The appearance of friendliness in an American workplace is often an act; real friendships are rare, precious, and terrifying to upper management.

Business pundits often claim that trust is “essential” to a high-performing team. Workers, the pundits suggest, must trust that their leaders selflessly have their workers’ best interests at heart, not just the shareholders’ or upper management’s interests.
Leaders, in turn, must trust that their subordinates are diligently following orders and avoid the temptation to meddle when it’s not absolutely necessary. I’ve read variations on this idea in a ton of management books dating back to the 1980s. It’s so common a concept that it’s treated as gospel … but my experience tells me that it’s purely aspirational “visioneering.” The corpo world doesn’t work like that.
Our economic model is structured around the idea of constant competition: the boss ideally holds all the power in the relationship while the worker holds little, if any, power at all. Each worker is an individual competitor, not a contributor. Every other worker is advertised as a constant threat, as there are only so many positions, so many raises, sand o many advancement opportunities to go around. Therefore, the bosses play favourites and pit workers against each other.
Why else would workers’ annual raises be based on rank-ordered lists? Someone must be at the top and someone else at the bottom; HR won’t accept a population that’s all “top blocked.” Hence, the need for workers to constantly scramble for the next higher rung in the “order of merit list” with all advancement coming at the cost of a peer’s success and security.
This competition between workers manifests in several complimentary ways. As a “corporate death game” contender, you’re told you can improve your “competitiveness” by:
This is default corpo life in 2026. Notice what I didn’t put in the list: “delivering shareholder value.” That trite phrase doesn’t make the list because it’s not a real thing; it’s an aspirational statement that sounds business-y but means nothing. I also didn’t say anything about “meeting performance targets” because those are arbitrary, capricious, and only useful for a hostile supervisor to aid or harm their subordinates so as to advance their own agenda.

There’s one more tactic that didn’t make the list, and that’s the subject I want to explore in this month’s column: making friends among your colleagues. You’d think that making friends would be the mark of a strong performer. After all, cementing relationships through validated trust sounds like something leaders are expected to do. And it is … in the abstract. Or in fiction. Or fantasy.
In the real world, making “friends” breaks the meta, and we’ve known that for longer than all of us have been alive. The “pit every worker against ever other worker” strategy comes straight out of the late nineteenth century and became standard practice in the early twentieth thanks to Frederick Taylor’s “Scientific Engineering” leadership model. [1] Taylorism is still a masterclass in “divide and conquer” tactics, focusing on maximum pressure against workers bolstered by immediate termination for everyone who resists or even questions absolute managerial authority.
We’re still living with the echoes of Taylorism in modern corpo life. Sure, we’ve had decades of attempts to reform it, both from the Taylor’s disciples and the rise of “Human Resources” starting in the 1940s. The core principles of the man’s work remain in effect:
All this came to mind Sunday morning when a former co-worker texted me asking if I could help her with a work event. This woman — we’ll call her Esmerelda — is one of the sweetest people I’ve ever met. Esmerelda is relentlessly positive, compassionate, and helpful. She was always a delight to work with. There was never any question as to whether I’d help her … if I could.
Esmerelda asked me if I knew a fellow supervisor from “back in the day” … we’ll call him “Bob” as is our tradition here at American View. I replied that yes, I knew Bob; we’d worked together for over a decade. I supervised one workgroup; Bob supervised another. I did the budgeting for the department that both our workgroups fell under and I was intensely involved in Bob’s procurement initiatives.
We ran into one another every week at the department staff meetings and frequently collaborated on company-wide initiatives. So, yes. I remember him well.

Esmerelda was thrilled to hear it. She explained that she was helping arrange Bob’s going away party since he was finally eligible to retire. Good for him, I said.
Then she asked if I could explain some things on Bob’s CV that were likely going to be mentioned by the MC. Esmerelda figured I would know the answers since Bob and I had been friends. Her words.
Ehhhhh … not so much, I said. “Bob and I were friendly,” I explained, “but we were never friends.” I didn’t know much about Bob’s past other than the stories he’d told me that he thought would paint him a good light. We worked together, sure. I helped him stay employed, sure. But friends? No. Not even close.
My last few years with that organisation were fraught with political and interpersonal drama. Stories of those days have appeared in my byline many times. [2] The company was a cesspit of political infighting and petty backstabbing. Honestly, the setting would have been perfect for a late-night primetime drama series. Terrible place to work, though.
Bob and I got along well, mostly because we had a common enemy in the form of our universally hated supervisor. We helped one another (and our respective suborganisations) evade our boss’s Caligula-lite arbitrary persecutions so that our people could remain employed. We cooperated to improve our workers’ quality of life and to keep our respective functions running. We had a common interest. That made us allies.
We also got along well from an interpersonal perspective. We joked around, helped keep the office vibe positive, and took the piss out of our stuffed-shirt executives. That was why Esmerelda assumed the two of us had been friends. She’d seen our pleasant banter and misinterpreted it. Our jocularity had been social lubricant, not a show of mutual respect.

The reality was that we were rivals within the department. We held effectively identical supervisory positions. All the functional supervisors at our level were being equally abused by our department head. [3[ Therefore, us line bosses banded together for mutual protection and to resist our superiors’ attempts to pit us against one another. “Just say “#&@ NO!” to Taylorism, if you like.
Friendly cooperation helped get things done. At the same time, our organization’s dysfunctional culture strove to drive everyone apart: Keep the workers alienated, squelch dissent, and make the workers fight one another. The survivors of that culture mostly internalized the competitive aspect; a “friend,” to those folks, was and expendable ally. You help one other only so long as there’s no “cost” to you in doing so. Once an ally was compromised, you discarded them like soiled bog roll. That ain’t a “friend.”
To be fair to Esmerelda, I did make some lifelong friends while I worked at that company. I sent a hilarious pun to one of them this morning and got a soul-weary groan back. That’s friendship right there! But those friends were few and far between. People that will risk their own precarious position to stand by a mate are, I’ve found, rare in the American business world.
The incessant “all for none and one against all” corpo mindset means that friends are often incorrectly perceived as an exploitable liability. Obviously, your mileage will vary based on the type of work you do and the peculiarities of your specific Organisation. Across the swathe of American businesses, however, upper management’s default approach is still Diet Taylorism: keep your workers paranoid, anxious, and more suspicious of one another than of management so they don’t notice how badly they’re being cheated and abused.
One last note: I’m not saying that this way of life is correct or that one shouldn’t try to forge real friendships in the working world. Exactly the opposite, in fact! True friendships — those relationships built on trust, respect, mutual obligation, and loyalty make the working world better for everyone. They’re also devastatingly effective at defending against your employer’s cruelties. It’s a lot easier to fight back against a crap boss and the full weight of your employer’s personnel harassment systems when you know you have someone you can trust watching your back. Perhaps that’s why business leaders are so keen to keep us all paranoid of one another …
[1] See False Prophets: The Gurus Who Created Modern Management And Why Their Ideas Are Bad For Business Today by James Hoopes.
[2] Always anonymized, of course.
[3] Just like we’d all been abused by her predecessor, and by his predecessor, and so on. An ouroboros of proctological aggravation.
© 2025, Lyonsdown Limited. teiss® is a registered trademark of Lyonsdown Ltd. VAT registration number: 830519543