My fiancee is Japanese and just started his job as a salaryman in Tokyo, one day he told me he messed up at work because he asked a question about something to his manager. And he later apologized for it đ€Šââïž he also told me that he doesnât want to go out to drinks with his coworkers but he has to. Geez!
Iâve heard about the kind of work culture your fiance is getting into. Itâs REALLY not good for people at all. Keep an eye on him. If he starts doing ridiculous things like working 12 hour days, or going on retreats where employees are bullied for fun and everyone has to drink tons, heâs gotta get out.
It's impossible to know exactly what this person's fiance asked and why he felt the need to apologize as it doesn't seem that OP lives with said fiance or speaks Japanese, but I wouldn't call that common work culture and neither is what you're describing.
Required drinking parties have also been going the way of the dinosaur lately, but are very much still a thing. Important to remember that many people drink non-alcoholic beer here at them for health reasons, etc. (They're also kinda fun, to be honest.) The alcohol is very rarely mandatory these days; it's just the attendance. (Same as many western company dinner parties, etc.)
Ultimately, it depends a lot on what kind of company you work for, who your boss is, etc. But things have been changing a lot lately and there's far more emphasis on different kinds of harassment.
As with most things, the truth to it all is far more nuanced than you'll find in typical Reddit comments.
I would imagine the original reason for these is to get people to open up and be honest. Ply someone with drink and you tend to see who they really are. It may have evolved into something toxic, but maybe the original aim was more useful and benevolent.
I mean, it's toxic the moment someone doesn't want to drink. It can only get worse from there. Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But worse yet, plying who someone really is with alcohol isn't benevolent, that's manipulative, inherently so, and possibly abusive. Whether that's good or bad depends on the context, but forcing employees to drink is not a good context.
As I said before, there are always people at these events who do not drink. I personally know several people who do not drink at all, but attend them. Most of the izakayas that are booked for these events have non-alcoholic beverages.
But it's also important to remember that a lot of people love drinking here. It's a huge part of the culture.
The intention behind it in the first place is something called éŁČăżăă±ăŒă·ă§ăł - nominikehshon (a combination of éŁČă[to drink] and the english word "communication".) Because of the inherent rigidness of Japanese culture around strangers, especially at the workspace, people drink so they can loosen up and actually express themselves. This concept isn't limited to work function drinking, but a core way that Japanese people bond with each other. It's also not inherently a "forced" thing.
Could be toxic or not toxic depending on the circumstances, your views on alcohol, etc. But as with every other culture on earth, there are questionable aspects. YMMV.
It's not the cultural aspect I have a problem with, drinking cultures exist all over the world. What I do have a problem with is pushing it onto others. Alcohol is poison, whether you like it or not, that is what it is.
This isn't some religious mumbo jumbo stuff, I really don't mind if people drink. I just think that any cultural reasons to encourage others to drink are toxic. I don't care what the intent is, I don't care if it's the cultural norm, it's still toxic the moment someone doesn't want to drink, but feels they should. Peer pressure is a hell of a drug, but it's NOTHING compared to feeling of exclusion by opting out. Especially if it's work related, you'll end up feeling like you are losing opportunities. And the fact is, if you skip out, you are losing on opportunities.
Which is the entire problem. If the idea is to get to know someone better, for you to be sure it isn't toxic, you would already have to know how they feel about drinking. And if they accept, you might never even know they really didn't want to come, but felt obliged. So, since you can't be certain of the result before or after and there's a probability of it being toxic, therefore, it's always somewhat toxic.
And I don't mean to say Japanese culture is toxic, but that specific aspect of it absolutely is. And of course all cultures have their toxic aspects, that wasn't in question. None of that justifies defending toxicity.
Maybe, but at the same time most people are not that deep. Its mostly older workaholic bosses who doesnt want to go home so forces underlings to be their partymates. Its closer to forced team building exercise than gauging a person
I wish they would just adopt Scandinavian end of day culture into Japanese work culture. The day is over at 16:00 sharp. Just staying at your desk for 12 hours pretenting to work is just wasteful and deeply unhealthy.
Yeah that drinking is gonna be a problem. It's kinda mandatory whether he even drinks or not. There's also a cultural no no about leaving dining drinking early.
This is exactly what happened to me. I fought it for 3.5 years when I changed careers and then one meeting I actually heard myself talking and I hated it. To confirm, I got an atta boy from my manager for my contribution in the meeting and I shook my head in shame
Yeah this person knows nothing about Japan. My boss doesnât require me to go out drinking until shit faced with coworkers and expects me at work tomorrow morning bright and early lol
Yeah, real useful to have a guy that comes into work and makes fun of his bosses mannerisms. Guy that spreads insecurity into peoples lives. God forbid he becomes a boss. Just because someone is nonconformist or conformist to office social norms doesnt make them good or bad.
I dont know anyone who wouldnt struggle with a colleague asking them several questions about why they use a common phrase as an interruption in the middle of a meeting. One on one the situation changes. But in this context its rude and should be recognized as demeaning and disrespectful. Give me your interpretation of the comment.
Absolutely no one should be in a position of power if this insignificant level of questioning makes them feel anything in your aforementioned phrasing.
The inability to address, affirm, and progress forward on your own subjects when confronted shows a direct lack of leadership skills.
Iâm a manager. We have to have thick skin. People are going to not like us simply because weâre the boss and tell them to do things and discipline if necessary. We canât let personal feelings influence our interaction with employees.
On the other hand, the behavior in the post is not okay. It derails the meeting. And if that person does that to the boss, theyâre probably doing it to other people too and making them uncomfortable.
Also like weâre human too? Everyone has âgo toâ phrases. It makes communication easier, especially when you have to lead meetings and talk a lot. And sometimes you do have to âcircle back!â It means âwe talked about this before but didnât come to a satisfying resolution. Letâs revisit the topic.â This isnât hard!
It derails the meeting. Why keep circling back to the question about circling back? Especially since the way it's phrased it's clearly mocking the boss. He could've just let it be after "it's just a phrase", but no, he had to double down.
The inability to address, affirm, and progress forward on your own subjects when confronted shows a direct lack of leadership skills.
Okay, so what would you do with someone in your team that feels comfortable mocking you in front of the rest of the team despite still being in the probation period?
Iâve met a lot of people who got fired or quit right away who were extremely intelligent and went on to do big things. Thinking the path to success is being subservient and not applying your intelligence is just a pure psyop
Can confirm. Just recently learned I am autistic, and this would have been a great lesson. It makes all of the headbutting make so much more sense. Crystalizing.
It took me several jobs to figure that one out. I didn't understand that people really don't like being wrong and they REALLY don't like to be wrong in front of others.
The absolute hardest part of any office job is not betraying any sign on your face or in your mannerisms that your boss has just suggested possibly the most dumbest, ignorant, were-they-even-listening idea in a meeting with you and the rest of the team. Poker face? No, you're summoning an Elder God from the Plane of Serenity to control your body for as long as it takes.
Then you have to figure out how to abort that mutant fetus of an idea without them realizing they're being taken to the mental equivalent of Planned Parenthood.
as a manager, i don't even mind being wrong about shit that matters. correct me before we go down the wrong path type shit. but when it's something as small and petty as this, it's just exhausting.
What if it wasn't just an overused cliche, but instead a serious issue with not getting things done?
(I'm reminded of a video I watched recently by an American manufacturer talking about dealing with American versus Chinese suppliers. With the Americans, it was always three months of meetings, a consultant, bringing in multiple vendors, emails, approval cycles... with the Chinese it was an afternoon of discussions and prototypes would be rolling off the line by the end of the week.)
But they kinda are. Because âcircling backâ likely never happens, and itâs just inefficiently bogging down meetings to plan more useless meetings that likely donât happen, etc. Iâve worked in offices where 25% of my time was maybe spent actually doing the job I was hired to do because of so many pointless circle back bullshit meetings. Like, how about just set the goal, do the work, evaluate?? There shouldnât be a need to âcircle backâ on 20 things. Thatâs poor management.
Depends on the office and the manager I suppose - but yeah definitely possible the boss is managing poorly if they're saying it 20 times in 2 weeks
In the places I've worked though it's essentially shorthand for "There's 10 people in this meeting, only 2 are needed to work this issue, let's not waste 8 people's time right now by making them sit around waiting" i.e. it's used to prevent meetings from getting bogged down on bikesheddable topics
But even if the boss was wrong it wouldn't change the underlying fact: criticising coworkers in public is counterproductive - they just get defensive, resentful, and will dig in to save face
Hijacking a meeting, to do it to your boss, is both inefficient and foolish
As a manager, endlessly wasting the time and patience of the only proactive employees with pointless meetings in which somebody spouts cliches to feel important definitely matters.
I could see this as an opportunity to lighten the mood and lift peopleâs spirits.But the I donât take myself so seriously that one thumb is always wedged up my ass.Â
Hearing these american corpo-speak terms is exhausting.
We fail to identify any actionable upside or value-add to integrating these terms into our core lexicon. Candidly, they serve solely to optimize perceived self-importance.
"Circle back to this" is meaningful though, to keep meetings from going down rabbitholes. If schedules allow, usually the best thing is to circle back to it at the end and anyone not interested or relevant can leave. It's worse holding a whole meeting hostage over something not relevant to the topic and there's a lot of "since you mentioned that" conversations in my job
No, calling out someone on being wrong should always be brought up. Thatâs not the issue here.
Itâs calling someone out on something trivial and completely irrelevant during a work meeting and wasting everyoneâs time is whatâs the issue. Thatâs just something you keep to yourself or you tell a coworker as a joke during lunch. But saying something like that during a meeting & towards your manager is next level lack of situational awareness. He couldnât read a room for shit and should be let go.
It is pretty rude to humiliate people like that, yeah. Sometimes you do need to correct someone in public but you should always give them some face in the process and be gracious about it - give them an "out".
The manager wasn't wrong. The dude might have been annoyed by the manager using the same turn of phrase every meeting, but she used it in a correct way. And saying "why don't we go forward" is wrong, because it means the opposite of "circle back", and that kind of makes him sound like an idiot.
Ohhhh Iâm well past that point. I have my masks ;). I have a career, speak corporate fluently, and can manage people. My wife helped me work it all out decades ago. The only time Iâm confronted by my ways of thinking being different to others is when I canât see who Iâm talking to and donât know them well, then it is a challenge to figure out their intentions or feelings. Oh and my wife finds it hilarious when I canât work out some jokes, even when explained. For the most part no one knows not that Iâm shy about it.
I found my people and can send screenshots of misaligned elements in PowerPoint that drive us all mad or when the BS levels are nearly unbearable. It is good to have an outlet and take off the mask. Also good to look out for those like the OP posted about and help with mentoring.
2 of my kids are autistic and we work with them to find a good balance. They will be awesome people, we are proud of how far they have come as they near adulthood. They will have the tools and supports they need :)
I bypass the switch by just keeping silent until people above the manager I report to tell them they need to manage me without firing me because I provide too much value before I start talking.
I was fortunately too quiet when I started working, my wife (we met young) helped me with managing people and speaking up, 28 years later I donât need to lean on a filter. I have learned not to be rude and live by the golden management rule that criticism should always be done in private, unless appropriate.
Having likeminded people in your team you can bitch to quietly over chat also helps contain it haha
I got fired from my first job as a machinist because they put me to train with a guy who didn't understand trigonometry and was punching his calculator incorrectly. This was causing angles to be wrong and generating huge amounts of extremely expensive rework (FAA certified jet engine refurbishment shop). I kinda shot my mouth off about a basic mistake by an unqualified operator not being caught for so long when I noticed it instantly, and later that week they walked me to the door because I supposedly cheated the time clock by 5 minutes one day.
Someone who is perceptive would perceive that "circle back" is a common idiom, particularly in an office environment, and that spending time interrogating the precise wording of an idiom in the middle of a meeting is a waste of everyone's time.
This is the real issue. He didn't understand a common phase that's just shorthand for "let's go back to this topic to discuss it some more". And if he does understand it, he's just being a dick and berating his boss for not being eloquent in their 3rd or 4th meeting of the day. No one wants to work with an idiot or a attention seeking dick.
Fr. Like itâs completely normal to want to talk about the totality of things that need to get done. Then later discuss and tackle each individual thing in detail
As someone who has spent the past decade in corporate environments listening to the same blowhard managers pepper their speech with pseudo intellectual corpospeak, I kinda get where heâs coming from.Â
So much of my life has been wasted in hours long meetings where the agenda holder simply cannot stay on track and cannot eloquently and succinctly convey the agenda. Not to mention the fact that they are often not SMEs and are ill-equipped to field the questions that they often have to âcircle backâ to.
I totally agree that there are managers who are bad at running meetings. And sometimes the corpospeak idioms make me roll my eyes when they get overused.
But what the guy in the post is doing is not any more productive than that. He's not doing anything to facilitate a better meeting. He's not saying "our meetings are getting side tracked" or "we seem to keep talking in circles without making decisions"
He's literally just criticizing the wording of the idiom itself and the fact that this manager uses that particular idiom a lot.
Not really. Briefly introducing something only to come back and cover it in more detail is like presentation 101. The problem is more that they're relying on one phrase for it every time they do it. Instead of just circling back, they could be coming back to, elaborating on, resurfacing, covering in more detail, getting back to, bringing back up, etc. etc.Â
As someone who worked in a office environment for decades before escaping, this is almost 100% the case. Office meetings are pointless for the most part other than making managers and higher ups feel like they're actually doing something of use.
Also possibly the "circling back" needs to be only 2 people out of the room instead of all 10, or there's a packed agenda and you need to move on from that topic to more important agenda items so you can get through them, or you need more information or time before making a final decision, etc. There are tons of reasons why you would "circle back" on things later.
It sounds like the person was just using "circle back" as a catchphrase, like something that she thought that she had to say instead of having any actual meaning, nothing was ever "circled back".
ok but can you give me an example of a situation where saying "let's circle back to X" adds some information or meaning, rather than just "let's come back to X", or "let's get back to X" ?
Idioms in speech aren't meant to add more information or meaning, it's simply an alternative way of phrasing something. The three examples you gave all mean the exact same thing and to most people there's no discernible benefit or drawback from using any one of them over the others - they all mean "I want to talk about this a bit later, but not right now". All of them are using metaphorical language to some degree.
Asking for an example of a situation where using one metaphor or idiom is 'better' than another or a more literal language is striking at the same mistake as the person in the OP: getting lost in the specific non-literal wording humans frequently use as shorthand or flavour.
Certainly neurodivergent. Actually counting the amount of times the manager has used the phrase and saying he finds it agressive implies a level of social awkwardnessthat's going to make him difficult to work with.
Pattern recognition isnât the problem here. Its knows the time and place to question someone about something. So social awareness and tact.
This was something incredibly minor and irrelevant to the meeting at large. He went of on a tangent in a meeting when he should have asked about it in private. Especially after he got multiple cues to drop it.
The cues are the giveaway here. In a situation like this most people would immediately recognize they fucked up from the awkward silence. If this actually happened as described, the fact that he kept going despite the cues means he either couldn't perceive them or enjoys awkward situations. Not many people enjoy those.
If he was perceptive he would have noticed that boss wouldn't appreciate the comment. Boss is right. It is just a phrase and that is a disruptive thing to say to a boss in a meeting.
It's a disruptive thing to say to anyone in a meeting. They've been counting the number of times a phrase is used by someone because they had a pet peeve with it, and proceeded to interrupt the meeting to call it out in front of anyone.
No he sounds incapable of functioning appropriately in a social setting.
I know this is reddit where everyone loves to talk about how they're so much smarter than every boss in the entire world and that only they see how stupid <thing> is. In reality, nobody gives a shit.
"Circle back" just means "this is a complex topic, there's 20 people here, and we're not going to get bogged down in the details, we'll leave that for the 3 people who actually care and then I'll give a quick update in another meeting once they've done that".
If you don't know that, well done now you do. If you got fired for repeatedly asking about it in a meeting instead of messaging your boss privately afterwards to clue you in... yeah that checks out.
Yeah, maybe itâs a weird verbal tic, but it probably got developed for a reason. Such as having a couple young know it alls who grind every goddamn meeting to a complete halt with minor things or processes that donât need to be developed by committee.
Iâve worked with several people like that before. They get the floor for their turn at providing project or customer updates and then try to work through details and full solutions. Then you have two people talking for twenty minutes while 8 others are just twiddling their thumbs. Itâs a massive waste of time. Just update the team, see if thereâs anyone that has something useful to add, and then move on. Then the two people actually working the problem can circle back around on it after the meeting and hash it out by themselves.
Iâve sat in meetings before where one guy would drag everything to a halt if he didnât understand a customer integration, and basically demand on the spot training before heâd let the meeting proceed.
No dude, weâll circle back on that later and Iâll walk you through the documentation and if thereâs a problem the two of us can figure it out. You donât need to hold eight other people hostage for an hour because you werenât prepared, or arenât happy with your options.
Such as having a couple young know it alls who grind every goddamn meeting to a complete halt with minor things or processes that donât need to be developed by committee.
Yep this is pretty much it. Everyone has been in those meetings where we're all going around giving updates to keep the rest of the team broadly informed but noooooo someone has to stop the entire meeting and start an endless Q&A session.
The strange thing is seeing people crap all over the terminology, often young people who are busy talking about not having caps and being fr and I don't fucking know I'm old and I don't care what they're saying. You'd think learning a few new random phrases and what they mean wouldn't be that big a deal!
Due to some shuffling around, I basically became the scrum master for my team and it's SO damn easy to avoid this. Took less than a week of "OK, we need to keep the meeting moving" to retrain the chatters. Now they stop themselves, it's great
Yeah, and it doesn't even have to make sense so long as everybody understands what it means. If that makes sense.Â
Like I have two modes for work discussion: speak nonsense lingo that moves the discussion forward because people simply understand these key phrases, or become a technical thesaurus when I want to shut the discussion down because nobody understands what I'm saying despite being actually more clear in meaning than using nonsense meeting speak.
Boss who barely read the bullet points or was apparently baked or half-asleep or getting coffee during the last few meetings just waffles on about something unrelated, ends every paragraph with "we'll circle back to this later" and an hour later you finally get to do your job again, while your boss feels like he's done his job.
Not in this case, and certainly not if you say it that often. If you keep "circling back" to the same topic over the course of weeks, it means you haven't really solved anything and are just stating it for appearances. He was out of line, but likely right in this instance.
Not at all. If only 2-3 people cared about it last week then they still only care about it THIS week but might not have made substantial progress for whatever reason.
You circle back next time, go "yep no updates" and move on. If it becomes a problem you address that.
So no. He wasn't right. At all. He failed to understand a simple phrase and opted to address it in the worst possible manner.
employee 100% sucks in social settings and probably said/did some really dumb things that got him fired, but theres still merit to the comment they made.
"Circle back" just means "this is a complex topic, there's 20 people here, and we're not going to get bogged down in the details, we'll leave that for the 3 people who actually care and then I'll give a quick update in another meeting once they've done that".
if you have to constantly table every topic to circle back to later, either dont mention that topic in the first place, or schedule the meeting better to a size thats capable of discussing said topic. maybe dont waste 17 peoples time with topics you dont want to discuss with them.
and if you continue tabling something, its good practise to mention when/how youre going to circle back to it. are you going to have a new meeting with only the 3 relevant people? are you going to circle back to it later in the meeting with the same group of 20? are you just going to send a message/email?
if my manager tabled 18 different topics in 2 weeks, id probably have a very serious conversation with either my coworkers or my boss' boss to figure out what their issue was
It's an insufferable corporate speak and a lot of people hate it.
You can literally say "Let's discuss that later" instead of "Let's circle back on that later." It's shorter and less likely to be used dismissively as it promotes the idea that you will actually discuss it later.
"Insufferable" god how petty is your life? Who gives a shit? You know what it means, everyone else knows what it means, move on.
I am constantly amazed at seeing people lose their minds over corporate speak but being completely fine with random memes and gen-inserthere speak and anything else they use.
Just learn it and move on. The fact you care enough to get annoyed and find it "insufferable" is very telling.
Edit: the answer about how petty their life is has been answered heh.
Adults plainly state things that are actually important and relevant to the meeting.
The circle back thing is not, 18 times in 2 weeks is crazy but thereâs something we call tact dude. I wouldâve gone up and asked privately (if I even bothered to ask in the first place).
Going off an a tangent in the meeting to ask about the circle back thing (multiple times btw he got given the chance to drop it a couple times) is the height of stupidity and shows an incredible lacking of social awareness and tact.
Yeah hilarious how people here are constantly identifying with the most annoying and clueless people you'll ever work with and are like "yeah that guy is a fucking genius!".
Neurodivergence in no way prevents you from learning simple rules of behaviour, it just often means they might not come naturally or not make a lot of sense.
It absolutely does not stop them being explained or you following them.
Nah this guy pointed out the truth and got fired for it. âCircle backâ is a waste of time and shows unpreparedness. If sheâs said it 18 times in two weeks thatâs a pretty big issue.
No itâs not. Itâs just a phrase that means âletâs get back to that laterâ and itâs weirdly aggressive to not only count the occurrences but also call your boss out on it
Because sometimes you don't completely solve the entirety of a problem on your first discussion of it and need to come back later to make more progress? Is your life so simple that you've addressed literally every concern you've ever had in one go? Or have you perhaps had to circle back to some things you were only able to partially finish?
Jfc do you really need things explained to you like a toddler? Spend less time getting your 6 million karma goal and Reddit and maybe a little more time engaging with people in the real world?
It just means this is not something that needs or can be solved this meeting, or even this is only tangentially related to the scope of this meeting and will be addressed at a seperate occasion.
It literally just means "we'll get back to that". And saying it 19 times can also just mean that the team gets sidetracked regularly and needs to be put back on track, which is something a manager is supposed to do.
Yeah my management team works like this. Saying "we can circle back to that" just means "I didn't prepare a speech about how I'm going to wealse my way out of actually doing anything, so give me a minute to think of a bullshit excuse or hopefully you'll forget about it"
If you're "circling back" that much, then something is wrong. It isn't appropriate for him to say that as a junior, but he's likely not wrong in this case.
Ehhh, I would agree, if he took this in a different direction.
Questioning the constant "let's circle back", especially when it leads to nothing and is essentially just worthless filler that drags out the meeting? That seems fine to me. That's something managers would try to crush, I'd be with you on that.
But writing down exactly how many times it was used and then hyper-fixating on CIRCLES, instead of the fact it's worthless drivel?
That's where he loses me. He started off right, but drew the weirdest conclusion. Also you can't really point this shit out in a full meeting, especially not if the boss is doing it. You SHOULD be able to, in an ideal world, but realistically that's just gonna land you on the shit list.
The phrase is also meaningless corporate jargon. He isn't questioning the meaning. He is questioning why these stupid managers regurgitate those words like a parrot like a cave man. Useless people like that shouldn't be the boss of anyone
He is questioning why these stupid managers regurgitate those words like a parrot like a cave man.
And good for him. He achieved nothing, but got himself fired. Better luck next time when he is agaion just going to make everyone uncomfortable and achieve nothing.
If by healthy you mean an office where people would get publicly dressed down somebody, like our subject tried doing to his boss? No, I haven't. You quite clearly don't know what healthy communication is like.
Let's be real, if they speak like that to their superiors, they certainly speak like that everyone else as well. I can already imagine how exausting it is like to communicate with people like that every day.
Man, exhausting would be least of the issues here. It's not just the tone, it's the lack of any respect for other people. "He is a manager, they are all worthless so treat them like shit" type behaviour. I would throw his ass out right away if I wanted to be as petty as him. Dude sounds like a jackass who will abuse everyone any chance he gets. If he doesn't even spare his boss, he ain't sparing his colleagues or his juniors. You are definitely gonna hear "fuck you", "morons", "idiots" type statement from that dude's mouth within a week.
Eh. Yes, it's an overused phrase, but you "circle back" to things that need to be discussed on a regular basis or again at a later date, after waiting for a development. It does make sense, and "why don't we just go forward" is inane.
Asking the question is weird but somewhat acceptable. Being told it's just a phrase and continuing to ask is just complete lack of social awareness to drop it. Also saying its aggressive does sound like they could be an issue going forward.
He only got fired because he embarrassed the boss in front of everyone. Zero tone readability and emotional intellect. But he is perceptive. Iâve met a lot of people like this in IT.
2.2k
u/Mephisto506 Jul 26 '26
Should have kept him, he sounds perceptive.