[hardwaresofton]

I think we don't have the same definition of optional -- like someone else has noted, maybe the better word was "flexible". The way you're using it is the super manipulative "yeah it's optional, but why would you want the rest of your team to suffer?". Does that not sound manipulative to you?

As far as your impact-on-peers argument -- you could "optionally" also stay 5 hours after when you normally go home to help reduce workload for your peers and help them, do you do that? No? What about 4 hours? what about 3? 2? Where is it fair to stop? The rest of the adult world calls this professionalism, and you stop at what's required of you as your job duty, put forth in your employment contract. In the course of fulfilling that duty you're expected to be reasonably courteous, not to subscribe to some weird hostage situation where the rest of your team suffers if you don't do something that was marked as optional.

[sheepmullet]

> Does that not sound manipulative to you?

You seem to be assuming there is a lot of peer pressure placed on you if you don’t want to do it.

Why?

I’m simply saying there are always social costs. For example you probably won’t be listened to as much when there are conversations around improving system stability.

It’s like our after work Friday drinks are entirely optional - but lots of people build friendships and trust there and this can often lead to higher productivity.

If you can build these friendships another way or have a different path to an equivalently high productivity then not going doesn’t have an impact on you.

[watwut]

> For example you probably won’t be listened to as much when there are conversations around improving system stability.

That sounds like not listening to people about things they might be good at and know something about, because you want to punish them for something completely unrelated. Namely, punish them for not participating in "optional" activities. All the while you don't want to openly and transparently say what you expect from people.

Yes, it is manipulative and it is bad workplace.

> It’s like our after work Friday drinks are entirely optional - but lots of people build friendships and trust there and this can often lead to higher productivity.

It sounds sounds like nepotism where your ability to function and be promoted rests on your ability to make friends and be charming around beer.

No a meritocracy, but rather badly managed workplace.

-----------------

Seriously, you openly say that you would listen and judge system stability suggestions based on participation in supposedly optional activity unrelated to system stability. You also openly say that you trust people work based on Friday beer instead on how they act when working.

That sounds like horrible workplace for anyone who care about work and great workplace for charming bullshitters.

[DATACOMMANDER]

In all seriousness, you sound a little antisocial. I see where you’re coming from and I sympathize, but the environment described by the poster you’re replying to sounds very mildly manipulative at worst. I’m not sure you understand that the whole “bad mate” thing likely comes from his peers, not from management. Human beings are social animals, and you’ll be better off if you adapt to that reality rather than rail against it.

[watwut]

I think that I am simply working in better place. The one where people can but does not have to socialize at Fridays and the one where if they want you to do something, they say it.

That means that fathers don't have to drinking Friday evening and can be with their families. It means that parents who pick up kids after work are not disadvantaged by it. It means primary caregivers (women) have smaller hit on their career then they would otherwise. It means that people can so sport on Fridays, abstinents do well, anyone can use Friday evening to travel.

It is not merely mildly manipulative. It is literally bad office politics framed as "being social". Peers being passive aggressive is no different from management being manipulative or passive aggressive.

Lastly, it also means that I can make open transparent agreements about my work and preferences and salary compensation. Because in your setup, such things are not talked about openly and conflicts are not solved directly.

[sheepmullet]

> would listen and judge system stability suggestions based on participation in supposedly optional activity unrelated to system stability.

In my experience they are closely related.

> You also openly say that you trust people work based on Friday beer

Sure - there is an incredible depth of research on trust building via outside of work/after work activities.

> That sounds like horrible workplace

Strange considering I work at companies regularly listed in “best companies to work for” surveys.

[watwut]

I guess it is best for whom? It is certainly fun to be part of such clique and everyone who has real responsibilities or relationships outside the office or who want to directly openly discuss workload will leave after a while having no choice.

As in, they are fun places if you single, but if you don't want to offload all children or sick relatives care to partner, you will be punished for drinking with buddies less. Your actual in-the-workplace behavior and output will be irrelevant.

They are fun places because of ping pong table and x-box console, but you wont be able to make explicit agreements about your workload and nature of work.