5 ms·

This thread has interesting debate, and makes me think these are the core questions which I wonder how others feel: - Who believes most work friends are actual

This thread has interesting debate, and makes me think these are the core questions which I wonder how others feel: - Who believes most work friends are actual friends that by and large want to be there as well? - Who builds and maintains friends at work for 90% career management, and the other 10% are cool people you enjoy working with and then you stay in touch with 1-2 of them once you leave a job? - Who views the work socialization as actual socialization versus career management requirements? My experience with a relatively successful path in tech is that most friends at work aren’t actual friends, that 90/10 split is true, and that work socialization is for career management. It feels like the remote work debate is partially about if work fiends are actual friends and it’s worth bringing everyone in-office to support that truism, and then if remote work enables the same level of career management abilities IMO it does and it’s easier to do so. For instance, Leading in slack is a lot easier than leading vs the ex-athlete with a MBA in meetings who projects confidence.

librish 4y ago
This seems like a very cynical way to look at the world. Work friends are real friends in the same way your pick-up league or board game night friends are real friends. You like some of them more than others, and you probably won't stay friends with most of them if you stop coming to whatever shared activity brought you together initially unless you make a concerted effort to stay in touch.
- dogman144 4y ago
  I think it’s a cynical way to look at work but those views don’t extend to my world. The issue with work socialization is career advancement involved, which means money, which means basic security for you and your family is on the line. I can be open and myself with my friends playing board games. Part of openness is testing out ideas and risking conflict. If I say something wrong, the worst that happens is I get a new group of friends to play Catan with. If that happens at work, my mortgage and family is on the line.
  - librish 4y ago
    Those seem like fairly arbitrary lines to draw. If I told you that the worst case scenario for your board game night is that you offend someone to the point where they pull out a gun and shoot you you would probably tell me that's an event that's so unlikely it's not worth considering. Similarly I feel like choosing to not socialize in a normal way at work because someone might get you fired, while not as unlikely as getting shot, is still incredibly unlikely and not worth considering. This does assume a base level of social competence of course.
    - dogman144 4y ago
      Well risk is about likelihood vs impact, and work interactions are shaped by risk. It’s a low likelihood but high impact event to be shot by your board game buddy. It’s a med or high likelihood and high impact event that your career will suffer bc of a misstep in a social sphere at work, or imo more accurately it’s a medium/high likelihood and high impact reward that by navigating work socialization correctly and as anything but a normal social interaction, you’ll do well. Both result in high impact/high likelihood results for my family. So why take the risk/lose out on the reward just so I can have work friends who are truly friends? Fwiw, there is legit academic research on the work social dynamic being about anything except normal friendships. The Organization Man is one example of academic research, the other is https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... which is a bit more pop-psychology that still rings true vs experiences.
      - librish 4y ago
        You can reach whatever conclusion you want by assigning "high risk" to the things you don't want to do and "low risk" to the things you want to do but that doesn't make it more objective. My experience is that the risk-adjusted expected value of being a sociable person at work is positive, both for your career and your overall happiness. I gather you think it's negative, which is fine, but let's not pretend one of us is more objectively correct than the other. I haven't read The Organization Man (summary says it's a set of interviews with CEOs, does not seem too relevant for normal employees). I have read the Gervais principle. It's fun, and contextualizing it with your own experiences is valuable, but it is very loosely correlated to reality based on my own experience.

librish 4y ago

This seems like a very cynical way to look at the world. Work friends are real friends in the same way your pick-up league or board game night friends are real friends. You like some of them more than others, and you probably won't stay friends with most of them if you stop coming to whatever shared activity brought you together initially unless you make a concerted effort to stay in touch.

dogman144 4y ago
I think it’s a cynical way to look at work but those views don’t extend to my world. The issue with work socialization is career advancement involved, which means money, which means basic security for you and your family is on the line. I can be open and myself with my friends playing board games. Part of openness is testing out ideas and risking conflict. If I say something wrong, the worst that happens is I get a new group of friends to play Catan with. If that happens at work, my mortgage and family is on the line.
- librish 4y ago
  Those seem like fairly arbitrary lines to draw. If I told you that the worst case scenario for your board game night is that you offend someone to the point where they pull out a gun and shoot you you would probably tell me that's an event that's so unlikely it's not worth considering. Similarly I feel like choosing to not socialize in a normal way at work because someone might get you fired, while not as unlikely as getting shot, is still incredibly unlikely and not worth considering. This does assume a base level of social competence of course.
  - dogman144 4y ago
    Well risk is about likelihood vs impact, and work interactions are shaped by risk. It’s a low likelihood but high impact event to be shot by your board game buddy. It’s a med or high likelihood and high impact event that your career will suffer bc of a misstep in a social sphere at work, or imo more accurately it’s a medium/high likelihood and high impact reward that by navigating work socialization correctly and as anything but a normal social interaction, you’ll do well. Both result in high impact/high likelihood results for my family. So why take the risk/lose out on the reward just so I can have work friends who are truly friends? Fwiw, there is legit academic research on the work social dynamic being about anything except normal friendships. The Organization Man is one example of academic research, the other is https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... which is a bit more pop-psychology that still rings true vs experiences.
    - librish 4y ago
      You can reach whatever conclusion you want by assigning "high risk" to the things you don't want to do and "low risk" to the things you want to do but that doesn't make it more objective. My experience is that the risk-adjusted expected value of being a sociable person at work is positive, both for your career and your overall happiness. I gather you think it's negative, which is fine, but let's not pretend one of us is more objectively correct than the other. I haven't read The Organization Man (summary says it's a set of interviews with CEOs, does not seem too relevant for normal employees). I have read the Gervais principle. It's fun, and contextualizing it with your own experiences is valuable, but it is very loosely correlated to reality based on my own experience.