3 ms·

This is also a big area where I think there may genuinely be discrimination in the workplace. Employers try to conflate introversion with shyness because they c

by mlthoughts2018 7y ago

This is also a big area where I think there may genuinely be discrimination in the workplace. Employers try to conflate introversion with shyness because they can more easily defend the idea that outgoing behavior is required for adequate performance of a role. If they can systematically avoid hiring introverted people because “they’re shy” then they are less likely to be forced to make workplace concessions that allow introverts the mental bandwidth needed to recharge and engage in outgoing behavior (which they may be quite good at). For example, I think this is a major contributor to the perpetuation of open-plan office layouts, which are quite actively harmful to introverts.

borski 7y ago
To be fair, there are certain roles for which extroversion actually is beneficial. Specifically, sales. The ability to be always on is definitely an asset to a sales executive. Also, I don’t think this has anything to do with open-office layouts. There’s a much, much simpler reason for that: it’s way cheaper. Having individual (or shared) offices costs way more - you need doors, lots of walls, lots of construction, etc. for an open office space? All you need is tables, chairs, and headphones. Way cheaper. Maybe not more productive (there are arguments to be made in either direction here, though I suspect I know which direction your argument will take), but definitely much cheaper.
- hinkley 7y ago
  A this point I’d love to go back to proper cubicles, with 5 ft high walls. But even those are expensive. I wonder if there are ways to lower the costs.
  - me_me_me 7y ago
    > I wonder if there are ways to lower the costs Lower the cubicles' walls to 1-2 ft and made them out of frosted glass (added bonus if the glass amplifies noise). /s
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  This is bigotry pure and simple. It’s so sad that it’s socially acceptable to talk about introversion this way, and it will never undergo an advent like sexual orientation or gender to be seen as a protected class so that you can’t discriminate against introverted people like this. Separately, open plan offices are not cheaper, not even in dense urban areas. They only appear cheaper in a very narrow, very short term sense that ultimately loses money overall. I’d also add that I’ve worked in a company before that actively paid tens of millions of dollars to completely rip out private offices from a large Columbus, OH, campus where only corporate HR employees (who had offices for decades and sincerely needed private offices for their work), even though the staff was not growing in Columbus and there was no plan to increase worker seating density. The CEO just decreed “innovative people love open spaces” and that’s all. On my exit interview from that company, a woman who had worked 25 years in HR at the company was telling me how she needs to talk to people who are being laid off, or giving specifics about medical leave or grief leave for a death in the family, stuff that requires privacy. She had her own office for the past 13 years, and now she was relegated to competing for 15-minute slices of time in Jabbrbox-like phone booths which couldn’t serve the full needs of the staff. Open plan offices are not at all chosen to save money. It’s a combination of status signalling, trend following and surveillance culture. Absolutely not about saving money.
  - borski 7y ago
    With all due respect, I’m not sure why you’re taking umbrage with my statement. I am not being bigoted; by and large, successful salespeople are extroverted. That is not an opinion. This is true because extroversion generally leads to more time spent with people, rather than less (which is not to say introverts never spend time with people), and thus extroverts tend to be more successful in field sales. Similarly, it is not bigoted to state that conventionally attractive people are more successful in field sales; you may not like it, but that isn’t an opinion - people buy more from people they see as attractive. Intelligence and subject matter expertise plays a (often much larger) factor as well, depending on the industry of course. The point is that there are absolutely legitimate reasons to discriminate hiring on certain factors. You also would be unlikely to hire someone afraid of heights as a helicopter pilot; that doesn’t make them any less of a person, just less suited for the job than someone who isn’t afraid of heights. Please explain what you mean by them not being cheaper long-term. In terms of pure expense, and now that nearly every company has built open office plans as their main plan, they are actually cheaper in the long term too. That CEO sounds like an idiot. That doesn’t mean every CEO is an idiot. Nor does it mean open plan offices never make sense. It also doesn’t mean they aren’t cheaper. Open plan offices have very little to do with status signaling or trend following, though I will grant you that this does occur. And it certainly has nothing to do with surveillance culture; if it did, there are much better ways to do that, like periodic chat log reviews (a real thing at some companies). Open plan offices are about saving money, and about not having to plan. It’s that simple.

borski 7y ago

To be fair, there are certain roles for which extroversion actually is beneficial. Specifically, sales. The ability to be always on is definitely an asset to a sales executive. Also, I don’t think this has anything to do with open-office layouts. There’s a much, much simpler reason for that: it’s way cheaper. Having individual (or shared) offices costs way more - you need doors, lots of walls, lots of construction, etc. for an open office space? All you need is tables, chairs, and headphones. Way cheaper. Maybe not more productive (there are arguments to be made in either direction here, though I suspect I know which direction your argument will take), but definitely much cheaper.

hinkley 7y ago
A this point I’d love to go back to proper cubicles, with 5 ft high walls. But even those are expensive. I wonder if there are ways to lower the costs.
- me_me_me 7y ago
  > I wonder if there are ways to lower the costs Lower the cubicles' walls to 1-2 ft and made them out of frosted glass (added bonus if the glass amplifies noise). /s
mlthoughts2018 7y ago
This is bigotry pure and simple. It’s so sad that it’s socially acceptable to talk about introversion this way, and it will never undergo an advent like sexual orientation or gender to be seen as a protected class so that you can’t discriminate against introverted people like this. Separately, open plan offices are not cheaper, not even in dense urban areas. They only appear cheaper in a very narrow, very short term sense that ultimately loses money overall. I’d also add that I’ve worked in a company before that actively paid tens of millions of dollars to completely rip out private offices from a large Columbus, OH, campus where only corporate HR employees (who had offices for decades and sincerely needed private offices for their work), even though the staff was not growing in Columbus and there was no plan to increase worker seating density. The CEO just decreed “innovative people love open spaces” and that’s all. On my exit interview from that company, a woman who had worked 25 years in HR at the company was telling me how she needs to talk to people who are being laid off, or giving specifics about medical leave or grief leave for a death in the family, stuff that requires privacy. She had her own office for the past 13 years, and now she was relegated to competing for 15-minute slices of time in Jabbrbox-like phone booths which couldn’t serve the full needs of the staff. Open plan offices are not at all chosen to save money. It’s a combination of status signalling, trend following and surveillance culture. Absolutely not about saving money.
- borski 7y ago
  With all due respect, I’m not sure why you’re taking umbrage with my statement. I am not being bigoted; by and large, successful salespeople are extroverted. That is not an opinion. This is true because extroversion generally leads to more time spent with people, rather than less (which is not to say introverts never spend time with people), and thus extroverts tend to be more successful in field sales. Similarly, it is not bigoted to state that conventionally attractive people are more successful in field sales; you may not like it, but that isn’t an opinion - people buy more from people they see as attractive. Intelligence and subject matter expertise plays a (often much larger) factor as well, depending on the industry of course. The point is that there are absolutely legitimate reasons to discriminate hiring on certain factors. You also would be unlikely to hire someone afraid of heights as a helicopter pilot; that doesn’t make them any less of a person, just less suited for the job than someone who isn’t afraid of heights. Please explain what you mean by them not being cheaper long-term. In terms of pure expense, and now that nearly every company has built open office plans as their main plan, they are actually cheaper in the long term too. That CEO sounds like an idiot. That doesn’t mean every CEO is an idiot. Nor does it mean open plan offices never make sense. It also doesn’t mean they aren’t cheaper. Open plan offices have very little to do with status signaling or trend following, though I will grant you that this does occur. And it certainly has nothing to do with surveillance culture; if it did, there are much better ways to do that, like periodic chat log reviews (a real thing at some companies). Open plan offices are about saving money, and about not having to plan. It’s that simple.