I have always hated this and probably always will. I have rarely eaten lunch with my work mates. Just a few reasons why:
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
"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."
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.
I had a totally different reaction to Joel's post. He seemed to emphasize shaping corporate culture deliberately in positive ways, rather than letting things happen by accident. He emphasizes creating a positive social environment in the office: welcoming new people and promoting inclusivity.
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.
The fundamental question is this: is lunch work time or is it free time?
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.
I'm pretty sure Joel isn't going to freak if you go out for lunch to meet some other friends, go somewhere different, or just to go for a walk, or to an appointment.
Synopsis: You hate your job, not your lunch. Quit your job and get a job that you love, and you'll inevitably end up loving the lunch you currently hate.
Right, because everyone who loves their job also loves sitting down to have lunch with their coworkers who they see for not less than seven hours a day five days a week.
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.
I'm not saying that you should eat lunch with your coworkers. I actually rarely do.
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.
Point 4,5 and 6 where about lunch itself, and I agree woleheartly with them.
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.
I'm interacting with my co-workers while doing my job. I don't have any desire to also interact with most of them during my breaks, which includes lunch. Part of my lunch is to not just take a break from my work, but to take a break from the people I work with.
First of all, I do not have to LOVE my job. As everything in this world, most things have good and bad sides. Surprise!
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.
Before I start I'll address the first point - yes, everything has good and bad sides, but that includes things/people you love. I doubt Beethoven always loved composing, or Einstein always loved doing science - it's a net thing, and when it involves something/somebody you love, the joy vastly exceeds the cost.
> 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.
If you worked at Fog Creek, you'd already be spending much of the day alone. Joel believes everyone has the right not to be interrupted while they are trying to work and gives all developers private offices. Lunch is a pleasant contrast to this.
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.
> constant interruption i.e. low-quality conversation and low-quality work
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.
Most of the reasons you mentioned are exactly why the "free lunch" perk at a former job began to show me there really is no such thing as "no free lunch".
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.
I think what you may have experienced is a different phenomenon related to peer pressuring people to agree with everyone else. I'm not sure that a group of people eating together regularly normally devolves into something that one would describe as "cult-like".
I describe it as "cult-like", because they are essentially taking the one independent choice you have during your work day (what, where and how to spend your lunch break) and making you conform to the "norm".
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.
> they are essentially taking the one independent choice you have during your work day (what, where and how to spend your lunch break) and making you conform to the "norm".
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.
You are not everybody else. Some people are very busy and use their lunch for all sorts of things: Time to read a book. Time to run errands that couldn't be taken care of during the previous or coming evening. Time to go home and see the cat. Time to go home and do chores. Time to go home and make food that you want to eat! The list goes on. It is my time, not anybody else's. If the group lunches are so wonderful, friendly, and relaxing, then people will show up to them, but anything approaching pressure to do so is patently absurd.
I'm incredibly surprised at how anti-social most of the comments are here. Then again, I just watched the Tina Fey interview at Google, and realizing that maybe I ought not to be surprised. I had this mental image of Google as being a hip, cool, social company to work for but the audience seemed so contrary to this, and even Eric Schmidt would go on and on about how "literal" Googlers take everything, how stereotypically engineer-minded they are, basically implying they were incapable of being creative or having vision or social skills. Maybe that's just Eric being disconnected from his employees, but I have a hunch there is some truth to it.
Even Eric Schmidt would go on and on about how "literal" Googlers take everything, how stereotypically engineer-minded they are, basically implying they were incapable of being creative or having vision or social skills.
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 am introverted an geek, but this: "I'd rather shoot myself than hear anything about their children." is borderline anti-social for my taste. Or maybe he just really don't like his coworkers for some reason.
Calling it 'borderline' is too polite. I couldn't decide if (1) he was deliberately overdoing it (revealing the satire?), (2) deeply hated children in general or (3) found his co-workers' children especially hateful or what.
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.
As a single male there's a limit to how much talk about a co-worker's children I can stand. If they have an interesting story to tell then that's fine, but if the parents start chatting about/comparing their children then it's time for me to go and do something else.
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.
Number one, I think. And I suspect that it's less that he started out hating that stuff than that he has just heard so much of it that he's sick of it.
What a disappointing reply. You'd really rather shoot yourself than listen to someone talk about their children? No wonder you don't get along with your colleagues. I'd really invest in lightening up, this is an awfully depressing outlook.
No. The outlook when we are all reduced to breeding engines that have to like talking about children or else -- that's depressing.
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.
It's fine to not really love talking to colleagues about their children, but if it's so unpleasant for you to "hear anything about their children" that you'd hyperbolize it by saying you'd "rather shoot [your]self", then that's a problem. For people who have children, children are a huge part of their life and to pretend like they should never be able to discuss such a significant part of their life with others is really silly. I can understand being annoyed with someone if it's all they talk about it or they otherwise engage in that topic excessively, but the description given by edw is way far out there.
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.
The problem may be hard to notice or acknowledge for many people, but there's actually a lot of pressure put on people to socialize in some way and interact in some way, and that is mean. Being mean in return may not be the most effective reaction, but it is quite understandable.
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)
Right. I've had a great time having lunch daily with some groups of co-workers. Others have been boring as hell and there's no way I'm going to spend an interminable extra 30-60 minutes making small talk with them.
If you know that's on the cards when hiring, then I'm sure it's a filter you might not use otherwise, i.e. can I handle having this person at the lunch table every day.
Does anyone not feel a sense of unease when applying all of these "social" filters to hiring decisions? The end result here is you end up hiring people exactly like yourself (and the rest of the group). Being able to do the job well is no longer enough; you have to be "interesting" enough to spend an hour with at lunch everyday. What this essentially comes down to is you need to also be a part of the same culture with the same personality type. This is a very insipid form of discrimination and sadly it seems to have widespread support.
I agree. I've been fortunate enough to work with mostly interesting people over the years where a few have become life long friends. I've also been to offices where lunch was dreaded because most people there you didn't want to have to interact with anymore than required.
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.
I'm a big fan of group meals and I've seen a fair amount of camaraderie built this way. That said, this reminds me of a team based PM course I was in a few years ago. Our group was made up of about a dozen people from different disciplines and we were asked "How do you know someone is being friendly to you?"
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.
Yeah absolutely. Even when I had a great lunch group, A) They were people I considered friends and would hang out with outside of work, and B) We only ever ate quality food outside of the office itself.
I don't agree with all your points but being constrained to a work environment for a social lunch is ridiculous.
So in #8, you say you want to be able to bitch about your boss behind his back. But in #9 you call everyone else "phoneys" because they bitch about people only when they're not there.
Absolutely agree with you. I'm not sure why this post got 200+ points. Enforced Association is perfect description and it's something that every company must be aware of. I try to get our team together once a month to go out for lunch but that's where it stops. Everyone likes each other and they spend time together at lunch when they want to, not when they're forced to.
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.
Another one of Joel's other big things is an office to yourself with a door that shuts. Presumably one that provides several hours of solitude per day. With that in mind, 30 mins with colleagues chatting about work doesn't seem so bad and I'm reasonably anti-social.
It also leaves another thirty to excuse yourself and take a hike.
I really agree with #1. If you're talking about work at lunch, you're probably bitching. We all need time to bitch, but you get tired of it. And I don't care about what my coworkers' kids are doing, or what work they need to do around the house, or what sports they're watching, etc, etc.
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.
Regarding item 1: I had this problem at my last job, especially since I was technical support, so people would often use lunch time as a forum for questioning me. I would answer the first question, and then politely say that I didn't feel like talking about work during lunch. If other people around me were talking about work, I'd make an effort to start another topic with the people who weren't actively engaged in the work-convo.
"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."
Sure, understood and agreed. I like to get away from work during lunch too.
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.
Great points! But, it can get pretty lonely to have your lunch alone - sometimes even depressing. I tend to have lunch with 1 or 2 of the closest of workmates whenever I can.
Well, I think the article is predicated on having a job one enjoys in a positive work environment with sympathetic and interesting coworkers. It doesn't seem to apply to you.
To those who thought that team lunch is "mandatory," you misread the article. It's not mandatory. You can go out instead. You can go to the gym instead. You can hide in your office and "free your mind" instead. You can bring your friends or family to our lunch. You can go out instead. You can take a picnic. You can come in after lunch and work late instead of working early.
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 feel like those of us blessed to work in very positive environments forget that many people do not, and when those people hear that "the team always eats together" immediately assume it is a management enforced policy, and not a spontaneous event.
Trouble with words on a page is that you can't convey all that other stuff. When I read that I read it as jokey and also a camaraderie thing on the first day.
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.
Hmmm.... he said that people has misread the article. Yes, later he apologize if he hasn't made himself clear. I think that most of us that got infuriated by the article have had different experiences: bore or jerk coworkers, crowded offices, unhealthy food... the reasons that edw519 has enumerated.
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.
I interpreted that as the new people don't need to sit by themselves in the corner since they would get invited to lunch from day 1.
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).
One of the guys on our support team had his sister come to lunch at Fog Creek during their visit to NYC. Even amidst all the wonderful things they did in New York, she said that coming in for lunch and seeing Fog Creek was the highlight of her trip. It wasn't that the incredible food (though it was), but rather it was witnessing the comradery the exists at meals and the overall wonderfulness of the workplace. When my colleague shared her story with us, it made us realize that we oftentimes take for granted how rare it is to work in such a great environment.
I am surprised the negative comments on HN. I worked at Microsoft, where one team followed your policy while another did not and lunch time was always better with the team that had your policy. I think you should really just ignore the comments on HN. Maybe they are missing some kind of context.
Joel is obviously not aware of the differences between introverts and extroverts, which seems weird for someone who works in a field with a lot of introverts.
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.
Yes, Joel is COMPLETELY unaware of the differences between introverts and extroverts. Except for the fact that he is an introvert and runs two companies filled with a substantial percentage of introverts.
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.
I don't eat by myself nearly every day because I dislike my co-workers -- I actually do like my co-workers, and my job would be a nightmare if I didn't. That doesn't mean that, come lunchtime, I won't nearly always take the opportunity to be by myself (conceptually, even though I'm still surrounded by people).
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.
That's great, but I think Joel overstates the "problem" of someone eating alone. I like eating with the people I work with, but I also like reading, and sometimes lunch is the only time I have for some pleasure reading. So, sometimes I need a little down time, and I prefer to read and eat by myself rather than eating with my friends. I don't think this makes me someone who hates people or is unpopular.
Introverts tend to "recharge" by themselves while "extroverts" tend to gain energy through interaction. I applaud Joel's efforts to bring his team together but I wonder if some of the introverts are taking extra long bathroom or smoke breaks to make up for all of the face time that is required.
I'm introvert but I loved eating with my coworkers. It's very different from the energy consuming socialization that you would experience at parties or otherwise.
Then again, I didn't eat with all of my coworkers, just my friends.
If you're an introvert, why do you have a job that involves dealing with people all day to begin with? It sounds to me like it isn't lunch that's the problem, it's the hours before and after it.
It's not an all or nothing thing. It's not as if interacting with humans is physically painful. Being introverted isn't a crippling social disorder; it just means that sometimes you need to recharge by spending time by yourself, and often find that relaxing.
(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.)
Interesting that there is so much anti-company lunch sentiment on HN. At Justin.tv we serve lunch (and dinner!) every week day. Originally, when we were much smaller, it started as a time saving measure (it was a lot quicker to get back to work than if everyone went out). Now, I see it as much more about giving everyone a chance to hang out and eat, and as a cost benefit to employees. If you don't want to eat at the big lunch tables, you don't have to. If you want to go somewhere else, you're welcome to. People do meet friends for lunch elsewhere, or bring them to the office for lunch.
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.
i think part of what's going on here is that everyone is taking the position of disliking a mandate to eat with your coworkers, which is arguably a troubling thing.
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.
Indeed, I'm equally surprised. At my last startup we also had a voluntary group lunch. I think it was quite critical to maintain a good spirit during rapid ups and downs common to most startups. Imho absolute loners are dangerous to startups.
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.
This I guess varies from person to person. A lot of people don't stay for dinner because they come in early (and get breakfast), they have families or whatever.
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.
>you can eat and be back at your desk, _if you want to_, within a few minutes<
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.
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.
A bad team isn't going to be made good because of lunch. But I think the point of the article is that it can make a good team (full of very skilled people who are unenthused about their work experience) into a great time (full of very skilled people who enjoy spending time with each other much more). And sure, a group that constantly bickers isn't going to instantly transform because of spending time together, but it could build enough of a community to bring together groups that get along fine but aren't that friendly.
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?"
One of the first things I noticed when I started working at Fog Creek is that most everyone in the office is always working and it stays pretty quiet. We rarely have meetings and individuals are able to remain focused on getting things done.
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.
At my last job, I ate my lunch 2-3 hours earlier than everyone else, thanks to dietary issues and the fact that I started work 3 hours earlier than they did. That meant I always ate alone.
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".
I remember my first day working at IKEA as a summer job. I was young, I didn't know anyone, I didn't know the culture. So I got my lunch, found an empty spot to sit, and was about to sit down. But I didn't sit down properly before someone came over from a busy table, asking me if I wanted to join them.
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 last job, I had a really fantastic lunch group -- intelligent, inquisitive, and always wanting to talk shop. It was fantastic, I feel that I learned and grew more as part of the lunch group than with respect to a lot of other things I did at work.
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.
Lunch is also a really important part of my job. I run the IT department for a fairly small company (~200 employees).
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?
While the ideas for projects is a good one, do you ever get sick of hearing peoples complaints in social situations? Nothing is more annoying than when you are having a few Friday beers and all people want to do is tell you how crap their computer is expecting you to promise them a new one by Monday.
It seems there's an obvious middle ground which doesn't seem to have been mentioned by Joel or anyone else.
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.
One day of the week is team lunch day (and a longer lunch at that)
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.
I hate it when people assume that everyone else thinks the same way they do.
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.
I need a break at lunchtime. For me that means sitting quietly, spending some time away from the effort of conversation, catching up on reading or taking the opportunity to think about ideas that have been on the back burner.
I see it differently. I sit alone all day, working on my projects by myself. Come dinner time, it is a welcome change to get to chat a little with my coworkers.
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...
I'd rather not be compelled to eat with co-workers at lunch. Lunch should be a time to do whatever you want. For things like meeting people/friends outside of work, having some quiet time to read a book, or going to the gym.
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.
While there are some positives, to enforce this seems quite inhumane.
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.
We do this at my company and it's awesome. The idea is it's not at all mandatory. Do whatever you want for lunch. But everyday, at noon, there will be a free lunch served at this location. Most people will participate in that 4 out of 5 days. If they have a deadline, want to meet a friend for lunch, need to run some errands or whatever it's fine. Most often the conversation is about everything but business.
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.
This is exactly what it's like where I work. It's fun to grab lunch when you want/need it at the same time as others, but it's ultra-low-pressure and in no way mandatory. Best of all possible worlds, in my opinion, and a huge perk for anyone working at a company <20 people.
At my first real programming job we (developers) went out to lunch together every day. We went out to restaurants, not fast food. Lunch often took 1.5 hours and sometimes 2 hours. Our boss came with us. We were a small company, so there were only four of five of us, usually.
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.
It seems Joel finds it difficult to believe that people can eat alone without being lonely. I am an introvert that is rejuvenated by spending time alone. I like eating lunch by myself. It helps clear my mind.
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.
I think Joel's article glosses over a point that most of the con arguments here don't notice: in order for this to work, you have to set up a group of coworkers who mesh spectacularly well.
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.
This is unfair. Extroverts are energised by social interaction, but introverts are drained by it, so they're going to find mandatory group lunches tiring and unpleasant in the long term regardless of the cohesion of the group.
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.
I don't mind lunching together with a bunch of people if there is no pressure to join in with the "conversation" or the "group activity" at the table.
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.
Joel's free to want to eat lunch however he wants, but who is he to decide that people who are happy to eat alone are "loners", "don't like people" or are pretending not to be sad?
I rarely get time to eat lunch. When I do, it's a precious 30 or 60 minutes of solace where I can actually get away from people and enjoy some time to myself.
Why on earth would I want to spend it jammed shoulder to shoulder with people chewing and talking about work?
I think taking Joel's thoughts on lunch in isolation from his thoughts on workspace design is a mistake.
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 glad I found you all, 'cause I so desperately wanted to comment on Joel's post, but his discussion group is closed.
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'm definitely on board with this. My last job was pretty lonely until we all started eating together every day. Eventually our long table was taken away by HR and we had to find somewhere else to go. We all wanted to keep it though because it made work much better so we found a way to still eat lunch together.
Do any other introverts feel this arrangement would affect them negatively? Subjected to this setup, it's likely I'd perform worse.
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.
Eating lunch together (whether to talk technology or just to socialize) is huge for building a cohesive team that works together and talks outside of the lunch room. Especially if you don't work with each other directly on a day-to-day basis, it helps to reinforce that you all work together rather than on separate teams.
I prefer to grab a sandwich and go for a walk. This was especially true when I was contracting and based in interesting cities that were fun to explore.
Well, this at least applies if you're starting a company from scratch. You can hire someone that might be a genius...but not a team-player or might hurt the dynamic.
I like eating lunch with my coworkers some of the time. (Maybe once a week.) It's good team building.
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.
The best place I ever worked at was small: ~7 people.
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.
Unfortunately, eating lunch with a group of people every day tends to get very expensive. You either need to be working at a big company with a cafeteria (pass) or for a fancy place like FogCreek, otherwise it's $10-20/day to eat out all the time. Besides, I like to swing home and hang out with the cats sometimes, or work on a side project at my desk, or whatever.
How does a small company like Fog Creek handle ordering, delivery, and clean up each day? In the photo it appears that everyone is eating off of china with silverware. Do they maintain a cafeteria?
There is a catering service which brings them food every day and sets up the serving area. You wash your own plate, I think.
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.
Yup, pretty much spot on, except we have a dishwasher!
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.
At our company the CEO just takes orders and goes and gets food. If he's out or busy he leaves a prepaid visa and someone else goes. No fancy china but it works. Sometimes we'll order in using foodler.com which lets you do group ordering.
I think i've read something about a catering firm in of of joels earlier posts... It will handle all that stuff...additionally they have a small kitchen with softdrinks, fruits and such..
Well, when I read the Twitter headline I was sure that this is a link I'd like to share with my coworkers. After reading it however it seems not to have much of content.
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 usually need to pinch a mega loaf right around lunchtime. I would love to do it earlier, but getting ready and commuting all use up too much time in the morning. Call me anti-social, but I treasure the "me time" that allows me to get it done w/o an unexplained long absence from my desk. Likewise, if I were expected to show up at the communal lunch table, I'm sure I would always be late and be met with snide remarks such as "everything come out all right?" and "out with the old in with the new, eh?" and other such witticisms. No, give me my very special session in the restroom followed by some time with my Kindle and a sack lunch in a quiet grotto, and I'm OK with the forced togetherness of the rest of the workday.
I've often felt ostracized at my employer just for not following the rite/folklore of lunch together. Joel has a conflict of interest. As owner of course he stands to benefit if his employees went for lunch together, because inevitably they'd be talking about work, maybe even solving work-related problems in the process. While lunch is a great occasion for socializing - it'd be best to be up to the individual on how to spent that time.
You nailed it. I think Joel as a business owner likes to have all his staff eat lunch together, because it helps "build team" and lets him evaluate all of them further in an alternate setting. It's beneficial for him. But it's not necessarily the best thing for each individual employee.
I am 49 years old and I work as freelance consultant on e-commerce projets. Honestly, it is impossible for me to work (which means mostly sitting) for 3-4 hours in the morning and 4-5 hours in the afternoon and also sit during lunch. If I do that I will either fall asleep or be unproductive for most of the afternoon. At lunch I spend at least one hour walking, running or biking. At the least I must get outside, whatever the weather.
It's not always so easy for everyone to eat together however. People have different work schedules - different deadlines to meet, some may be working from home at times or while on a business trip, and for some, such as myself, lunch is really something I just kind of grab and go, don't really sit down for 30 min to 1hr and eat lunch. That's just my habit, it's a working lunch (although I make up for it at dinner)
While some people certainly enjoy it, this kind of culture might be horrible for others.
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.
Interesting read, though as always, a little extreme. Eating lunch with co-workers 2-3 times a week is sufficient - sometimes you have a life outside of work too!
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.
You can achieve the same effect with smoking pauses:
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.
I spend my lunch hour at the gym. Since I've started this routine, I workout more frequently, feel like my workday is shorter, and love not having my workout hanging over my head after hours (when I need the time for helping kids with homework). If I don't go to the gym, I'll run errands or work on my own projects. I get enough socialization during meetings.
I think this is very important and not because of the fact that you're more likely to talk shop when eating with your team. What is more valuable IMHO is that you'll get to know your teammates better as _people_: what they like, their hobbies, their tastes their culture (if you're in such an team) etc. It's insanely interesting and valuable: it will make communication much smoother and misunderstandings much less frequent.
A team needs to gel and having common experiences outside of strict "work" settings is really important for that. BTW, this can't be forced but can be facilitated by creating the right conditions and I think that's what Joel's post is about.
One more thing: having lunch with people only loosely connected to your day-to-day activities is also very interesting and can lead to serendipitous insights about things totally in your area of expertise.
My experience has usually been that lunch with coworkers is awkward. Most people just sit on their iphones and no one really talks. The conversations seem forced. Maybe I have worked at the wrong places but this is my experience at the places I have been.
Being a geek and of an extremely different mind and culture than most of my peers, I usually find myself alone. I just fail to integrate since I'm quite different. Being alone, at lunch for example, was very stressful.
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.
Huh. I've never worked somewhere where people do anything other than grab some food and eat it at their desks. Who has time to actually go out for lunch?
One advantage of the open, trading-floor layout is that you can chat with the people around you, if you want.
Points 8 and 9 are a result of not communicating and acting assertively. Stop partaking in, allowing, and accepting aggressive, passive, and passive-aggressive behavior and communication. This is what the higher ups in a company need to foster. I highly suggest reading "Life Would Be Easy If It Weren't for Other People" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0803968655/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...
What is the best way to meet new people during lunch at a company cafeteria?
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?
I'm in a similar situation. I will soon working from a satellite office. Few to none of my new office mates will actually work on my team. I won't receive "welcome to the team" introductions and none of my office mates will have shared work topics to discuss.
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.
That's a cool idea. It would also be cool to see this kind of thing more often at cafés or restaurants. I'm introverted, but I also like meeting people and would often prefer a decent conversation to eating or hanging out alone. I assume plenty of others are the same, but the threat of awkwardness/rejection keeps people from striking something up. This seems like a nice low key way to get around that.
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.
This might work better where people have their own offices with doors that close. Where I work we are all in one room and so constantly sharing banter on and off all day.
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?
Shameless plug for my own startup: for any San Francisco based company, Munchery is offering $50 off for any lunch or dinner order over $200.
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.
If this is a useful part of corporate culture here (it rarely is) that's one of the first reasonable arguments I've heard AGAINST telecommuting. In general, I think I'd opt for a telecapable workforce, but there's certainly some reasonability to adhoc meetings at lunchtime.
You know, my 1st instinct is to disagree vehemently with the sentiment here.
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?
I always felt there is something special about sharing food with others, it gives a sense of bonding rarely seen elsewhere.
For building up a great company culture, food plays in my opinion a pretty big role on many layers.
I am right now unable to have lunch with co-workers. I've always done the group lunch and would always make every possible effort to get as many people involved as possible.
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 :(
Joel's somewhat right and somewhat wrong. He's both. And for the record, I'll say right now, without reading even reading it yet, that whatever edw519 says on this topic is going to be golden and I'll agree with it. ;)
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.
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.