Live data from Hacker News

Joel Spolsky: Lunch

joelonsoftware.com

201–210 of 210 posts

Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch

#201
post #20

I remember my first day working at IKEA as a summer job. I was young, I didn't know anyone, I didn't know the culture. So I got my lunch, found an empty spot to sit, and was about to sit down. But I didn't sit down properly before someone came over from a busy table, asking me if I wanted to join them. From then on I realized that the culture was that everybody always eats together there. That way I got to know loads…

IKEA's U.S. factory workers might disagree: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ikea-union-20110410,0,...

Downvotes? Seriously? It's a simple statement of fact.

Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch

#202
I'm glad I found you all, 'cause I so desperately wanted to comment on Joel's post, but his discussion group is closed.

I'm one of those people who eats lunch alone everyday, mostly just to take a break from work and catch up on my reading.

So the statement that bothered me the most was this one: "Maybe they’re reading a book or checking their email while they eat so they don’t look sad"

I don't understand why so many people think that reading a book is only something you do, when you don't have anything else better to do. I read 2-3 books a month and lunchtime is when I get a vast majority of my reading done. It annoys me to no end when people interrupt me because they think I’m “lonely”. No, I’m READING! If I was looking for conversation, the book would be closed and I would be looking around to make eye contact. What part of the whole nose-in-a-book-with-a-totally-engrossed-expression do you not understand?

Having said that, I do think Joel simply makes the office environment conducive to eating together. I just hope he doesn't look down on people who don't take advantage of it.

Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch

#203
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you go home earlier because of the time saved?

Depends upon the person, I suppose. The time saved is used either is being more productive at work, or having more time for personal life. Either way, 30-60 minutes are not wasted, every day from your life.

I kind of think the same way about commuting to work at all. Working from home I save those 60 minutes every day of my life.

Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you go home earlier because of the time saved?

Depends upon the person, I suppose. The time saved is used either is being more productive at work, or having more time for personal life. Either way, 30-60 minutes are not wasted, every day from your life.

I kind of think the same way about commuting to work at all. Working from home I save those 60 minutes every day of my life.

Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch

#206

Cause/effect. I'm sure anyone who has ever worked in a team where things weren't going so well has tried the whole "let's go to lunch together!" thing but it's never a solution. Good teams tend to eat lunch together = true. Good teams are good because they eat lunch together = false. A good team evolves from a consistent and careful approach to hiring and organisation and when a manager groups people together based o…

A bad team isn't going to be made good because of lunch. But I think the point of the article is that it can make a good team (full of very skilled people who are unenthused about their work experience) into a great time (full of very skilled people who enjoy spending time with each other much more). And sure, a group that constantly bickers isn't going to instantly transform because of spending time together, but it…

Or you could turn functional professional relationships sour when people inevitably discuss the non-work hot-button topics.

All it takes is one off-color joke.

And good luck with your 'one big happy lunch' when there's a rift.

Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch

#207
My, this sparked a lot of discussion.

When I worked at a company, I used lunch as a chance to go out into the sun and maybe meet a random nice girl. Don't date people at work, they say ... and they're probably right. Sometimes I would invite my co-workers to a new place. Why eat in the same cafeteria all the time?

I basically used lunch as a social building time. but that's just me, I'm kind of bored just eating by myself.

Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch

#208
post #18

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…

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.

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.

Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 re…

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)

Post reply on HN