Can we go back to a time where employees aren’t asked to be 100% emotionally attached to their work, in ways like this that are clearly made more extreme by the company itself?
Can we go back to a time where employees aren’t asked to be 100% emotionally attached to their work, in ways like this that are clearly made more extreme by the company itself?
Of course outside there it would seem a little odd to many, I'm sure. Though sliding around polished floor, in your socks? Never gets old. Maybe I'm just a child..
When I lived in a city in the US that had regular snow and ice, floors inside of the buildings were never slushy/dirty, despite everyone wearing the same shoes inside and outside (businesses only, inside my house I always take them off no matter the time of the year).
However, back when I lived in Russia, we had to bring an indoor pair of shoes to get changed into, as everything would be covered in a layer of outside of dirt otherwise.
I honestly have no idea why that was happening, but I wanted to make a point that both you and OP can certainly be correct on that one at the same time.
I straight up lied in my interview and accepted the eventual job offer, only to renege on it after getting an offer from another company literally halfway through my first day on the job...
Perhaps it would've been better to hold off on accepting until you have had the responses from every potential employer (Source: have had people not show up on their first day of work way too often)
I read an interview somewhere by Joshua Reeves, and he seemed to answer every question like he was Tony Robbins or some top-level guru. Dude, I don't want your life advice, tell me how to run a profitable company.
Silicon Valley tech is overtaken by this need to project wokeness. That's one big reason I wanna leave this place and work for a more blue-collar tech place. Don't know where that exists.
(I am non-white, and an immigrant, so don't be quick to accuse me of extremist views)
I'm guessing you'll quickly find that a "blue-collar tech place" isn't quite the panacea you expect. There's a reason no one in Silicon Valley pines for traditional corporate culture. Because it sucks really bad. Putting up with some faux-wokeness is a small price to pay to get away from it.
Pay above average with good benefits, no uniforms (white collar equivalent of the uniform is in-your-face "culture"), no frills, no BS.
I think the Valley was like this 10 years ago.
Anyway, I list that as an example because what you're talking about isn't actually an example of political correctness (which is, again, a shitty term for basic respect and awareness of social context). Humans like black-and-white issues. It's really nice for us to be able to put things in boxes. So when we perceive someone's action in a certain way, our gut instinct is to cast that entire person as that way. Do people sometimes take someone's rudeness (even if accidental) and brand them a racist, discarding all of their opinions? Absolutely. Do some of my family members hear that I voted for Hillary and decide that none of my opinions have value? Also certainly. Humans are dogmatic. "Political correctness" is an umbrella term for cultural sensitivity, and can (like any idea) be applied dogmatically. It is not fundamentally dogmatic.
Why would you want to do this at work? No well-run place will allow this because it makes for a hostile work environment.
You have roughly 128 hr/week outside of work to do those things
When was this? Post-War corporations sported a common uniform. Industrial Era culture was demandingly monotonous and before that we’re talking about guilds and their customs.
Broadly speaking, there are benefits at multiple levels to having a cohesive company culture (including eclectic traditions). We’re just seeing more variety in those traditions.
It was definitely common and acceptable for the machinists, techs, engineers and manager to say that they would rather be doing something else than working or that they would rather have a job more glamorous than working with machines and pieces of steel. In other words, back then, you had to do your job or risk getting fired, but AFAICT there was no risk to admitting that you didn't like doing your job. In fact, if you went around telling people you really liked your job, my guess is you probably would've been viewed as at least slightly socially inept for being unwilling to engage in the small rituals that lubricated social interactions -- or more precisely for getting one of the common rituals backwards.
This was at a large machine-tool manufacturer in Massachusetts. In something I read or heard IIIRC, this manufacturer was referred to as the IBM of machine tools. The owner of a motorcycle store (which employed many motorcycle mechanics) revealed in conversation with me that he considered being a machinist at this employer to be a particularly good job.
In contrast, does anyone reading this doubt that nowadays if a programmer in Silicon Valley tells his boss that he/she doesn't like his job or doesn't like working as a programmer, he/she risks getting fired unless he/she knows his/her boss at least reasonably well?
One example is "suddenly working to rule" just before a major delivery and getting paid back handers off the books for example. This is an example told to me by a hr/ir professional who came from Clydeside
One of the reasons I never applied at Gusto is that I didn't want to take off my shoes. The floor is a commons, and it only takes one person walking around with shoes on to turn it from a "no shoes floor" to a "shoes floor".
Any kind of behavior that gives me the feeling of kool-aid drinking or brainwashing is absolutely a red flag.
The way you describe it (not enforced in any way, not even through peer pressure) is very different from the way I had always read about it (fairly absolutist and you won't be allowed in the building if you don't remove your shoes). If I had heard about it that way, you're right, I would not take it into consideration.
Unfortunately I don't have citations handy for the absolutist version of the policy that I had read about.
And if you're still looking for a new job, feel free to consider us again! We promise you can keep your shoes on :)
I hear you on the empower language. It’s always sounded a bit forced to me but I see what they’re going for. Managers should focus on helping their reports be successful rather than getting into management because they want power or status or whatever. Which isn’t to say that renaming titles with fix that, but it is one small communication of what’s important to leadership.
How are the streets so dirty you can't wear shoes inside commercial building?
SF is not a clean city. Streets don't have to be 100% shit stained to think that maybe taking off your shoes before coming into the office is a not-so-bad idea.
If every employee is emotionally invested in the company you can imagine that they don't want to hire new folks that aren't - there would be huge culture clashes. Some people live to work, even if it's not for their own company. Why not let them all work with each other?
I've found it's only a problem when companies promise "Work-life balance is a priority" then on the first day you notice everyone's there at 8pm. At least if they're up-front about it you know what you're getting in to and can adjust expectations in terms of both time commitment and salary accordingly.
Either way, like you said, I wouldn’t work for them for the same reason — obsessive company culture, which indicates a poor work/life balance. They clearly want the kool-aid drinkers.