[jmoreno94]

I would quit. That's so infantilizing. We're adults we don't need these hand holdy forced "team building" ice breakers. Just let us work together and I promise we'll get to know each other as much as we need to to get the job done.

[codingdave]

I have not found that to be true, at all. Quite the contrary, I've seen that when there is no forced team building, people only get to know each other to a minimal level. They do not build trust, they do not learn each others strengths and thereby put a heavier weigh on people's weaknesses. A small mistake by a coworker can become "That guy sucks, can't wait 'til he gets fired or leaves", and small cliques and camps end up developing across teams. It can become quite dysfunctional, quite fast.

Of course, in a way this means I agree with you - if you are not someone who wants to be on a team that spends time and energy on the warm and fuzzy team building tasks... quitting probably is the right move. There will be other teams that work better for you.

[paulryanrogers]

I've heard this is why 360 reviews can be flawed. With limited interaction coworkers may only see a small slice of a person's performance, possibly the worst/best.

[Benjammer]

Heaven forbid anyone asks you to do any explicit emotional labor in addition to technical labor! The horror!

"I get paid to write code, not to be a human!!!!"

It's pretty obvious the bias here if you flip things. We all know that both emotional labor and physical/technical labor are required to get the job done. If you said everyone would only be rated on hard metrics around their social abilities, and the programming would be left up to whatever each person feels like, it would lead to technical chaos. I doubt anyone would say, "That's so infantilizing. We're professional programmers we don't need these hand holdy forced "engineering architecture" meetings. Just let us code together and I promise we'll build the product the right way, and on time."

In the same way, if you don't explicitly plan and architect the culture at your company, it can lead to similar chaotic situations. People only associate organically based on similar background, similar interests, similar personality, etc. This leads to basically every single bias that everyone not a white/asian straight man has been screaming about for decades in tech.

[paulryanrogers]

Being paid to take a walk and talk to some people seems reasonable to me. So long as they don't expect me to stay late to "make up for lost time" while doing the exercise.

[csours]

Are recurring manager 1x1s also infantilizing?

[odshoifsdhfs]

Yes. A million times yes.

I have talked about this before here, but I don't really understand this idea companies have about promoting/demanding social things at work, or having a dedicated 1:1 block with managers. Are developers so social awkward that you need to have someone higher up blocking time for you to talk with people/managers?

Whenever I have an issue with my work/company I just do a 'hey, when do you have 5 minutes, need to have a chat about something' message and then talk with the manager/person about it. These 5 minutes chats have been as small as 'want to spend some time with my kid so will take a couple long weekends' to 'i am not a good fit for this company, so I will be resigning by end of day'. Never had to have it scheduled like I am a fucking 5 year old that needs an adult to time box his life.

[paulryanrogers]

As I understand it the scheduled 1:1s can provide a release valve for employees who get so focused and heads down they neglect interpersonal relationships or concerns. They're meant to avoid the problem of emotions being bottled up too long then exploding. Can also help to batch concerns so there aren't constant interruptions for minor things that can be addressed later.

Obviously it's not a perfect approach as one cannot force candor or trust, and frequency must be tuned to the needs of everyone involved.