[_m8fo]

Inclusiveness is definitely important. I'd be interested about the following trade offs in a more practical, balance sheet, sense:

1. Does providing job security at the expense of pay increase or decrease loneliness? Obviously if the pay is too low there will be turnover, but is there an amount X, where X is not market rate, but still high enough so that if there were security people would just stay? Surely low turn over will result in more relationship formation which can be positively correlated with not feeling lonely.

2. How does a dining area and free food affect loneliness? Will it make it worse by highlighting things, or will it encourage everyone to eat in the [company provided] dining area, sparking new relationships? If both, what's the distribution?

3. If measures to reduce loneliness results in the formation of cliques, is that a positive outcome if those left out feel alienated?

In general, to what extent should employers focus on this? This reminds me of how some employers try to encourage an active lifestyle, which is generally positive, but at what point are things simply intrusive?

[caylus]

> How does a dining area and free food affect loneliness? Will it make it worse by highlighting things

This is my experience exactly. I'm sure at a certain company size it might help form connections, but at my larger company people arrange into cliques. It's like the high school cafeteria all over again.

I've switched to eating at my desk, not because I don't want to be social, but because it's less painful than being rejected by the cliques.

[mwfunk]

If you're at a company where you can't find a place to sit in the cafeteria because you're being rejected by cliques, holy shit. Get out of there this instant. To be honest, I'm so surprised by this statement that I can't help but feel skeptical about it, but if it's true, then you must've found one of the worst places to work in the entire world.

In my darker moments, I feel like a social cancer sometimes, and am no doubt really abrasive and unfun to hang around with some days. But even so, in the 2 decades I've been in the tech workforce, I have never felt like my coworkers were cliques of snotty teenagers looking down on me to such a degree that they wouldn't let me sit with them in the cafeteria. If this is your environment, it's not you, it's them, and you need to get out of that company ASAP. Basic adult respect should be a precondition for working at any professional workplace.

[Shaanie]

Most likely it's not that they're outright telling him to move, instead they probably show disinterest or make it clear in some other non-confrontational way that they'd rather not have him sit with them.

[toomuchtodo]

> but because it's less painful than being rejected by the cliques.

Have you asked to sit with these groups of people and been verbally rejected? To belong, you will need to make the social effort.

EDIT: Hey folks, I'm not trying to be rude. I am genuinely trying to help OP. If you want to join a group for lunch, walk up to them with your lunch and say "Would you mind if I join you?" Don't wait for an invitation that might never present itself. You have nothing to lose except a possible rejection (which is important to learn is minor).

[yason]

Is there a particular reason you'd like to join with one, some or all of the cliques?

It's quite natural for people who get along to group together because in the group you can act and speak more freely with the friends you know. When a new person joins the discussion easily dies because everybody suddenly has to start thinking again what you can and cannot say. It doesn't mean the people in a clique would be actively rejecting you but just that they're quite happy as they are and more interested in relaxing on their lunch break rather than working to make new friends.

[rcfox]

I'm curious if the cliques are actively rejecting you, or you're rejecting yourself by assuming they don't want you?

Just because no one has invited you to sit with them doesn't mean that you'd be unwelcome.

[kolpa]

Does being rejected by cliques at lunch make your experience worse than be rejected by cliques in other activities at work? Would a non-cafeteria workplace, where cliques went outside to eat, or brown-bagged in the break area, or sat each at their own desk, felt less painful?

[caylus]

> Does being rejected by cliques at lunch make your experience worse than be rejected by cliques in other activities at work?

Fair point. I'd say the frustration comes more from the double-talk of "look how inclusive our workplace culture is: everyone eats together in the cafeteria!" The company admitting "we don't have any norms around lunch; everyone is on their own" would not be an objectively better experience, but at least would be honest.

Another option would be to have more official team, group, or project-based lunches, rather than a free-for-all, where specific members of a team privately invite other specific members of a team.

I don't mean to turn this into a rant, just adding a data point :)

[sotojuan]

> Another option would be to have more official team, group, or project-based lunches, rather than a free-for-all, where specific members of a team privately invite other specific members of a team.

That would just lead to people doing small talk and then being on their phones for the whole lunch because they aren't sitting with people they want to talk to.

[Swizec]

> rather than a free-for-all, where specific members of a team privately invite other specific members of a team.

You might not have realized this before, or you may have, but you too can privately invite a bunch of people to lunch. Form your own clique!

[watwut]

Are they cliques or rather groups of friends?

[robotsonic]

1) I'm pretty sure this is how various levels of public service work. Pay below market rate, but offer extremely good job security. As a result, many people stick around and form long-term relationships. Where I can see this going poorly is when personal disputes bleed into work situations. I've worked with people whom I have disliked working with, but loved hanging out with, and vice-versa. As long as there is respect for the reason you are there (i.e. to work), it's not so bad.

2) I've never worked anywhere with free food, so I don't know if that would change things, but have worked at places with a full-service cafeteria, a lunch/break room, and no break/lunch room. The place that only had the lunch room seemed to have the most socialization, with all levels/types of staff bringing their lunch and chatting as a group. Even people who didn't bring a lunch would still pop in. Surprisingly, no real cliques ever formed (even people who came, sat and never said a word seemed very welcome).

The cafeteria workplace seemed to only attract those who needed to purchase food. Though, it did seem like more of a social place around morning coffee break (again, mostly people purchasing coffee).

The place without a lunchroom pretty much had everyone either eating at their desks or leaving for lunch. I found this pretty abysmal and I'd classify myself as an introvert. Compared to the lunchroom situation, I certainly knew less about what everyone actually did in their jobs, so it really was a net loss even in terms of productivity.

3) That's a hard one. I think it's okay for people to be left out if they choose to, but I think if your culture relies on cliques, then it will eventually drive out anyone who doesn't fit (and I'm sure at some places, that's seen as a positive).

[Sileni]

RE:2) Anecdotal confirmations:

Worked in a large lab that had a pretty good cafeteria, where they would rotate caterers in over time. Lunch meetings were regular, and when there wasn't an actual meeting, I'd grab a co-worker or one of the project leads to have lunch with. Really laid back affairs over all, but I feel like I learned a lot during these impromptu meetings. Often, about things that had nothing to do with what we were working on, but ended up being useful. Got to meet a lot of people I wouldn't have otherwise because people would show up mid-conversation looking for a place to eat.

On the opposite end, my current job is effectively a cubicle farm. No one talks to each other unless necessary, and only a handful of people ever go to lunch together. Cliques are a fact of life here, but I'd bet the average person feels more lonely here than at the previous office.

I'm not saying it's entirely caused by the dining area. But the dining area certainly encouraged the culture at the previous office, at the least.

[newyearnewyou]

>2. How does a dining area and free food affect loneliness? Will it make it worse by highlighting things, or will it encourage everyone to eat in the [company provided] dining area, sparking new relationships? If both, what's the distribution?

We have a dining area that no one uses due to fear of being seen as lazy.

[chrisweekly]

>"Surely low turn over will result in more relationship formation"

This might be true, but it also isn't necessarily a good thing. What kind of relationships? And with whom?

The kinds of people who will accept below-market compensation in return for "security" are likely to be relatively risk-averse, passive, disinterested and uncommitted. Which in turn would create what would be, for many people, a stale, depressing and moribund environment. Some amount of turnover is healthy. Fresh personalities, energy, ideas and perspectives spark conversation, connection and change. And the impermanence of workplace relationships is part of what makes them meaningful and worthwhile. Kind of like what mortality does for human relations on a slightly longer scale.

[nubbins]

I think you’re projecting too much onto someome just because they accept slightly below market compensation. Yes you may filter out the superstars but many jobs do not require or really benefit from very above average performance. And Risk aversion is neutral at worst, reliability, character, conscientiousness are highly valuable in most jobs.

[watwut]

The jump from risk-averse to passive and disinterested is absurd. You are tying up unrelated personality traits. Just because you fancy yourself risk-taker does not mean that risk averse people are everything bad. Why people do that?

> And the impermanence of workplace relationships is part of what makes them meaningful and worthwhile.

No impermanence does not makes them relationship worthwhile. I had a lot of impermanent relationships, they are fun because everything is fresh, but not really worth much effort.

[gaius]

The kinds of people who will accept below-market compensation in return for "security"

You are conflating "compensation" with "salary" which is invalid. The public sector package was traditionally relatively lower salary but relatively higher pension, and there is a cash-equivalent value to other benefits as well. Job security is one. If your job is absolutely safe then you have fewer worries about saving for a rainy day for example (but still, nonzero).

[chrisweekly]

>"If your job is absolutely safe"

Gonna have to stop you right there, amigo. No such job exists.

[rdtsc]

> Does providing job security at the expense of pay increase or decrease loneliness?

Hmm. I am thinking kind of orthogonal (independent) of it mostly. On one hand with high turnover, you might lose connections quicker so it's harder. On the other, the person in question might be the one moving on to a better company and thus be less lonely as a result.

> Will it make it worse by highlighting things, or will it encourage everyone to eat in the [company provided] dining area, sparking new relationships? If both, what's the distribution?

Could make it worse, definitely. I like think of it as a necessary thing -- if the person is the only one eating at their desk then they are probably missing out on important gossip. And gossip can be important - what's coming up next in projects, who is leaving. Some stuff is boring, some stupid but some important. Unfortunately it's probably better to think of it as part of the job duty but it's also kind of a forced socialization and it might help with loneliness.

> If measures to reduce loneliness results in the formation of cliques, is that a positive outcome if those left out feel alienated?

The article touches on that. It's the part about some managers just organizing Christmas parties for example, it provides for a chance for interaction but doesn't increase necessarily the chance of forming relationships.

I'd say a better way to form relationships is to get people to work together on ... actual work stuff. Problems they can think through, solve and ship together as a team.

[Spooky23]

Check out the book “First Break all the Rules”, which is based on many years of survey data.

Basically, they correlated about 20 questions that were predictive of job performance across many different verticals, from the Air Force to McDonalds to software.

The most successful managers cultivated environments where employees are friends, and generally weren’t lonely. There were other interesting factors too. It’s worth reading.

[AFNobody]

> 1. Does providing job security at the expense of pay increase or decrease loneliness? Obviously if the pay is too low there will be turnover, but is there an amount X, where X is not market rate, but still high enough so that if there were security people would just stay? Surely low turn over will result in more relationship formation which can be positively correlated with not feeling lonely.

To be honest, if you offered me a 40 hour a week max, $60k (increasing with inflation), and something similar to tenure after working there 1 year...yeah I'd take it. The core problem every adult runs in at some point is their outside-work responsibilities and long term stability is the most valuable commodity you can offer them.

That offer doesn't really exist right now, even where employees are "highly valued" like software development.

My only real stress in life is the possibility of unemployment that might require me to relocate to some place I don't want to be (like SF) with a high cost of living and high levels of urbanization.

[kaybe]

Maybe you could look into moving to Europe. You can even live in a village if you want in Germany, since many of the world market leaders in very specific things have headquarters there.

[AFNobody]

I will keep that in mind but moving to a new country as a solution is something I'm hoping to avoid. :)

[scarface74]

There are plenty of cities for software developers where the salary/cost of living equation makes more sense than the west coast.

[AFNobody]

There are but every time I change jobs I relocate. Hence valuing security.