risk alienating those employees. One would hope that a large enough company can use cultural fit as a sorting criteria more so than a filtering criteria. But the narrative that prevails here...cultural fit is just a code word for discrimination...feels too naive and lacking nuance. Human social interaction is complex and seeking to view workers as interchangeable cogs based on their capabilities to do work is much too simplistic. Which is not to say that cultural fit isn't an excuse to discriminate, which it often is. I'm only trying to point out that it's a really complex issue that has no universally correct side or answer. It's almost always situational and there's no blanket policy or rule that you can apply to address the issue. Trying to force companies to be culture-fit-blind causes its own set of problems. And I say all this as a 40s coder, so I'm sure I'd miss out on a number of positions based on cultural fit.
- xyzzy123 8y ago
  Perhaps you could have had a variety of team (or wider company events) where not everybody needed to go to every one. On a practical basis, more “all hands” (aka mandofun) events do need to be inclusive. In normal companies at least. This is usually considered alongside basic personnel stuff like catering for allergies and dietary preferences at shared meals. In my experience most organisations don’t have huge problems with this although the mandatory fun often isn’t. I also believe that major company/team decisions probably shouldn’t be made at bars but I get that not all companies are for everyone.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- astura 8y ago
  >Nothing was mandatory Sounds like it was mandatory. >And that person was excluded from work-related conversations that happened at after-work bar trips, which caused some awkwardness when the rest of the team aligned behind a significant decision and the excluded team member felt like he wasn't consulted. If not going creates a problem, it's mandatory, period. Additionally, arranging your work discussions and decisions around alcohol consumption can absolutely be considered religions discrimination as many people don't consume alcohol for religious reasons and you certainly don't have any business justification for it. Also discrimination on pregnancy status. I'm sorry but "some employees desire youth-oriented forced 'socialization' after work hours" is not a justification for breaking the law, it just isn't.
  - baobabKoodaa 8y ago
    > Additionally, arranging your work discussions and decisions around alcohol consumption can absolutely be considered religions discrimination as many people don't consume alcohol for religious reasons and you certainly don't have any business justification for it. Also discrimination on pregnancy status. What a bizarre claim. Your parent poster explicitly said they tried to organize group activities where everyone - including the old man with bad knees - could participate. Knowing this, it's safe to assume they didn't have pregnant employees (if they chose alcohol related activities while striving to include everyone). > If not going creates a problem, it's mandatory, period. Again, such a weird position to take. So, in your opinion, no after work events should ever take place unless every single employee is present at all times and during all discussions? After all, that's what you were referring to with that "problem": a worker who is not present at an after-work discussion, leading to a slightly awkward situation the next monday.

monksy 8y ago

> Over time, almost everyone in the team looked for opportunities to transfer to other teams (and sometimes companies) that looked like they were having more fun. To me that sounds like the team was pretty immature and ended up failing the team. You can still do all of those things and work with people who don't.

flukus 8y ago

It's a shame the team didn't take the opportunity to learn from him, it's sounds like he knows far more about work-life balance than everyone else combined.

acheron 8y ago

Some people have real friends and don’t need to have pretend friends at work. Sounds like the guy you hired missed some red flags when accepting the job; hopefully he moved on to something better.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

petdance 8y ago

Sounds like your idea of "culture fit" means excluding married people or people with families. That's likely to run afoul of US EEOC guidelines. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_marital_status.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_marital_status...

tmwsiy 8y ago

How pathetically sad your workplace must be. No wonder people bailed.

pcwalton 8y ago

We don't even have to debate whether your reasoning makes sense, because we have laws against the hiring practices you advocate. You're advocating age discrimination. Don't do it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

astura 8y ago

Sounds like your problem is not the older gentleman with bad knees, its actually your company is more interested in skiing, zip lining, and drinking than it is in getting work done. Work is for work, right? If you create a "work culture" that defacto excludes protected class(es) (intentionally or not) without a legitimate business justification, you're breaking the law in the US. Sounds like this is what is happening, in this case the protected classes are age > 40 and disability status. You should take a break from the "canyoneering" and work on compliance. It's also just bad business to limit yourself to hiring such a small subset of the population - people who are young, single, and bored enough to spend all their free time doing company activities.

kanelbullar 8y ago

Over time, almost everyone in the team looked for opportunities to transfer to other teams (and sometimes companies) that looked like they were having more fun. You know, the actual work you have your people do (along with the monetary compensation, and of course the extent to which they're pleasant to work with, you know, while at work) really (really) ought to be sufficient motivation to show up in the morning and get stuff done, over the longer haul. By the same token -- if you feel you not only absolutely need extracurricular activities (let lone that your people need to "all hang out with each other socially" at odd hours of the day and night) to hold the team together... but feel the need to point to a deficit in this area as the primary reason why your team does not succeed... then you're definitely missing this bigger picture. Eventually, the team's output suffered as turnover increased, until eventually, he ended up leaving. The net effect was hugely disruptive to the company. Indeed. It sounds like you lost a good employee (and many others like him that he could have potentially recruited into your company) for the sake of the (perceived) benefits of maintaining a certain monoculture -- predicated in turn on a certain stereotype of fun and "energetic" younger employees. And how wonderful everything can be when you only hire people who fit that particular mold.

richpimp 8y ago

Perspectives change as we age, particularly if you decide to start a family. It's easy and fun to socialize with your coworkers when you're young and unburdened. After all, once you're out of school, where are your friends most likely to come from? Work, of course. I met my wife and some of my best friends at various jobs. When you're married with kids, you tend to want to spend as much time with them as you can. Spending all my time with work friends outside of work hours takes away from that family time. It's less about "I hate being here and only want to put in my 9 - 5" and more about engaging with my family and in activities that I'm more apt to like as each decade passes. The thing to be mindful of, especially when you're in your twenties, is those things you love about your work environment today, you may not like when you're in your thirties, forties, etc. I remember vividly and fondly of partying with work friends until the bars closed every weekend (and weekdays, too), going zip-lining, playing games together, and so on. I wouldn't trade those memories for anything, but I also would never want to relive that again. My point is, have fun, enjoy your youth, and make some good memories. But don't discriminate against others who just want to be professionals and do their job. One day it's very likely you will feel the same as they do...

kayoone 8y ago

I think it's quite wrong that this guy got basically penalized for just doing what he's paid for and getting along well with people. It's fine when teams get along so well that some people even spend their time with colleagues on the evenings and weekends, I do that too but please don't low-level force me to do it by applying social pressure.