![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dec. 2nd, 2013
Unreasonable expectations
Dec. 2nd, 2013 05:11 pmOne of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fayanora's tumblr posts got me thinking
(be sure to read *all* of it)
This idea that simply because you are forced into physical proximity with people, you should somehow be *required* to interact with them more than you absolutely *have* to is a weirdness that not even the extrovert-dominant culture can readily explain.
Yes, there are some points to knowing your neighbors and coworkers. But being friends with them? No.
It's nice if it happens, but it should never be treated as an *expectation*, much less a requirement.
Being somewhat friend*ly* yeah. But that tends to backfire because so many take that small bit of interaction as a sign that they can inquire about all sorts of things in your life and that makes *you* the villain when you object to their prying.
Sorry, but asking about my church is *not* something you are entitled to. Because it gets you info that can (and likely will) be used against me because I'm "different" (which is the same as wrong/evil to these folks)
Ditto for asking what I did over the weekend. It may be something you won't like or approve of. And I don't need the grief.
Heck, given that such prying into my private life can reveal things like my religion, politics, sexual orientation or gender identity and so on., that means that it really *shouldn't* be allowed at work because it *will* lead to discrimination.
Which means that even if someone reveals some private info, coworkers need to accept a "none of your business" response to any attempts to expand upon such.
For that matter much of the "team building" stuff that so many businesses have bought into are based on a false premise.
Yes, I need to "trust" my coworkers. Trust them to do their jobs and not interfere with me doing mine. And it helps if we can get along.
But anything more than that is actually unreasonable on the part of the employer.
As an example, "trust falls". Unless our job interactions are such that my life or health can be affected by their actions, then a trust fall is unreasonable because I'm risking injury.
Paranoid? Maybe. But people *have* been injured in those (and other "team building") exercises. Especially large people like me. There is no *legitimate* job requirement for *that* level of trust in your coworkers unless you are a cop, fireman etc. Or are working with dangerous equipment or chemicals.
Yeah, having coworkers be "friends" can help job efficiency. But if they have a falling out, it can hurt it far worse than if they had merely been acquaintances.
And given that *many* things covered by on-discrimination laws or that should otherwise be private will prevent friendships this whole expecting coworkers to be frienfds is *wrong*.
Worse yet is the way it's the "fault" of the person who *didn't* want to share info when the *real* problem is the person who demanded info and then didn't like the answers they got.
Real life example. Years back I was in the break room, trying to ignore this one guy who kept trying to "start a conversation". Finally, he *set fire* to the newspaper I was reading. Yes, he got in trouble. But *I* got a lecture on how it was my fault for ignoring him.
This is *nuts*. And from what I hear, it's only gotten worse in the 30 years since.
fayanora's tumblr posts got me thinking(be sure to read *all* of it)
This idea that simply because you are forced into physical proximity with people, you should somehow be *required* to interact with them more than you absolutely *have* to is a weirdness that not even the extrovert-dominant culture can readily explain.
Yes, there are some points to knowing your neighbors and coworkers. But being friends with them? No.
It's nice if it happens, but it should never be treated as an *expectation*, much less a requirement.
Being somewhat friend*ly* yeah. But that tends to backfire because so many take that small bit of interaction as a sign that they can inquire about all sorts of things in your life and that makes *you* the villain when you object to their prying.
Sorry, but asking about my church is *not* something you are entitled to. Because it gets you info that can (and likely will) be used against me because I'm "different" (which is the same as wrong/evil to these folks)
Ditto for asking what I did over the weekend. It may be something you won't like or approve of. And I don't need the grief.
Heck, given that such prying into my private life can reveal things like my religion, politics, sexual orientation or gender identity and so on., that means that it really *shouldn't* be allowed at work because it *will* lead to discrimination.
Which means that even if someone reveals some private info, coworkers need to accept a "none of your business" response to any attempts to expand upon such.
For that matter much of the "team building" stuff that so many businesses have bought into are based on a false premise.
Yes, I need to "trust" my coworkers. Trust them to do their jobs and not interfere with me doing mine. And it helps if we can get along.
But anything more than that is actually unreasonable on the part of the employer.
As an example, "trust falls". Unless our job interactions are such that my life or health can be affected by their actions, then a trust fall is unreasonable because I'm risking injury.
Paranoid? Maybe. But people *have* been injured in those (and other "team building") exercises. Especially large people like me. There is no *legitimate* job requirement for *that* level of trust in your coworkers unless you are a cop, fireman etc. Or are working with dangerous equipment or chemicals.
Yeah, having coworkers be "friends" can help job efficiency. But if they have a falling out, it can hurt it far worse than if they had merely been acquaintances.
And given that *many* things covered by on-discrimination laws or that should otherwise be private will prevent friendships this whole expecting coworkers to be frienfds is *wrong*.
Worse yet is the way it's the "fault" of the person who *didn't* want to share info when the *real* problem is the person who demanded info and then didn't like the answers they got.
Real life example. Years back I was in the break room, trying to ignore this one guy who kept trying to "start a conversation". Finally, he *set fire* to the newspaper I was reading. Yes, he got in trouble. But *I* got a lecture on how it was my fault for ignoring him.
This is *nuts*. And from what I hear, it's only gotten worse in the 30 years since.