The subtext of the article is that divisiveness is an independent measure of whether ant individuals feel excluded from your organizational culture.

And given that measure, it’s not wrong: sterilizing and suppressing culture is an effective way to make sure nobody is excluded from it.

The tradeoff, which you’re noticing, and that the article fails to, is that a sterile culture doesn’t have inclusivity either.

It’s just inert.

Some workplaces, especially big enterprises, have no choice but to favor non-divisiveness over some kind of signature culture that bonds some people and leaves others feeling left out.

But that’s not the only way to have a healthy, respectful organization and it’s probably not something that we should want as universal.

    a sterile culture doesn’t have inclusivity either.
    
    It's just inert.

This is what we in the business like to call a "divide by zero error". As the denominator approaches zero, so does the meaning of the ratio.

So?

Sterilize the job thing, go be colorful with like minded folks away from it.

Doing jobs for someone with more money is one of those things we can’t avoid and it’s been shown over and over we minimize engineering issues when best practices are put first.

Jobs are not there to serve every potential individual preference. You’re paid for results not how validated you feel.

I have AB tested this previously, and what the article is saying, does ring true to a some extent. I am known to be the joker, the glue of the team that just rallies as we go through harder problems or things we just don't want to do as a team. One day, just to test, for a whole month, I put on a serious facade. People did question if I was okay but in the end they adjusted and so did their treatment towards me. When I spoke they listened intently, when I disagreed the content of it was echoed by my team, I just somehow carry more weight.

I switched back and the treatment then went back to "normal". It's hard for me to joke less and laugh less because it is naturally who I am. I would love to hear other people's experiences, has laugh/joke less helped you?

> It's hard for me to joke less and laugh less because it is naturally who I am. I would love to hear other people's experiences, has laugh/joke less helped you?

I try to bring a more complete version of myself into my work. I treat my coworkers and clients as peers that I'm collaborating with towards common professional goals and embrace an honest, informal air that includes humor, cynicism, sympathy, excitement and whatever else gets stirred.

I do this knowing that not everyone approaches their work this way, and not expecting them to.

What shakes out is that I tend to leave an impression on the clients and coworkers I collaborate with and that I accumulate tighter and longer-lasting relationships with those whose impression is positive.

A few decades into my career, this means that even while I work as an independent consultant, my collaborators often feel like a family where there's a lot of respect, trust, wholeness, and acceptance. I'm not forgotten and -- because I also do good work -- I can usually find it when I need it. It's worked out well.

But I also harbor no illusion that there aren't people who I've rubbed the wrong way and who would prefer a more compartmentalized work environment or who just weren't into my vibe. I don't blame them, and I don't sweat it.

I also don't know that my approach would have flown had I gone down the megacorp route. That's fine by me too.

I have nearly the same experience, but because I moved to a new company/job I had to make my change permanent. My jokes were getting in the way of being productive and so I started to bite by tongue when I think of something funny.

Now I save my humor for times where productivity is not an issue, nor is decision making or in the presence of others making decisions or being productive. This is the nice balance I have found. (it's been better for me at work in every way to make this conscious decision on a regular basis, still not easy, but worth it)

I joke with my friends. I know their sense of humor. They know mine. Maybe I understand my team's sense of humor. I doubt it. I wouldn't count most of my co-workers among my friends. You also don't always know at who's expense or how expensive a joke may come, whether this is about football teams, geographic areas, hair (or lack thereof), etc. You also don't know if you tell a joke in an email in line with work related stuff whether or not that email gets forwards a bunch of times, might eventually find its way to someone you don't know who doesn't get the joke.

One of my biggest rules of humor is to know your audience. It's easy to know your audience in a comedy club or at a dinner table surrounded by friends. In most cases, you don't know your audience at work.

Indeed: group settings vs one on one, for example. Empathy and connection can make boundaries clear in the latter where the former is a soup of uncharted waters and mixed signals. Group settings require those air traffic controllers flashlights for proper signaling of intent.

I agree that joking, and laughing at certain jokes, are by their nature divisive. It's feasible to get a room full of people to agree on a feature spec, but it's not really feasible to get a room full of people to agree that a particular joke is funny.

I don't agree that "joke less, laugh less" is good advice. There are things in life more important that minimizing divisiveness at all times.

I found the "type" of joke made all the difference. "A man walks into a bar..." or "Three engineers went to a party..." type of jokes often shut down the natural flow of conversation and focused attention on an individual.

But, when someone tells a "funny story" like "Last night one of my kids did..." or "Did anyone else notice that crazy thing the other day?" then everyone is involved and easily invited to adding to the conversation even if what they say is not a joke or funny.

Or even a spontaneous but appropriate response that was funny and shows wit in both the telling and comprehension making all parties feel good. There is risk, with all spontaneous social acts, I might add, but you may reap dividends in trust and camaraderie.

I've been asked before in an interview "Don't take this the wrong way, but do you have a problem with people ... taking you seriously?". For a bit of context it was a spammer company that had gone legit and it was email marketing and I didn't take the interview seriously but it was a friend of a friend reference and I was curious. I laughed out loud and said "I would not say I personally have a problem with it."

The interview lasted for another couple hours and I got to know both of the guys really well. I moved on to another job before they put together an offer but I got to be good friends with both of those guys. I still don't have a problem with people taking me seriously. But also, some people do, some people don't.

A lot of this guys advice seems fairly useful. The "laugh less, joke less" thing is just nonsense. Fuck that, I'm on this planet to laugh. I don't want to make people uncomfortable and I do my best to not be inappropriate at work... but that's just stupid advice for miserable people to be more miserable.

Humor, and the feeling of where it is appropriate, can be highly subjective. It therefore does have the potential of being divisive. For example, not everyone likes being jokey all the time, or may feel that it detracts when important work is being discussed. I guess in the author’s experience and assessment there’s more often too much than too little.

I wonder about the industrial context, as well. Defense or medical vs advertising

I see it as a workplace version of a lot of the underpinnings of Strunk & White's Elements of Style:

Strive for clarity and unambiguity.

Jokes are by definition, the opposite of this. The humor of many jokes is found in the ambiguities of language and circumstance.

It's called acting like a professional. Nobody actually likes the class clown because he's using humor to mask the fact that he's an asshole. Don't be the class clown.

Precisely that. It's a workplace where people work with a purpose, not a popularity contest. A similar sentiment is expressed in ch. 4 of St Benetict's Rule.

I agree. Joking less should be defined as only make jokes that everyone can appreciate. They don't have to think it is funny, but they should not be at anyone's expense.