
Shouldn't managers at companies make their supposedly fun activities optional? - 8x8squares
A tech company engineering director says how she hosts some team activities for employees to have <i>fun</i> together.<p>Link: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.linkedin.com&#x2F;feed&#x2F;news&#x2F;should-engineers-have-fun-at-work-5042514&#x2F;<p>I also saw comments from other users about how <i>fun</i> that workplace is.<p>My reaction to that post was quite contrary to the majority of comments. I absolutely didn&#x27;t find that fun. It is something I wouldn&#x27;t enjoy at all. I communicate well during meetings, and I work well with my team to solve the tasks at hand.<p>But when almost all of the top tech companies have such supposedly <i>fun</i> activities for team bonding, or other reasons, I think it alienates people like me who are good engineers but don&#x27;t enjoy such activities.<p>Another comment on that post, is relieving and shares similar opinion of mine:<p>&gt; For any software engineer truly suited to their job, the work required should already be &quot;fun&quot;, <i>in and of itself</i>.  If not, then said engineer is in the wrong line of work and should find something they <i>would</i> enjoy doing every day for the rest of their career. 
For many, being forced to endure such irrelevant social engagement is an uncomfortable disincentive they would do anything to avoid.  &quot;Community&quot; isn&#x27;t something you can <i>impose</i>, it can only be &quot;nurtured&quot;!  It develops organically, not from what you <i>think</i> would be &quot;fun&quot; but what those on your team <i>actually enjoy</i>.  You learn this by observing and paying attention.  Then, when you learn what works, you simply do <i>more</i> of it. 
Follow through on this idea of imposing &quot;fun&quot; at work and you risk alienating all your best engineers.<p>Considering how STEM fields naturally attract introverts, shouldn&#x27;t managers at companies avoid or at least make their supposedly fun activities not mandatory? By imposing their definition of fun, aren&#x27;t they doing more harm than good?
======
malux85
I feel like these fun activities are created by extraverted managers who think
that because they get energized by social interaction, everyone does.

I always clearly explain to them that I'm an introvert, and I get exhausted by
excessive social interaction and I need quiet recharge time. I tell them that
I'll happily go to team activities if they are during work hours, but out of
hours I'm in my own, re-charge time. No exceptions (and hold them to that)

I have found most managers are understanding when it's explained like this.

------
d--b
No extra job activity is mandatory. You can't be fired for skipping it.

Now, a lot of people will make you feel it's mandatory. The truth is: no one
wants to do this. Everybody I know hates christmas parties, poker nights, and
bowling with workmates. But you kind of go along, because it's actually good
for team bonding. And team bonding is an important part of company culture and
to avoid friction and conflict at work.

Now, if you really hate it so much, just find excuses for not going.

And yes, if they shame you for it, they're definitely bad managers.

------
tedthayer
I've observed the same thing and completely agree. Fun activities that are not
work-related are meant to make employees happier, assuming they are not
intrinsically happy at work. Thus, I think they actually have a net negative
impact on human progress because they distract and mask issues like if the co
is keeping to its mission. I was at GoogleX recently and totally surprised to
see that many people there were treating life like normal day-to-day work,
taking pleasure in the laid-back fun activities that don't seem to have any
importance to humanity. While I think most people agree they want to
contribute to a greater cause, low pain tolerance or no clear means to have
impact probably cause many to seek their jolly's through normal activities. If
I was a company where my employees were eager to leave after 5 pm, I'd do
everything in my power to make them happier too. So it's sad that they impose
anything on employees versus allow them to work on something so intrinsically
rewarding that people don't need such shallow motivations. Then again, even
SpaceX does Volley Ball games!

~~~
quickthrower2
You seem to me to be implying that truly happy employees want to crank out
long hours at work because the work makes them happy. But I find after a
certain number of hours without a break you work can be a net negative.
Mistakes, bad decisions etc. Also big missions are like multi marathons and
you definitely don’t want to keep sprinting them. And not to mention people
with outside work commitments such as children, sick relatives, community
commitments, or just plain hobbies and travel etc. Do you want non rounded
burned out staff on an important mission? I get it for startup founders you
need to put in lots of hours. But hiring a big team of long hours workers
seems counter productive.

~~~
tedthayer
Yeah, that is what I'm implying. Definitely, too much work and not enough time
away can limit creativity, big-picture strategy etc. But with proper
motivation, I've pushed myself up to 125hrs/wk and been happier than ever
(though slightly brain dead as well). When not in single-minded pursuit of
something like founding a company or an exciting mission I totally agree with
you. With all the other commitments and desires, their job will necessarily be
a lower priority. But when it comes to something important (or debatably in
all cases of companies with high aspirations), I think the company should be
focused primarily on effectiveness and efficiency ie max output for the unit
cost from each staff. I just don't see why it would ever be in a company's
best interest to not get max output, as long as there are new hires to fill
the shoes of the people who burn out.

~~~
croo
A company is just a bunch of people therefore a company's interest can be
whatever a bunch of people interest is. And it's not necessarily max output.

------
duxup
Socializing with other people at your place of work is part of the job in my
opinion.

Not just for you but for your co-workers. Even if I have zero interest in my
coworkers, it benefits me to make them comfortable around me and make it clear
they can approach me with questions or problems. It makes the eventual
stressful decisions or disagreements far easier to deal with. Socializing is
the best way to break that ice.

~~~
cm2012
You can socialize _plenty_ during work hours.

------
twunde
For most companies these fun events are optional, although the expectation is
that while individual events aren't mandatory, everyone is expected to attend
at least a few or if not there should either be a good reason. For most
companies there should be a variety of events so that there should at least be
a few events that every person is genuinely excited to go to (and importantly
these events shouldn't all involve drinking). Some examples of events that my
company has run are cooking class, escape the room, pumpkin carving,
meditation, weekend hackathon, volunteering (I think the last one was running
bingo night), picnic at a park, happy hour, sports league teams (soccer,
volleyball and basketball), boat rides, team dinners. We have a decent number
of engineers that miss many of these events because of parental
responsibilities or travel times, but everyone should be able to do a few of
these, especially when some are done in the office during work hours. The
point is that there should be a number of inclusive events where you get to
know your colleagues on a personal level. And to your main complaint, why
should you be expected to attend a few of these events? These events build
trust and relationships between employees, especially ones that wouldn't
normally have relationships such as one between finance and engineering or for
security/compliance and any other department. The relationships that are built
are important for work between multiple departments or teams and typically
help provide context for projects. These team events are designed to prevent
feuding departments/political battles, allow for backchannels for when there
are issues that one can't show to your management, and generally allow for
better prioritization and better understanding of context behind
projects/tickets (ie if Business Operations comes to you with a request you
are more likely to go through and understand the context if it's someone you
know).

------
pcunite
_" We were doing a lot of work to prepare for a big launch, and when we got to
the launch, we had a birthday for the launch,” Grace offered as an example.
"We had a cake brought in ... we wore birthday hats ... I accidentally bought
children's birthday hats ..."_

It is their company, so while they do have the right to act this way, I do
think that one day they might feel differently, kinda like how bell-bottom
attire went out of fashion. This work-place cultural phenomenon seems to be a
type of fashion and probably won't last into the next phase of computing.

I would hope that I could have refused to wear the party hat on grounds that
it made me feel silly. That wouldn't get me put on the bad list, would it?

------
htanirs
Yes, I could not understand why they were mandatory. They are not "fun" for
some and actually builds anxiety. And the experience in turn creates an
uncomfortable environment later.

Corp and Managers need to consider this when having these activities.

------
quickthrower2
Yes they should not be mandatory. I think the intention is good, and honestly
once you socialise a bit especially with other departments it can break down
some walls, but at the same time people should be forced to go, and companies
should be careful to communicate that it’s not compulsory. Maybe there should
be something for introverts too that is fun for them to look forward too. But
that might look more like a present eg a weekend holiday for them and their
family.

------
muzani
Most of them are badly thought out. We had a bowling event on a work day once.
This was when we were behind schedule. It was stressful to take the day off,
when I'd rather be working.

Productive engineers = happy engineers

Happy engineers = productive engineers

It's a nice loop. Don't break it.

If you want people to be tighter knit, just make them solve a problem together
(e.g. actual work). A lot of good friendships were forged around exhausting
days.

------
Trias11
Come on, it's fun. Or else!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84c7mRP7PLw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84c7mRP7PLw)

------
subjectsigma
It's a trade-off. I do agree that they should be optional. However, maybe you
should try advocating for activities that promote team bonding that you also
find fun. My office recently had a board game night that went pretty well. It
was quiet and there were a variety of games, from silly stuff like Sorry! to
very involved games like Secret Hitler. Both an introvert- and extrovert-
pleaser. It's easy to just think something is bad and be annoyed about it;
much harder to do something about it.

> For any software engineer truly suited to their job, the work required
> should already be "fun", in and of itself. If not, then said engineer is in
> the wrong line of work and should find something they would enjoy doing
> every day for the rest of their career.

What nonsense. If you don't have at least one thing you don't like doing at
your job you must work at fucking Candyland... I love where I work, but
everyone has bad days.

