[edw519]

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.

[CodeMage]

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.

[daeken]

> 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.

[jimbokun]

"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.

[tessro]

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.

[cpeterso]

when new people start work at the company, they’re not allowed to sit off by themselves in a corner

My reading was that this was not an employer rule, but a part of their employees' inclusiveness, wanting to invite new people.

[theoj]

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.

[akronim]

  Joel dictating my lunch choices

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.

[InfinityX0]

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.

[ionfish]

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.

[InfinityX0]

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.

[hrktb]

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.

[theoj]

The job has nothing to do with it, it's about the co-workers. You're not doing your job at lunch, you are interacting with your co-workers.

[ktsmith]

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.

[maigret]

If your work is an island and you don't collaborate with anyone, that is probably true.

[vacri]

Nonsense. I like my job, but I still prefer to get out of the building at lunch time.

[kitsune_]

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.

[singular]

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.

[1]:http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html

[singular]

Downvoted on HN for extolling the joy of pursuing what you love even in the face of disagreement - a certain irony there, I think!! :-)

[michaeldhopkins]

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.

[rjbond3rd]

> 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.

[clarkevans]

+1

[ry0ohki]

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.

[brown9-2]

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".

[ry0ohki]

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.

[r00fus]

> 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.

[oinksoft]

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.

[hammock]

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.

[alxv]

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.

[oinksoft]

Being non-social for some time is not the same thing as being anti-social.

[nadam]

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.

[telemachos]

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.

That's pretty naked contempt.

[daemin]

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.

[andrewflnr]

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.

[cookiecaper]

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.

[LaGrange]

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.

[cookiecaper]

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.

[LaGrange]

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)

[kujawa]

This works a lot better if you're actually friends with most of your coworkers. Then it's pretty awesome.

[gdulli]

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.

[akronim]

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.

[hackinthebochs]

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.

[matwood]

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.

[misterbwong]

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.

[mrcharles]

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.

[bostonpete]

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.

[andrewcooke]

which is one more reason he doesn't want to have lunch with them - because he would be pressured into being a phoney.

[sspencer]

Number 9 seems to directly contradict number 8. By your own rationale, you should speak freely about/to your boss.

Alternatively you might try finding a job where you don't hate your boss.

[weaksauce]

I think he did; he is a freelancer.

[mwbiz]

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.

[mixmastamyk]

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.

[tallanvor]

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.

[jacques_chester]

> "Enforced association" is phoney.

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.

"Familiarity breeds contempt" is wrong.

It should be: "Familiarity breeds".

[civilian]

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.

[TeMPOraL]

At work I'm a "food outlier", because I'd actually like to have pizza :(.

[vidar]

To each his own.

[JabavuAdams]

Exactly!

[bartonfink]

Regarding item 10 - assuming you have friends at work, would you go out of your way to avoid eating lunch with them because of items 1-9?

[gdulli]

"'Enforced association' is phoney."

"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."

[tjogin]

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.

[cosmok]

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.

[reso]

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.

[VB6_Foreverr]

I'd love to work at somewhere like fogbugz. Is there anywhere like it that accepts crap programmers?

[sandipagr]

"I'd rather 'chew razor blades' than talk about traffic, weather, casino gambling, baseball,..." +1

[durga]

+1