Through the Leaders’ Lens: The Misery of Mandated Fun

I make it a point to read the Workologist column in the Sunday New York Times  Business Section whenever it appears, not because of the “sage” advice offered… but actually despite it!  The responses to real world topics of tremendous and timely significance often lack not only a true understanding of climate, culture and social norms of the workplace but also the context essential to dispense sound, actionable and most importantly, responsible advice. The NYT has taken note of my thinking and published responses both in the paper and on the website but pushback isn’t always published so the Workologist’s advice goes largely unchecked. This is why I’ll be publishing my thoughts on mass market advice here… where the  focus is on real work and real results… in real time.

As an executive coach  focused on professional firms similar to the one mentioned in the article, I’ve learned to embrace (and never ignore) the complexities, nuances and culture inherent in each different organization.  However, in an article about ‘mandatory’ fun at work, the Workologist offered a prescriptive solution without fully considering the profound implications of the situation or more importantly of his naive and fairly tone deaf advice …

Here’s my — until now — unpublished response:
In suggesting a strategy to push back against the questionable merits  of “mandatory fun,”  I feel that

• providing any practical,  effective solution warrants gathering more information. We know that the company in question is a financial firm but we don’t know its size or whether it’s privately or publicly held, distinctions that can absolutely affect the eventual remedy. For the sake of argument, I will assume the firm is privately held which can require a more delicate dance.
• the Workologist’s  advice addresses two distinctly different scenarios — one paid for by the company and the other which seems to require employees to bear the financial burden — that have been conflated into one.

The Workologist only cites research that applies to company sanctioned — and underwritten — events that have as their rationale building rapport and team.

’Anonymous’  describes a situation that, to me, sounds more like a user-pay  folkway that has evolved over time and pretty much has taken on a life of its own. But the research cited and solutions offered by the Workologist address instances of company-sanctioned — and underwritten — events that have as their organizing principle, building morale and team.  These sanctioned events are often resented by employees because  the forced frivolity is awkward and stress-inducing for the less-extroverted types and the time taken away from personal life goes uncompensated. In Anonymous’s query, the sole concern seems to be the unspoken expectation of assuming the financial burden (not primarily addressed in the research) and there is no mention of the intrusion on personal time.

So, we’re talking two different situations for which I would offer different advice. In dealing with the one at hand only, I think there is merit in taking the issue to a higher authority (HR, for example)  who quite possibly has no idea this is going on — and not one’s immediate bosses who have their own political stake in participating.  I wouldn’t go in with a complaint, instead, I would go in asking advice. This kills two birds with one stone: it brings the matter to the attention of those who can dispassionately consider and then remediate AND it makes the point without sounding whiny or ‘selfish.’

As I already mentioned, dealing with company sanctioned and underwritten events is a whole different smoke and likely will be a query from another reader in a different context.