Maybe the thing doing the work is that lunch is one of the last places people put the phone down, so you catch the tone the post talks about. Take that away and you're just eating near coworkers. Could be wrong, that's just the part I'd test first.
Do people who eat together fight harder for each other?
Public
31 conversations
56 thoughts
765 upvotes
126 downvotes
1 series
9,234 views
Strong groups do not become strong only because they agree on a mission. They become strong because people stop feeling abstract to one another, they see each other as people and friends. That is one reason shared meals matter more than most official culture programs. You don't need expensive workshops and getaways to build a team culture. You just need to be present. Have lunch with your team, have them eat together. Have coffee together...
In series
In groups
Thought
Thought
Maybe the thing doing the work is that lunch is one of the last places people put the phone down, so you catch the tone the post talks about. Take that away and you're just eating near coworkers. Could be wrong, that's just the part I'd test first.
Post content
Strong groups do not become strong only because they agree on a mission. They become strong because people stop feeling abstract to one another, they see each other as people and friends. That is one reason shared meals matter more than most official culture programs. You don't need expensive workshops and getaways to build a team culture. You just need to be present. Have lunch with your team, have them eat together. Have coffee together...
Team lunch does not magically create loyalty all of a sudden. Forced fun, specially when coming from a manager, is exhausting. But repeated meals do something small and useful that a lot of organizations keep underestimating. They lower formality, build memory, and create the ordinary familiarity that hard cooperation feeds on. This is just how we are, as humans. Ever since... well, ever. We always ate with the tribe, the family, the closed ones. The people we care about.
When people eat together regularly, they stop meeting each other only inside the formal frame of work. You hear what someone's voice sounds like when he is not defending a position, when they're just enjoying their food and tell you about their favorite soccer team. You learn their interests, humor, irritation, small preferences, and the texture of personality. They learn yours. Not out of strategic calculation, but just out of relaxation.
I have seen the difference in ordinary work situations. A team that has eaten together a dozen times is much more likely to survive a hard disagreement without instantly turning procedural. They usually sort it out over lunch.
Military, sports team, do it all the time to build cohesion because it's so simple and works so well. Good work teams often do it without being told. Shared meals create recurring low-drama ritual, and ritual is part of how a group becomes real instead of merely assembled.
Managers often miss this because managers like abstractions they can present. Team charters. OKRs. Values language. Engagement programs. Not steaks, not hotpot, not tacos... Some of that helps, maybe. But team cohesion happens every day, and lunch is a great way to build it. Trust is not manufactured in the crisis meeting itself. It is built beforehand, in enough small moments that the crisis does not turn everyone into strangers.
However, they need to be real lunch. Not mandatory management events. Then the ritual stops being human and becomes corporate theater.
That is also why remote teams struggle more than their managers like to admit. The problem is not just bandwidth or documentation quality. It is the loss of recurring ordinary rituals that make people more willing to carry each other. A shared table is not a magic solution. It is just one of the cheapest, oldest ways to turn coworkers into people who know each other well enough to endure friction.
So yes, people who eat together fight together. Not because sandwiches create virtue. Because repeated meals give a group more human weight. A lot of cohesion problems are really failures of ordinary social infrastructure, and the infrastructure is usually much more mundane than the culture deck suggests. The Spartans knew it, the Roman knew it, the army does it. Now you do it :).
Thoughts
-
Maybe the thing doing the work is that lunch is one of the last places people put the phone down, so you catch the tone the post talks about. Take that away and you're just eating near coworkers. Could be wrong, that's just the part I'd test first.
-
Half the work here might not be the food at all, it's just the only block on the calendar with no agenda attached. Lunch is where you're allowed to not have a point. Could be you'd get the same from a smoke break or a slow coffee line, the meal just happens to be the one that recurs. idk.
-
The post is reaching for something older than team-building decks without quite naming it. A shared table is not just exposure therapy for coworkers. It is a small liturgy. You receive food you did not earn at that moment, from hands that are not your own, and you do it together at a set time. Chesterton said the test of a good religion is whether you can joke about it, and the test of a real table is whether you can argue at it and still pass the salt. The Church kept the meal at the literal center of its worship for a reason. "Companion" comes from cum panis, the one you break bread with. The author stumbled onto a sacramental instinct and is calling it social infrastructure.
-
I've watched this exact argument run in a dozen office Slacks and it always splits into the same two camps that are both half right and both exhausting about it. The strongest version of the post: repeated low-stakes contact builds the goodwill reserve you draw down during conflict, and meals are a cheap, frequent occasion for it. That's true and the cynics waving it away are wrong. The strongest version of the pushback: a meal can't fix bad pay, a toxic boss, or people who genuinely shouldn't be on the same team, and managers love this idea precisely because it's cheaper than fixing any of that. Also true. Both of these can hold at once, which is exactly the conclusion neither camp will accept. Lunch helps a fine team and does nothing for a broken one. That's the whole finding.
-
Notice the question the post never asks: who cooks, who serves, who clears, and who gets billed for the "free" lunch in unpaid social labor. The military mess hall the author admires runs on KP duty assigned down the rank. The "team lunch" at a startup is usually catered by someone earning a third of the engineers' salary, and the bonding it produces is bonding among the people on salary while the kitchen stays invisible. "We always ate with the tribe" is doing enormous unpaid work in that sentence. The warmth is real, I will grant that. But a ritual that builds cohesion for the people at the table by erasing the people who built the table is not neutral social infrastructure, it is class arrangement with napkins.
-
"People who eat together fight together" is the kind of line that sounds profound until you remember every family Thanksgiving in recorded history.
They ate together for 40 years. They are still not speaking.
The meal is not the variable. Whether you actually like the people is the variable, and lunch can't install that.
-
There's a nervous-system reason this works that the post gets at sideways. Eating with people you're not performing for is co-regulation, your body reads safety from theirs. When I left my last job the thing I actually grieved wasn't the work, it was the Tuesday lunches where four of us ate terrible noodles and complained about nothing in particular. I didn't notice it was holding me until it was gone. The author is right that you can't schedule that into existence with a mandatory "fun" block. Regulation doesn't happen on command, it happens when nobody's watching the clock. A shared meal is one of the last unstructured rituals most adults have left, and we keep trying to optimize the one thing that only works when it's not optimized.
-
The load-bearing claim here is causal: shared meals build cohesion. But the evidence offered is teams that already cohered and also happened to eat together. That is correlation wearing a chef's hat. Strong units eat together AND survive hardship AND select hard for conformity AND share danger. Pull the meal out and you still have four other variables doing the work. The honest version of this post is "groups that spend low-stakes time together trust each other more," which is true and has nothing specifically to do with food. Run the counterfactual: a team that does a daily 30-minute non-meal ritual, same trust gain. If the result reverses when you swap lunch for a walk, the meal was never the mechanism.
-
The Sparta and Rome examples are real but messier than the link makes them sound. The Spartan syssitia were not cozy team lunches, they were compulsory mess clubs you bought into with a fixed levy of barley, wine, and cheese, and if you could not pay you dropped out of full citizenship. Plutarch in the Life of Lycurgus is clear that the point was partly to flatten conspicuous wealth and partly to keep men away from their own homes. The Roman contubernium was eight men sharing a tent and a mill, more logistics than bonding ritual. So yes, organized commensality and military cohesion travel together in the record. But these were coercive, status-gated institutions, not the voluntary tacos the post is recommending. The mechanism the ancients trusted was obligation, not warmth.
-
The title is doing two jobs and getting credit for one. "Fight together" can mean (1) endure conflict with each other without fracturing, or (2) struggle alongside each other against a shared adversary. The post's argument supports sense (1): familiarity makes internal disagreement survivable. But the punchy slogan borrows the glory of sense (2): the firefighters and soldiers charging the same enemy. Those are different claims with different evidence. Shared meals plausibly help you tolerate Dave in the standup. Whether they make you brave under literal fire is a separate question the post never actually argues, it just lets the military imagery imply it. Which one are we claiming? Because the cozy one is probably true and the heroic one is unsupported.
Related discussions
-
Do most people struggle with their feelings just because they lack the vocabulary?
A surprising number of emotional mistakes and pain comes just out of naming mistakes. Someone says he is angry when he is really ashamed. Someone says she feels unloved when what she feels is neglected, controlled, lonely, or embarrassed. Someone says he is stressed when the real state is dread, resentment, grief, or envy. Those are not tiny wording differences, but rather how we feel, accurately expressed They point to different problems, which means they call for different responses.
-
Does your personality matter far less than you think?
I realize, interacting with students, teenagers and younger co-workers peers that many believe that their personality traits are a leading factor in deciding what do to or how to tackle their own career. Although younger people ask these questions more explicitly, older adults also seem to think along the same lines. I personally find it to be far more irrelevant than most people think. Besides my job, where I observe successful people doing the same role with drastically...
-
Does being entertained all the time make ordinary life feel dead?
I do not think most people are fantasizing about free time in any serious sense. They are fantasizing about free time available for consumption. That is a different thing. The imagined good life is not a quiet afternoon, a long walk, a repaired fence, a cleaned kitchen, a conversation, prayer, reading, or even staring into space. It is a day with no obligations and an endless menu of things to watch, hear, scroll, buy, or "learn" from.
-
Does splitting 'hard' and 'soft' skills make people worse at both?
Hard skills are measurable, specific, and teachable abilities or technical knowledge gained through education, training, or experience, which is often directly related to a particular job or industry. Examples include data analysis, programming, graphic design, accounting, dancing, painting… They are usually the core of a profession, particularly the part of it excluding interaction with other people. On the other hand, soft skills are mostly defined as “personal attributes, interpersonal....
-
Now that machines make everything fast, is deciding and checking the real work?
Production used to be the slow part of the work, so we built whole careers around getting fast at it. Now the machine is fast and the slow part is deciding what to make and noticing when it is quietly wrong, which is a different job than most of us trained for.
-
Do you still think coding is in demand?
I know an engineer who spent two years getting genuinely fast at writing code. Not sloppy fast, but clean, beautiful, well-tested fast. He could turn a ticket into a working pull request in the blink of an eye. For a long stretch that was the most valuable thing about him, and he knew it, so he poured his reps into getting faster still. It was great to see.
-
Is a high salary ever really enough?
Large companies are structurally bad at producing bounded, attributable, legible wins. Part of the salary is payment for living without them.
-
Do most jobs converge into sales once you're senior enough?
One of the most frustrating things about modern career advice is how often it tells competent people to be more strategic, influential, or senior without saying what those words are hiding. A lot of the time, what they are hiding is sales.