[Magus 23]

Serious question (well, I know they're all serious, but this one is less in the vein of everyone having fun)...

I'm trying to find a diplomatic way of phrasing an awkward but unfortunate reality on our "house rules" sheet. We've got a lot of people from the office who play together, and not all at comparable position levels. Workers, supervisors, etc. (including some direct-supervisor relationships). Now, we don't promote the games through any official office communication method (i.e., we don't send out department emails, announcements, etc.), but lately we've gotten concerned that some people might be getting a little too comfortable in the casual setting. Saying things about coworkers and situations that are treading dangerously close to the line. Not that the game's any diferent from any other social gathering, but -- speaking in terms of legal liability -- our supervisors can't completely take off the "manager hat." For example, if someone mentions a sexual harrassment problem at work, a manager or supervisor legally has to act on it.

I don't want to come down hard, saying, "No talking about work" (which would frankly be impractical), but we do want to put up some kind of alert. There's certainly a reasonable amount of confidentiality, but it's not fair to people to make them think that (to paraphrase Vegas) everything at the table stays at the table, when realistically, that's not always the case.

Any ideas?

[OnTheButton]

Wow, that's a tough one, and I can see your concern...

I've got a couple of questions though.

Where are the games hosted? If they are at a "bosses house" then it's going to be an even tougher one to approach, since bosses seem to be even more controlling when on their own turf.

If they are held at a "workers house" then that person should be able to voice any opinion or ruling they feel are appropriate at their own home, including something about not discussing non-present co-workers.

If the joking and talking is about people AT the game, then I think all is fair, afterall that is part of what poker is about, but I think that talking/dissing anyone NOT present should be terminated, and possibly "pot fined" when it occurs, to reinforce that this is improper.

I'm gonna think about this a little more, but knowing the environment where the games are hosted will help to find a solution.

Besides it would NOT be advantageous for any boss or manager to discuss anything personal when off the clock. They could encounter possible liability for private information shared about their employees.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Wow, that's a tough one. I play with people from work, but none of my direct reports or anyone I report to. I would say first step might be to just pull the guy aside who's getting too comfortable as you said and give him a heads up. Just something along the lines that he's getting close to THE line in some cases and while it's a fun poker game today, there are people at the game that might have responsibilities to report anything they may have heard at the game as you said. I don't know how you could put something in a house rules sheet that would work without causing an awkward situation.

[Matthew]

I am a manager and have 27 direct report. I would never - ever get involved in a money poker game with them. It's plain wrong. It puts the employees in an ackward situation. What if I won? They work for me, the last thing I want to do is put myself in a postiion to take from them and I'm way too competative to throw a game. I would only ever play with peers from work. The supervisors in your game need to realize they are in a bad place and as leaders needs to step out.

[Magus 23]

I've obviously got a personal concern at stake here, but I'd like to keep things as generally-applicable as possible, so that any advice offered here might be of use to others as well. I'm happy to have feedback on my own problem, but for the sake of the forum, I'd prefer to use this as a springboard to help "the team."

So in terms of some of the questions asked, let's look at things from diffferent perspectives. What if the games are hosted at a worker's house? What if at a supervisor's? What if at the home of someone in the middle (say, someone of manager "rank" but without any direct reports involved)?

What if it's not just one person who's venturing close to the line, but a general tenor of discussion? Does silence (by a supervisor) on a topic imply agreement? Should these things even be codified? Should there be a very general statement as to "appropriate work-related discussion," with clarification given verbally?

I think the point about supervisors and direct reports not being involved in the same games is a pretty good rule of thumb. Are there exceptions? What if it's the supervisor's game and the direct reports come later? What if, after the games have been going on regularly, someone in the group is promoted?

(And for the record, I'm not just making up wild hypotheticals, but these are all issues that more or less apply to the situation.)

[coyote]

You're trying to make this far more complicated than it needs to be.

1. It doesn't matter who's house the game is at.

2. If you feel that rules need to be posted, keep them general. I mean you can't have paragraphs detailing multiple examples and what they mean. i.e. if joke "a" is told and manager "b" laughs it means "x" but if he shrugs his shoulders it means "y"

3. I think it's simple. If these kinds of problems are coming up, the managers just plain do not belong there any more. It's just an unfortunate fact of the work world. If that is not a possibility, simply post a rule that for everyone's protection and enjoyment, no "shop" talk is allowed. You're much better off making it cut and dried rather than allowing gray areas.

4. If someone was a peer and was promoted to manager of other players, well I guess he needs to take his new position seriously and decide if he should play in the game anymore.

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by Magus 23

What if the games are hosted at a worker's house? What if at a supervisor's? What if at the home of someone in the middle (say, someone of manager "rank" but without any direct reports involved)?

Location doesn' t matter, a game is a game. I would still never play with my direct reports or someone I had influence over at work - i.e. one of my peers' direct reports.

Originally Posted by Magus 23

What if it's not just one person who's venturing close to the line, but a general tenor of discussion? Does silence (by a supervisor) on a topic imply agreement? Should these things even be codified? Should there be a very general statement as to "appropriate work-related discussion," with clarification given verbally?

Put a simple rule - "Don't talk shop"

Originally Posted by Magus 23

I think the point about supervisors and direct reports not being involved in the same games is a pretty good rule of thumb. Are there exceptions?

No.

Originally Posted by Magus 23

What if it's the supervisor's game and the direct reports come later?

They should not be invited.

Originally Posted by Magus 23

What if, after the games have been going on regularly, someone in the group is promoted?

They need to make the right decision to continue playing with that group. It has happened to me, but I think it's unusual, where your former peers now work for you.

In summary - from my perspective a manager/supervisor should not play in a money game with workers whom he has influence over. Whether it is direct or dotted line reporting. I believe it is irresponsible for a leader to play in a game with someone he has control or influence over their raises and/or performance evaluations.

[Jambine]

Speaking as a manager, I would never get in a game with anyone I work for, or, anyone who works for me. Just too many issues to deal with.

Of course that doesn’t help you much, since your game is already established. I would say that I don’t see anything wrong in asking people to avoid work related conversation. It won’t stop it, but it might help to ask. And as Matthew pointed out, the Managers should be able to figure this one out on their own, and leave the game (unless we are talking about senior management, then they might need some help with that decision).

[VARoadstter]

Currently my home game is populated only with my peers and former coworkers but I have extended an invitiation to my CEO and he has not been able to come so far only because of last minute scheduling problems. My (and all of our) relationship with the CEO is very informal and I would have no problem taking his money or vice versa. I would say that my situation is very likely the exception and not the rule. If there's any concern about "carryover" effects at work, then that should certainly be taken into account when forming the invitee list.

[Captn_All_In]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Put a simple rule - "Don't talk shop"

Once in a while I will host a couples game and several of my regulars teach with me or thier wives teach with my wife. I open the game with this exact statement: "Don't talk shop." I then say...."Sorry, if you want to talk about work do it at your house or on the phone. Not during my card game."

That usually gets the point across.

I think the same rule needs to be applied and enforced in a situation like this as well. The idea of a card game is to relax and enjoy yourself. Talking about stressful things at work is neither relaxing nor joyful.

My 2 bits...

Captn