I'm not personally a telecommuter -- under normal circumstances, every weekday (save for alternate Fridays, which I have off) I go duly to my little carpeted cubicle in a large, nondescript engineering office and spend the day there. It's not the best environment I can imagine, but it isn't the worst, either -- especially since I have my iPod and my trusty noise-cancelling earphones (the combination of which have enhanced my productivity and overall state of mind at work immensely). I can definitely see the appeal of telecommuting, though, and there have been times (particularly when I'm working on long documentation tasks) that I've mulled over the idea of asking about it.
The CNN article (which is actually a reprint of a 2005 article on CareerBuilder) first describes some of the potential advantages of telecommuting:
it. Freedom to set our own hours, raid the refrigerator ... even take early morning calls in our underwear. There are other conveniences as well: no more rush hour traffic and more time for family interaction.
...and then goes on to list several potential drawbacks.
The drawback description that stood out to me the most was the section on "Social Isolation". One former full-time telecommuter interviewed noted that:
[Once she began telecommuting], she no longer found her job satisfying; she missed the collegial atmosphere of her office and said her work suffered.
"As an extrovert, I get energy from those around me," Irline reflects. "I thrive on social interaction... being able to wander down the hall and kick around ideas with my co-workers helps my creativity and keeps me charged."
The article then went on to say:
While some people can compensate by keeping in contact by phone or e-mail, others need social contact on a frequent basis in order to work productively.
Nowhere in the article is extroversion described as a "disability", and yet, clearly it is a trait that must be accommodated if some people are to do their jobs properly and maintain their mental and emotional health. Hmm...
As an introvert (albeit a rather chatty one when it comes to online interaction), the idea of needing "social contact on a frequent basis in order to work productively" seems downright bizarre to me. Not that I don't see the benefit of occasionally meeting with others, or bouncing ideas off of colleagues -- no man or woman is an island, and the work projects I am generally assigned to are of such complexity that it would be impossible for one person to deal with all aspects of the design and integration in the first place.
But I don't have the need to have "bodies nearby" as some seem to, and I definitely don't have the need for "chit-chat" that some seem to; I actually find it distracting and disconcerting if I go to ask someone about a work-related matter and they start inquiring about my weekend, etc. I don't mean to seem (and I hope I don't seem) "unfriendly" because of this, but small talk just isn't my strong point. However, another way of looking at it is that I'm not dependent on small talk. If I do engage in it (and my attempts tend to be clumsy and abbreviated at best; I much prefer just "jumping into" the meat of a topical discussion if at all possible), my doing so is largely an accommodation of someone else's special needs.
The same is true when I'm working with someone who doesn't write well, who can't type quickly, who has difficulty spelling, or who generally just prefers the phone to e-mail or instant messaging -- for me, the phone is a necessary evil at best, and I will always default to text if the other person is amenable to it (hence, my love for Internet communication -- I'm in my element here!).
Yep, that's right. Atypical people -- yes, even those of us who are technically classified as "disabled" -- frequently spend lots of energy every day attending to the special needs of others. Some of us don't even realize how much energy we are expending in this regard until we learn that certain things really are more challenging and exhausting for us than for most others -- our culture basically defines everything in terms of the ability set of the majority, meaning that some "accommodations" are taken for granted completely because most people need them.
This result in the curious phenomenon in which people who benefit from the dominant culture assume that they are "fully independent" and "have very few needs". At the same time, those of us who might not need typical accommodations (but who may very well need other accommodations) are in the difficult position of looking like we have more needs than average when that isn't actually necessarily the case. It's quite confounding!
I've found myself numerous times in situations where people keep offering me help over and over again with a task I actually find easy, or even apologizing for assigning me a particular kind of task when it's actually a task I like! I very much enjoy tasks most people seem to despise -- those involving lots of focused, mostly-solitary work. Documentation, "data-crunching", spreadsheet sorting, schematic capture, you name it -- if it means I get to sit in front of a computer for hours or days on end dealing with "nit-picky" details few would want to concern themselves with, I'll be a very happy camper (and by all accounts, I do a pretty good job at this sort of thing).
At the same time, I've also been in situations where someone is asking me to do something that I know seems trivially simple to them (like, "Make a quick phone call to so-and-so right now and ask them about X."), but that would require fairly extensive preparation on my part, and that might end up dampening my productivity for several hours afterward. It's as if I am expected to justify why I "can't do something" to a much greater extent than others would -- which is doubly difficult because society does not provide a ready nonpathological vocabulary for explaining the difficulties of atypical persons.
People who have difficulty with long hours of solitary detail work are practically never pathologized for expressing that they have this difficulty, because most others can relate to having difficulty with something like this -- but not so for the person who can't make a spontaneous phone call on request for reasons that have nothing to do with "anxiety". (I have intermittent difficulties forming coherent spontaneous speech that reflects what I actually know and think, which isn't anything I consider a deep tragedy -- I can communicate just fine in writing even when my mouth isn't expressing what's in my head, so my main strife in this regard consists solely of other people's pathologizing reactions).
Some might suggest that atypical people (introverts, autistics, etc.) simply need to "break out of [our] comfort zones" or "practice" the kinds of tasks that more typical folks find easy or trivial. This advice is quite common; I've received it myself on numerous occasions (and I dearly wish I could invite the folks who have given me that advice inside my head for a day, just so they could see how little time I actually spend in anything remotely resembling a "comfort zone"!).
But -- you practically never (if at all) hear of people trying to counsel extroverts to "practice going without frequent social contact", just as you rarely hear chronic multitaskers being counseled to just work on one thing before moving onto the next. Apparently it's okay for those folks to operate in their "comfort zones" all the time! Why the double standard?
Well, I suspect the double standard in this case has something to do with status quo bias. Status quo bias basically describes the cognitive tendency for people to wish for things to stay the same in particular ways. That is, many people would probably balk at the notion of establishing a work culture more friendly to introverts (e.g., offering more private/quiet work areas, offering break rooms stocked with books as well as foosball tables, etc.), and might even feel resentful toward the folks for whom these culture changes were intended to assist.
My advice to such people is: get over it! Not everyone is the same -- and having a different temperament or ability set from the norm does not mean a person is categorically sick or defective. Work and public environments that allow more different kinds of people to participate help boost overall social morale (by reducing "us versus them" sentiments, by exposing people to a wider range of other kinds of people, etc.), and also boost the financial, intellectual, and creative economy via allowing more people to work, educate themselves, and receive enriching experiences offered by their local communities.
There are a lot of people who I believe go "untapped" throughout their entire lives because of the expectation that they either emulate "normal", or else (if possible) alter themselves internally to move more in alignment with the ability set that current fads and cultural conventions favor. And I'm not talking about elitism here, nor am I suggesting that anyone who has difficulty in the standard office culture is some kind of "misunderstood genius" who shouldn't even be expected to flush the toilet -- I'm just talking about the probably-huge number of persons who don't even know what their strengths are because nobody will give them the chance to find out in the midst of the frantic struggle to have them "get the basics down".
So, while I have stated on numerous occasions that I believe people should be able to modify themselves as they see fit in the service of self-expression and goal-seeking, it is important to avoid letting status quo bias effectively stifle the potentially vast range of forms and functionalities people might choose in the least coercive, most flexible culture. What kind of world do you want to live in?
11 comments:
I'm a lot like you in that respect. I hate talking to people and always prefer to be alone or with as few people as possible. Its not that I don't like people...ok thats a lie it is that I don't like people.
The comfort zone stuff is pretty moronic if you ask me. I cannot recall the last time I was in anything even vaguely resembling a comfort zone (My comfort zone would be some kind of lab). I'm stuck in a country that is filled to bursting with idiots and dangerous retards, if I'm ever comfortable here I pray someone kills me.
And finally I've said this before and I'll say it again. Anyone who says that all humans are equal is either a fool of the highest order or has a sinister political agenda.
"If I do engage in [small talk] (and my attempts tend to be clumsy and abbreviated at best; I much prefer just "jumping into" the meat of a topical discussion if at all possible), my doing so is largely an accommodation of someone else's special needs."
I used to be the same way about small talk, and am still probably still pretty bad at it, but I am beginning to rethink its worth as a way of sharpening/improving upon the processing speed, attention, and downright flexibility of my cognitive processes. So now whenever I engage in small talk I do so not only to accommodate other's special needs, but also to get in some mental exercise ... I guess small talk has grown a bit in my estimations of worthwhileness (albeit for purely selfish reasons).
I like people, I just don't have a pressing need to have them near me all the time. I'm not a misanthrope.
Oh, and I do think all humans are equal in the sense of intrinsic value (well, not Hitler, but you know what I mean).
We just aren't all alike.
There's a difference.
two of the primary reasons that requirement for contact isn't considered a disability: one, the holders of the disability are perforce, communicators, thus due to numbers and being the primary source of information put out, they set themselves up as the status quo; and two, they are invisible in being disabled. In my first reply here, I mentioned folks that seem intelligent until you get past the five to six conversations they are practiced in. That sort to a lesser degree is invisible as well. Get past those practiced areas, and either they don't get involved anymore, or they show themselves to be mentally deficient.
Still if you allow them to stay in their limits, they are competent. A similar situation I believe is at work with extroverts. They are competent if they are among others, whether or not they are extroverts. Current management and business training aggravates the problem as well. Teamwork is the primary emphasis, and extroverts due to the nature of their difficulty and the means they use to get past it, are easiest to see as good team players, and thus get more accommodation from managers and superiors, especially when they are pressed for time and attention. With any luck that training alters so that it factors in more groups than strong team players/extroverts.
In my own situation I've run afoul of this. The work I do is the sort that is best done by someone focusing on getting the current workload finished as quickly and efficiently as possible, and then rapidly looking for what most needs to be done next, before the next load of regular work comes. More than one assistant worker has walked out or left me hanging because they weren't getting the social attention they needed. Do I blame them for doing so? only partially. While my position is one where chit chat and shooting the breeze are counterproductive, there are other positions where being relaxed, talkative and pleasant are the productive behaviors. Thus while there are no medical means to alter their behavior that aren't questionable in nature, a better management would be quite sufficient to correct the problem
Some might suggest that atypical people (introverts, autistics, etc.) simply need to "break out of [our] comfort zones" or "practice" the kinds of tasks that more typical folks find easy or trivial. This advice is quite common; I've received it myself on numerous occasions (and I dearly wish I could invite the folks who have given me that advice inside my head for a day, just so they could see how little time I actually spend in anything remotely resembling a "comfort zone"!).
Oh hell yes.
I suspect there's also a lot of the Mind Projection Fallacy going on here - people perceive easiness to be an inherent property of activities they find easy.
You might enjoy these posts from Overcoming Bias:
Illusion of Transparency: Why No One Understands You
Double Illusion of Transparency
Some companies are beginning to realize that telecommuting saves them money because they can rent less office space, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, telecommuting becomes the norm (at least for those industries where it's easy to do) and extroverts will indeed have to seek accommodations for their special needs.
Although I think it's useful to get out of our comfort zones on occasion, so as to learn more about the world and to discover new interests and strengths, you're quite right that this advice should apply equally to everyone.
abfh said: Although I think it's useful to get out of our comfort zones on occasion, so as to learn more about the world and to discover new interests and strengths, you're quite right that this advice should apply equally to everyone.
Yes, exactly! Though I do think different people might have different definitions of "comfort zone".
I suspect that when most people use this term, they are referring to "a zone in which a person is not challenging herself or stretching her limits at all". And that definitely does not describe the zone I generally operate in.
I tend to have the opposite problem, actually, in the sense that I will (unless I'm incredibly careful) just keep piling on more "stuff" until I start neglecting food, water, and sleep.
I have a really hard time saying "no", or "I can't do that right now", because of a long-standing feeling (one I've mostly gotten rid of, but that sometimes still buzzes in the back of my brain) that I have to somehow "overcompensate" for being such a "bother" to the world.
It has taken me a long time to establish boundaries in that regard and while I certainly wouldn't want to make them so firm that I don't "push" myself, I don't think there's much danger of that at this point in my life.
I was using "comfort zone" to mean a familiar environment in which a person doesn't explore anything new. You're right, of course, that it is possible to get overloaded by doing too many ordinary tasks and that familiar environments are not necessarily the most comfortable.
Wikipedia describes a comfort zone as "that set of behaviors that have become comfortable, without creating a sense of risk."
I know what you mean about the importance of setting boundaries. Sometimes I agree to do something that turns out to be a major nuisance, just because it can be hard to judge what's involved while carrying on a real-time conversation. Every once in a while I end up agreeing to do something before my brain has fully processed the details. Then I usually do it anyway, rather than backing out of it. Although I don't really care if someone thinks I'm a bother (that's their problem), I'm enough of a perfectionist to hate admitting I made a mistake.
abfh said: Sometimes I agree to do something that turns out to be a major nuisance, just because it can be hard to judge what's involved while carrying on a real-time conversation. Every once in a while I end up agreeing to do something before my brain has fully processed the details. Then I usually do it anyway, rather than backing out of it.
Yeah. I get into those situations as well, though I'm getting a bit better about avoiding over-commitment these days. I find that writing down a list of all the stuff I'm working on (work projects and hobby/personal projects alike) and keeping it nearby can help me maintain a sense of everything that's going on.
That way, if someone asks me to do something additional, I can show them the list and sometimes they can even help me determine whether I can fit in the additional task or not.
Oh, and nickptar, I completely agree that many people probably assume that everyone else has the same sense of what is "easy" and what is "hard" as they do. Those 2 posts you linked to do describe the situation pretty well.
Post a Comment