I'm not sure if this has anything to do with alcohol specifically.
As a European, I've always gotten the feeling that corporate America has been trying to ban almost any kind of potentially disruptive but generally perfectly normal social activity from the workplace. Take for example how uptight many American companies seem to be about people forming intimate relationships in the workplace.
Maybe this has more to do with American fear of legal liability. Whatever the case, the strict separation of social and professional settings seems to go well beyond just booze.
At a previous company there was an office-romance happening between a manager and one of their employees. While everything seemed fine, once they broke up, all hell broke loose. The employee threatened to sue the company claiming that the manager had forced him in to a relationship to keep his job. It's ridiculous, but a sad fact of life that you have people who will react that way - so this is why a lot of companies will have policies where dating is prohibited or you must divulge your relationship to HR. This isn't enforceable but is more to prevent legal liability if something like the story above were to happen.
So the office romance per se wasn't the problem but the system that allowed concretely bad things to emanate from it. If the courts take such lawsuits seriously, then that allows people to shift responsibility away from themselves and that's generally when bad things start happening.
In another culture the two would've just broken up, caused a stir in the office, and in the worst case one of them might have left the company if they wouldn't have been able to recover and speak to each other again.
The US has a very sue-happy culture though, things might not escalate that quickly in other parts of the world, thus not requiring so much control of the social side of a workplace.
I think it's far less sue-happy than people think it is - but when you do hear of a ridiculous lawsuit, it will certainly be off-the-wall and for an exorbitant amount of money. Sadly we have a flawed legal system (in oh so many ways) and you will find abusers of the system - and that holds true for any kind of system that can be abused - when they can make a personal gain without much risk.
For example, the reason we have a stupid warning on coffee cups about the contents being hot, is because someone decided to sue for getting burned by coffee. This may not have escalated as quickly elsewhere in the world - not because someone wouldn't try it, but perhaps the legal system would have laughed at them instead of allowed for a case to happen. It's not the US culture at blame, and the lack of such people elsewhere in the world who would attempt to make such a lawsuit happen - it's the system that people can easily abuse - and miraculously are able to get away with it.
edit: I stand corrected by rfurmani and v0cab below - I actually did read up more about the hot coffee case in the past - and the details completely slipped my mind while posting this. It is not a good example and doesn't really fit the point I was trying to make.
Just a nitpick, the hot coffee case wasn't as frivolous as it sounds. McDonalds had been serving its coffee unreasonably hot (190F instead of 140F, which causes third degree burns almost instantly) even though they had previously been warned of the dangers. At one point you have to put a cost to it, so it doesn't just come down to them saving money on refills.
"A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds."
"If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled."
Still sounds pretty frivolous. Tea is generally made from a boiling kettle (210F) poured on a teabag. Still millions of us manage that without burning ourselves.
There is at least some logic in these things, further than legal issues. Relationships are perfectly ordinary in general life, and if they end you can usually avoid seeing the other half if you want. At work that may not be possible, and can cause genuine problems if two colleagues hate each other because of a break-up.
That may be the logic behind it but, purely anecdotal, of the several people I know who have dated at work and ended it they have been socially fine afterwards. There is a period of a month or so where they feel anxiety about seeing the other person but people are adaptive and the cope with these situations. Eventually they just become colleagues again.
Anecdotal counterpoint: I've worked with three sets of people who dated in the workplace, and when they broke up it was fire and brimstone. In all three instances, one of the two quit.
Even in small villages there is more separation than small companies (or small divisions of a company), plus there's an option of one or both moving out of the village - obviously also an option with companies, but one that the company would rather avoid.
Even if only 1% end badly enough that it would impact negatively on the company, there's surely a valid argument that it's worth preventing to avoid those occasional cases.
"Limiting the rights/freedoms" makes it sound far bigger than it is. You could say the same for jobs that require you to start work at a certain time, or to work from an office, or to wear a tie, or not to get your penis out in meetings, or...
I think I draw the line at the company trying to control what you do when you aren't on the clock. Unless you're in some kind of job where PR is one of the main aspects (like a political spokesperson), I'm not sure it should be their business what you do on Saturday.
Well I think it's also much bigger to be told I can't fall in love and/or find someone attractive just because I work with them. And we can probably agree that office crushes are just as bad if not worse than office romances.
I don't really know, I've never had a thing for any colleague (one exception, really long story, but short version is I found out he's straight before he was ever a colleague, so irrelevant), and I've also never had a job where it wouldn't be allowed. All I was saying is that plenty of "freedoms" are restricted all the time, we just don't word it like that and they don't feel like a big thing.
I drink on the job from time to time. The programming I am required to do is rarely challenging, its maintaining and expanding a system I know inside and out.
Sometimes it reaches lunch time, I have some dull task to finish, motivation is leaving the body. The cure. A whisky. Definitely not to get to drunk, just to get the juices flowing.
I find my productivity greatly improves when I get a small buzz. I find the quality of my work stay's the same as I never drink enough to truly impair judgement. It would be win / win but I feel the negative connotations of drinking of the job means this isn't really something I should be talking about.
I have always worked places with strict alcohol rules (my current place doesn't even allow having drinks in the office during a social event after work), so I don't now about during the day, but I have found sipping some whisky while working on personal projects to always be very motivating, enjoyable, and the code generally doesn't turnout any worse.
At a previous programming job I had, we used to regularly have a beer at lunch (in the UK) and it didn't feel like it affected my productivity at the time. This was in my early 20's. I'm now in my early 30's and I find that a beer at lunch just makes me feel tired in the afternoon, so I avoid it.
The point is, it probably affects people in completely different ways depending on physiology, age and health.
It used to be in my industry (banking), but in the last few years nobody seems to drink at lunchtime any more.
15 years ago Friday afternoons used to be pretty much a write-off in terms of getting anything done. We had one project sponsor that would agree to something, then go down the pub, get lashed, and reverse his previous decisions. That was... fun.
I also knew one guy that used to get wasted at lunchtime, and then lay down in the data centre to sleep it off. Different times.
> Another recent paper from the journal Consciousness and Cognition by psychologists at the University of Illinois confirms what many have long suspected: a couple of drinks makes workers more creative.
Wow, never thought I'd see scientific evidence for the Ballmer peak.
Yet more and more start-ups (and not so start-ups) have kegerators in their office. We have one at Lot18 (we're hiring!) and some other companies that I am aware of include Yelp, Google, Name.com, BirchBox, MapQuest, Yammer - and I am sure there are plenty more out there.
Alcohol is often seen as a social thing to do - and with companies trying to get a more solid culture going, alcohol seems to tie in well to aide in creating the social ambiance. Obviously there should still be limits on when you should be drinking, and how you conduct your self - but that should be considered in any social setting.
That's a fair question, and while tech companies are surely employing younger people in general, I don't think that is purely the motivating factor. I think people are trying to get away from the previously stuffy office environments - trying to make everyone genuinely enjoy their work and co-workers even during off hours.
As far as commute goes - this could certainly be true for NYC which is where I am as I don't think a single person drives in to the office unless it is a special occasion - though I am not sure how much of a factor it might be for other localities.
How do you combine that with the driving all the time culture of the US?
In France it's totally prohibited on the workplace (hahaha), partly because of the driving back home.
I guess that depends on where you live - In a densely populated area like New York City, or San Francisco - there is less need to drive to work, because you have mass-transit that can get you anywhere you need to be. If you know you are going to be driving home, I'd hope that people would use their better judgement - same if you were out drinking on your own time. Have a beer - relax a while - maybe a water and then drive - there is no excuse for belligerent or reckless behavior regardless where you obtain your alcohol from!
My assumption that people almost always drive in the US seems flawed.
On a bigger scale, doesn't that widen the cultural gap between areas? Like people in SF or NY can party at work because they don't drive home and people in cities where there is no real public transportation system (LA I believe) can't benefit from that relaxing perk.
But, this is the same for any larger city versus rural area. Whether you are in Paris or in Antwerp (where I grew up) you would take the metro/tram service - but if you lived out in a rural area your transportation options will be far more limited - and so will your job opportunities. Even in cities where the public transportation infrastructure isn't as expansive/great such as Denver (this may have changed since I lived there) - there is still some form of transportation available and you really don't have to drive.
Sadly this is a country that has a huge amount of laziness - and there are indeed people who will drive down their drive way to pick up the mail or take out the garbage - and I am sure that is what most people see America as in general. Consider the innovation that comes out of this country and the intelligent people on HackerNews and you can see that there are people who are not lazy and are extremely passionate and even visionaries in the industry - you can't lump everyone up in the same assumptions :)
At one of my previous jobs, our office was right across the street from a fantastic microbrewery. I'd loved going over in the afternoon with my coworkers for a couple of pints.
My current office is right across the street from a different microbrewery. I can't get anybody in my office to go over with me.
According to the article they would look down on you if you went, so maybe they think of not going as a favor. Or maybe they are worried about how you might see them if they drank.
"Another recent paper from the journal Consciousness and Cognition by psychologists at the University of Illinois confirms what many have long suspected: a couple of drinks makes workers more creative."
That's definitely what we need more of, investment bankers being "creative".
I've tried various experiments and have found that a beer around 3pm often leads to the best productivity gains for technical work. More than a beer and the productivity starts to tail off, but it's much the same for me as with coffee.
I don't drink so much beer these days, but an Aperol or Campari and Soda around 4pm seems to be quite a nice and not very alcoholic way to round off the work day now and again.
In the UK, sales lunches tend to be fairly boozy affairs - this is an exception to the 1 pint rule, although I generally wouldn't go past a third pint of beer on a sales lunch unless we'd agreed we'd take the afternoon off for some time out.
In my youth I had a reasonable capacity in the evenings but not at lunchtime: half a pint would be noticeably incapacitating, a pint would send me to sleep.
If we'd treat alcohol medically equivalently with other similar substances, a suitable recommended dose would be about a teaspoon of wine per day (digging up reference). So no need to keep the workplace boozeless.
My attitude toward alcohol consumption during working hours soured a bit roughly 20 years ago, when a computer operator went back to work after drinking a lot, and put a server out of action for several days.
Now the Economist is normally great, but this line
"This may help to explain the success of Silicon Valley, one of the last workplaces in America where hard and soft drinks still jostle for space in the company fridge."
...at least the movie industry helps you Americans a bit: remember Zuckerberg's character coding Facebook's ancestor fueled by a couple beers in The Social Network?
No it doesn't, not for the overwhelming majority of people. It helps in the illusion of creativity, most commonly the effect is dulled critical faculties and the acceptance of sub-par work which has to be redone when more clear headed.
Alcohol is a recreational drug, its association with industries such as journalism has to do with working wierd hours and drugging contacts to get leads, not with productivity, and certainly not with creativity.
"In one experiment, they found that job candidates who ordered a glass of wine during an interview over dinner were viewed as less intelligent than those who ordered a soft drink."
People that order wine instead of a soft drink at a job interview probably are less intelligent. Not because they like wine but because that's just not a very intelligent thing to do at a job interview in the USA in 2012.
A SV note: Asana has a stocked bar in their office and IIRC encourages people to drink while working.
This implies that intelligence equals willingness to conform to the potential employer's worldview.
I would definitely order wine at a dinner, mostly because I like wine at a dinner, and secondly because it would allow me to use it as a negative filter--to see if they have some sort of a problem with it.
I would rather apply elsewhere if the company didn't like wine-drinking (or if they made me file TPS reports), and leave them alone with their drinking problem.
What I do (I'm in France) to avoid that problem is that I bring the team and the candidate to a restaurant and we all order "Apéritif", so that there is no pressure in what the person order. I think it relieves the tension by having a relaxing and informal setup. When he's well fed, slightly drunk, slightly sleepy, we do the technical test :)
I ask by phone before if there is stuff they don't eat/drink to choose the restaurant, or avoid this protocol.
There are many situations where there are feedback loops like this: For example: Male peacocks grow large tails because this is attractive to peahen mates. It's attractive to peahen mates because their male offspring are also likely to have big tails, which will lead to better reproductive success because they are attractive to peahen mates.... and so on. So a gene that favours big tails will make more copies of itself in the peacock population than some allele that favours smaller tails, even though from a "design" point of view the smaller tail makes more sense (not as heavy to carry around, means you can run fast to avoid getting eaten etc.)
There are many equilibria like this:
- the bank is going to go bust because everyone wants to take their money out because it looks like the bank is going to go bust...
- the credit card company declines your application because you were declined from getting a credit card by another credit card company.
- The company doesn't take you in for interview because you've been out of work for 6 months. They'd rather go after someone that already has a job.
In all of these cases, although the outcome is often not optimal (e.g. nobody wants the bank to go bust), and often not fair, the individuals making the decisions are behaving perfectly rationally.
The criteria there is "better mate". Wilfra could have said "better candidate" and been correct in that way, but they didn't. They said "less intelligent" which seems like a complete non-sequitur to me.
For a job applicant to think about what a hiring manager would think is normal enough. Is it so unusual for a hiring manager to see if the applicant does that?
For a hiring manager to think about whether a job applicant is thinking about what a hiring manager is thinking sounds confusing - but we're thinking about that right now.
As a European, I've always gotten the feeling that corporate America has been trying to ban almost any kind of potentially disruptive but generally perfectly normal social activity from the workplace. Take for example how uptight many American companies seem to be about people forming intimate relationships in the workplace.
Maybe this has more to do with American fear of legal liability. Whatever the case, the strict separation of social and professional settings seems to go well beyond just booze.