Regardless it also sounds like a great tool for company gossip and office politics.
I usually work as an engineer and manager/mentor and prefer being vulnerable with the people I support. That leads to them often choosing to be themselves.
This only requires some honesty and sincerity. Once we and everyone else who choose to do the same connect on that level, such meaning shows itself in not only one on ones, but also in online chat.
I also find it a boost in productivity because it allows distilling work discussions into pure work because people have to worry less about what they say/write or how they express it.
One huge and rewarding benefit is also that people begin looking behind misconstruable messages, reading the discussion in positive light and helping each other communicate better, too.
When we remove the labels and the expectations that come with those labels, we can have a conversation where both sides operate in good faith. Of course, we can still have those conversations with the labels, but, in practice, we tend to get distracted by them.
I had someone ask me what I thought about the riots (this was within the first couple days), and based on his background and other conversations I had with him, I knew his POV was very different from mine, but we are on friendly terms, so I engaged. Tone is important. My focus was on what we could do so that things don't reach that point, and I was empathetic toward the people he felt the worst for - business owners who lost things to the riots. And, in turn, he was empathetic to the people who suffer systematic abuses. In these scenarios, I just try to focus on understanding where the other person is coming from and to make my thoughts clear. I don't get frustrated when someone doesn't say, 'Gee, never thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right.'
I think a lot of people - all over the map on the big issues - are tired of conversations that center around your mob vs my mob. They're ready to have real conversations about real issues. The depth will depend upon what each person brings to the table, but on a basic level, depth is almost beside the point. It's enough to listen to an on-paper enemy and have them listen to you and walk away understanding that you're not enemies at all, that you both want what's best for your community, city, state, country, and world. We can disagree on how to get there, but if we trust the motivations of others, we can work together. We can't work toward progress with people we don't trust, which is one of the underlying issues with starting with labels.
Of course, there are people to distrust for various reasons, but if I find people who are willing to honesty discuss why they believe what they do about anything (and what they know and don't, etc.), I want to hear what they have to say. And even as I cringe at a conclusion, I want to show them respect and that I took the time to understand how they arrived. Just like anything, angle/perspective makes all the difference.
This is just where I'm at - not meant to tell people how they should behave or how well my perspective meshes with their personality and experiences.
This.
It removes boundaries, barriers even. Holding on to empathy is hard work, but it does pay off.
Jobs seems ontologically based on a closed system of semi passive suffering.
To me, meaningful discussions is talking about philosophy, religion, political theory, introspecting the roots of one's own psychology, etc. That's not really what work is for. At work, one needs to focus one's discussions on the job – of course, you can talk about outside work stuff, but I'm always careful to try to keep it shallow and non-controversial. I'm not about to start debating the existence of God with my work colleagues, as much as I really love that particular debate. Nor am I going to drill into the impact my parent's divorce had on my own psychological development.