Work in the 21st century

[Momo26]

And that's fine. I think everyone...well non delulu people know they are replaceable. But there was once a sort of connection amongst colleague friends - I still see glimpses of it, but i see it more in some other offices where individuals had a history such as being hired together in same cohort or possibly had a connection already from before working at the place together (that one is sort of unfair to count tbh). In any event, I don't even think organizations care as much to foster it, realizing how transactional people are now treating work.

What's the right answer? Well I guess depends on the person.

[tomh009]

Additionally, COVID-19 might be over (and I kind of feel like it isn't), but an employer's insistance on presenteeism and face-time, even to the extent of my becoming ill with whatever my colleagues are bringing in, seems rather reckless. As someone who ended up with reduced kidney function after two rounds of strep infection from the person working in the cubicle next to me (who proudly announced their coming into the office even though their whole household was ill thanks to kids in daycare), I think it's important to have options and two-way flexibility. Yes, I realize that improved transit/transportation doesn't do much to reduce contagion hazards, but in the absence of satellite locations, it has to be a consideration.

At least in our case, while we are using a hybrid scheme (three days a week in the office), people will work from home if they have cold/flu/COVID symptoms. As a result, we have had far fewer people getting sick than, say, five years ago. People with school-age kids tend to get sick but will work from home if they have a mild case that doesn't require actual sick days.

[tomh009]

And that's fine. I think everyone...well non delulu people know they are replaceable.  But there was once a sort of connection amongst colleague friends - I still see glimpses of it, but i see it more in some other offices where individuals had a history such as being hired together in same cohort or possibly had a connection already from before working at the place together (that one is sort of unfair to count tbh). In any event, I don't even think organizations care as much to foster it, realizing how transactional people are now treating work.

What's the right answer? Well I guess depends on the person.

That is indeed an excellent question. Having a team rather than just a collection of transactional employees is unlikely to happen by accident. Some of it is the employer's corporate culture, some of it is the local workplace culture (distinct from the corporate level), and some of it is down to the manager's hiring decisions--how much the candidate's "fit" with the team factors into the hiring decision. I don't think there is any magic formula, but it's certainly possible for employees to be more than just transactional numbers, and for the employer to be more than just a transactional job.

[MidTowner]

And that's fine. I think everyone...well non delulu people know they are replaceable.  But there was once a sort of connection amongst colleague friends - I still see glimpses of it, but i see it more in some other offices where individuals had a history such as being hired together in same cohort or possibly had a connection already from before working at the place together (that one is sort of unfair to count tbh). In any event, I don't even think organizations care as much to foster it, realizing how transactional people are now treating work.

What's the right answer? Well I guess depends on the person.

That is indeed an excellent question. Having a team rather than just a collection of transactional employees is unlikely to happen by accident. Some of it is the employer's corporate culture, some of it is the local workplace culture (distinct from the corporate level), and some of it is down to the manager's hiring decisions--how much the candidate's "fit" with the team factors into the hiring decision. I don't think there is any magic formula, but it's certainly possible for employees to be more than just transactional numbers, and for the employer to be more than just a transactional job.

I have seen individual teams who were extremely cohesive, even though the broader workplace culture was characterized by disengagement and poor team dynamics. This in situations where team leads and low-level managers had little to no input into who was hired for or assigned to their teams.

What I mean to say is, I think it is up to individual managers, and not just in how well they select for "fit." People who are hired by the same organization, even for different functions, already have more in common than not, and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to work together in a cohesive way and feel more like a team and less like just a group of people selling their labour to the same organization. 

Managers need to make time and space for this to happen, and they need to model it themselves.

[Momo26]

Corporate culture is very much top down in my opinion. So it starts at the top. Front line managers can only do so much - they can certainly help in the situation when it comes to the day to day exchanges but stuff like in office days and activities or budget for team building comes from higher ranks.

[tomh009]

What I mean to say is, I think it is up to individual managers, and not just in how well they select for "fit." People who are hired by the same organization, even for different functions, already have more in common than not, and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to work together in a cohesive way and feel more like a team and less like just a group of people selling their labour to the same organization. 

Managers need to make time and space for this to happen, and they need to model it themselves.

I agree with you 100%.

Corporate culture is very much top down in my opinion. So it starts at the top. Front line managers can only do so much - they can certainly help in the situation when it comes to the day to day exchanges but stuff like in office days and activities or budget for team building comes from higher ranks.

Culture certainly starts at the top. But even if the top management doesn't have the same views, it's often possible to do (some) things locally. You need a manager who cares for his or her team and is willing to work to make work better for them. Yes, budget and merit increase limits etc restrict the scope, but it's also possible to do things as a team that don't cost anything. And beyond any events, ultimately most people can tell whether or not the manager really cares about them.

[Momo26]

Yes there always is. But again, it largely depends on the culture being fostered top down. It's trickle down in corporations, rarely is it trickle up.

I put in considerable effort in this regard (at least when ckmparing to peers) with zero budget and only out of pocket.  On top of this, the day to day KPIs are priority because that is all I really hear about from above. It's nice to get the occasional recognition for fostering good team dynamics - I've had to really point this out for it to get seen truthfully - but I often ask myself, should I even bother (esp as it comes to the 'extra curriculars' I volunteer myself for at work). I can get the same paycheck as the other bloke that does his job to the T and has meetings that are procedural only....

[tomh009]

Daily KPIs? Oof ...

[tomh009]

(placeholder)