Friendships in the workplace (1,390 words; 5 - 8 min. read)

Something I have been watching for several decades now is the erosion of the quality of life of workers. 

If I look at mainstream and union media, the focus there has largely been on: 

(a) pay; and 

(b) occupational health and safety (nowadays, also called work health and safety and a few other acronyms). 

Both of those are important, but what I have been noticing and caring about is: 

(1) the smashing of the work-life barrier or work-life balance; and 

(2) the growing expectation of being continuously hyped about work and one’s current workplace.

I am particularly critical of unions over the loss of the work-life barrier. Some unions may well have been good on this aspect, but not the ones I had contact with. The latter seemed to think money was adequate compensation for 24/7 availability - initially, at any rate. 

In the last few years (around five to seven, maybe, in this part of the world), there has been growing pressure for people’s lives out of work to be respected - and France adopted a “right to disconnect” law in 2016. 

Potentially, that could be beneficial - especially for workers who are carers (which is not only parents - this could also be carers for those who are ill). 

Potentially. 

A quick bit of internet research (using DuckDuckGo) on that law yielded the following: 

• a fairly basic statement of the facts, including that this was but one measure in a package of laws, and a disparaging reference to an earlier, somewhat ludicrous option trialled at a German company in 2014, at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38479439;
• the lack of enforcement penalties and the need to address management style, at https://time.com/4622095/france-right-to-disconnect-email-work/;
• advice to management on a range of measures to use to implement this (or care for workers) effectively and reasonably, at https://www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/news-and-insights/publications/the-new-right-to-disconnect-in-france;
• a review including the broader aspects at https://mashable.com/article/france-right-to-disconnect; and 
• the need for cultural change, the alleged problem of younger workers being gung-ho about over-work (proving themselves? I wasn’t interested in that when I was in my 20s), and room to adapt for individuality, at https://theweek.com/articles/670668/big-problem-frances-right-disconnect-law.
  

There are a few aspects there, but the two I will mention is that there is an increasing bleed over between work and life (the explosion in work from home for many - not all! - workers during the pandemic [which is still continuing] is an example of that), and workers can sometimes be willing accomplices in actions that are not for their - or their Significant Others’ (including family) - long term benefit. 

I think the second aspect was part of the reason the unions I interacted with did so poorly on this matter - their workers were excited by the new tech, and wanted to use it. (To be fair, on the other hand many employers are accepting of a modest amount of things like checking personal email - but is that an even, equal, equitable and fair balance?) 

It is also worth noting that, for office workers, being able to work from home was something that often improved quality of life - there was more time with loved ones, no draining and time consuming commute to work, no work in cold, sterile and unwelcoming offices, and no interaction with toxic people. 

And those who were often drowned out, ignored, or silenced in meetings were finally on a more equal footing.

On the other hand, sometimes the tech wasn’t up to the task, some people weren’t comfortable with internet conferencing (although I have seen some of those who complain happily - and hypocritically - talk for long periods on the phone), “cabin fever” became an issues, mental health problems increased, and there were those who missed contact with other people at work - good people. 

Good people at work. 

Good work colleagues. 

Friends? Perhaps. Acquaintances? Yes. People being friendly? Certainly. 

And that’s where one of those blurring of boundaries becomes both problematic and beneficial. 

There are people who have developed good friendships in the workplace - I have two friendships which will probably continue when I retire, others who I have intermittent contact with, and I know of people who found various types of life-partners (romantic, sexual, and life companion) through the workplace. 

There have been people whose company in the workplace I enjoy, and our banter and friendship made us more productive for a whole range of reasons - including the lightness of heart and soul that comes from being in the company of friends - people one is in harmony with. 

And now less effective bosses appear on the scene. Bosses who noticed friends being more effective at work, and then leapt to the first wrong conclusion that being friends and being productive always went hand in hand. 

But I just said I’d been more productive in the company of friends, right? 

Yes, but what I hadn’t said was there were other friendships that didn’t lead to more productivity at work - people I could talk to at the - pre-pandemic - water cooler, people I could share a whinge with, people who I seriously discussed leaving a company with. 

Friends are often good to be with, but part of being a friend is being there when your friend is in need, and during those times, you won’t have the same lightness of heart and soul: you’ll have a deep and empathic love, but your focus will not be on production for the company. 

I’ve also been quite productive with people I was either neutral with or who I disliked - people who were (and may still be, for all I know) bigots. 

Furthermore, some work is mundane and tedious to the point of being soul crushing - which covers quite a few people I’ve known (some friends, some relatives, some acquaintances) doing factory work, for example. In those cases, the benefit of friendship is making the unendurable at least survivable - and that is the measure of success for those friendships. 

Nevertheless, there are some - not all! One of the friends I mentioned is my current manager, and another manager may wind up being a friend - managers who decided that being friends - not being friendly (which is a basic tenet of a civilised workplace, in my opinion), beings friends - was something should be developed. 

Something that should be ordered or forced, in a sense - which was the second wrong conclusion. 

And that’s where we leave the world of the reasonable, and indeed the world of the rational.

Can you order a fire and flood to be friends? A tornado and an earthquake? Two clashing colours or musical notes or scents? 

No, it is absurd. 

Nevertheless, that is part of the erosion of the quality of life of workers that I have been so concerned with - an erosion based on misunderstanding a special part of life and misappropriating for the, frankly, offensive purpose of boosting numbers in a company’s account books.

Expecting workgroups to be friendly - or at least civil - is reasonable and essential: forcing workers to go beyond acquaintances (which is what a work colleague is, inherently) to being friends is not. 

By all means promote (but don’t force) social contact, but don’t talk as if people are friends - let alone a family of choice - unless they are . . . and that is a matter which is up to the organic growth of those in the workplace. (One company I worked at had a lunch get together between current and prospective employees to see how they would fit. Another thought: if you want to test whether you’re anywhere near that, how many people know others’ favourite colours/music, or main activity outside work and family?)

For me personally, forced friendships is right up there with expectations of hyped up enthusiasm for the company (look up toxic positivity), and failure to consider the psychological impacts of some OHS measures, as a warning sign of possibly poor management that does not understand people or the nuances of being human.

On the other hand, good bosses who are flexible, supportive and adaptive, rather than having a rigid adherence to what “seemed like a good idea at the time” are a positive sign. 

That includes bosses who used to think forcing friendships was a good thing, but now have seen the error of their ways. 

I have some other thoughts on this topic at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2022/05/post-no-2210-work-life-balance-1100.html, and elsewhere on this and my main blog. 

Assumptions / basis 

In writing this, I have assumed / started from the following: 

• The pursuit of fulfilment / satisfaction / “happiness” is valid, but once one has met basic physical needs, further material gain does not improve one's state of being (see here, here, here, here, here, and here); 
• More pleasant human interactions are generally less stressful: thus, for two sets of actions, one done in an unpleasant atmosphere, the other in a pleasant, in MOST (but not necessarily all) circumstances, the more pleasant will lead to better outcomes and a decreased likelihood of future problems - in a business sense, more income now, less chance of expenses such as court cases later;
• Human rights are real, valid, and beneficial all round - i.e. individuals, organisations, and society are better in a wide range of ways (see previous dot point) when human rights are fully realised; 
• Those human rights include the right to privacy - which includes a right to have a life away from work;
• Theft is a crime, and is wrong - and that includes not being reasonably productive at work.
  

Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider: 

• I am writing from the perspective of the middle class in an industrialised “Western” society, and thus this will not be universally applicable - and may not even be all that widely applicable within my society; 
• Maslow’s Hierarch of Needs posits that the basic physical needs must be met before one can move on to address other needs - for instance, you won’t be putting any effort into meeting social needs while you’re starving. Given the increasing insecurity arising from multiple factors (what Guy Standing [see here, here, here, and here] refers to as “the precariat” [see here, here, here, and here] ), a focus on money may be more important than I have alluded to - particularly in less wealthy nations;
  
• some people may be more comfortable (need?) a more structured life than I prefer, which may make the above, with its focus on time to do as one wishes, less relevant for them; 
• there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”.