[microcolonel]

Yeah, I don't get this "I'll criticize everything that I think mainly men enjoy!" mentality. I couple interviewees with this idea in their mind criticized a company I was working at a couple years ago, and I was left scratching my head.

As a guy, I didn't use the foosball table or the ping pong table all that much. They said it was a "brogrammer" thing, but I don't understand how other people wanting to compete on the table top sports among themselves is a somehow bad sign. If anything, it's good that the members of team that want to can bond over fair competition in something unrelated to job performance.

[groby_b]

The point is that it creates a specific type of environment - which is exclusive. It attracts a specific kind of person (competitive, usually male). There's nothing wrong with offering it, per se. But you should make sure it's not the only thing you offer. And you need to make sure it's not the place where all the decisions get made.

That is where the problem comes from. You'll be excluded from the "inner circle" unless you participate in a specific kind of activity.

Clearly, this is not limited to foosball tables. Or even typically male activities. The core problem is having only bonding experiences of a specific kind.

The biggest thing is, it's unnecessary. As a European, the US attitude of having entertainment at work continues to puzzle me. I go to work, I put in 8 hours of work, I go home and have fun. Why we need foosball tables (or reading groups, or wine tasting clubs, or whatever) is beyond me.

But if you must do it, you should be sure to offer diversity.

[microcolonel]

> That is where the problem comes from. You'll be excluded from the "inner circle" unless you participate in a specific kind of activity.

This was not the case. Some women did participate, but the ones who did not participate did not miss it. They went home or somewhere else because they have the wisdom of work-life balance.

> The biggest thing is, it's unnecessary. As a European, the US attitude of having entertainment at work continues to puzzle me. I go to work, I put in 8 hours of work, I go home and have fun. Why we need foosball tables (or reading groups, or wine tasting clubs, or whatever) is beyond me.

The men I've seen (in my case in Canada, not the U.S. [but probably similar]) tend to have less work-life balance. Since they spend most of their time at work, they more likely want to have closer relationships with their colleagues. Basically everyone I spend any amount of free time with was/is either a colleague, a client, or somebody I split rent with. Here in Toronto, it seems pretty rare to really meet anyone outside of family or work. Hobby clubs/classes are okay, but most people don't really go to many of them. If you live downtown, you probably don't know the names of your neighbours. You might never have even said a word to them.

Cities like mine, and I suspect areas in Si Valley, tend to encourage loneliness. Businesses are trying to build a social group to satisfy that need, and hopefully through that improve performance, reduce the cost of HR, reduce employee turnover, and reduce total compensation. This is what my office managers and HR folks have told me. In the U.S. I think it's exacerbated a bit by the relative low density of most cities, which makes it so that you have to drive to see people.

They offer company soda for the same sorts of reasons: Sugar intake increases blood glucose, which improves brain function (especially when stimulated with the company coffee), and it tends to keep employees sitting in their desks, where they are more likely to be doing work.

[droidist2]

I think because the US is largely a car-oriented society so it's harder to meet new people. To compensate we find socialization more with those at work.

[groby_b]

That is one of the better explanations I heard for this phenomenon... Thanks!