Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3859Re: [agile-usability] Re: Inmates

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    Nov 4 3:15 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello, Susan. On Saturday, November 3, 2007, at 7:42:22 PM, you

      > fwiw...I've worked remotely and in-house (mostly the latter), and have found
      > that on some projects, with very well-defined roles, tasks, objective, and
      > outcomes--as well as solid existing communication and
      > relationships--productivity can be higher with teams who happen to be
      > distributed, or non-collocated, than in war rooms, same buildings, etc. I've
      > found, in some cases, that people will be more deliberate and careful about
      > their communications and make fewer assumptions about understanding each
      > other than if they were face to face.

      I'm prepared to accept that some distributed teams, carefully
      crafted as you describe above, could be more productive than some
      other team made up of different individuals. I doubt, though, that
      that same team would perform more poorly if they were all together.

      Do you think they would perform more poorly? And when you say "have
      found", do you mean that you have actually seen the same
      well-crafted team work both ways and turn out to be really more
      productive when not together?

      > Your point is well-taken, Ron, about the communications skills of technical
      > workers. I know that face to face interactions with seriously introverted
      > (but also smart, creative, productive, wonderful) workers can be painful and
      > difficult for them, and for the people around them. But allow them the space
      > of not having others physically near to them, and they shine...they can
      > express themselves far better, and more directly, without the added stress
      > of having to navigate chit-chat, personalities, social cues--which benefits
      > the whole team.

      I'm all for freedom. I don't accept force, so I don't use force. But
      I do not see why, faced with two candidates, one who was all those
      kinds of wonderful plus able to show up, and one who was all those
      kinds of wonderful but not able to show up, why we would ever prefer
      the one who wouldn't work with us.

      It seems to me that someone with this kind of "serious introversion"
      is in fact limited in performance to some degree, and that they
      would have to make it up in some other way in order to be equally
      valuable to a team.

      I'm probably treading pretty closely to politically incorrect here,
      but it seems to me that someone with technical skill X and low
      interaction skill is less valuable than someone with X and high
      interaction skill. The low interaction skill person would, I
      suggest, be properly less likely to be hired, or properly offered
      less money, on projects that value collocation.

      Such a person probably needs to have visibly //higher// skill in
      other areas, and may still need to seek out work where collocation
      is not valued.

      In addition, I've noticed that introversion, while it isn't a
      choice, isn't a rigid defining limiter on what one can do. I'm
      highly introverted by nature. Yet, because it enabled me to do
      things that I wanted to do, I have learned to interact with people,
      and have even, over time, become less introverted as a result.
      So what someone, say Owen, may feel as a hard line in himself may
      not be that hard a line at all.

      Of course, doing something about those feelings is always a choice,
      and if Owen, or anyone, decides to work from home and order take-out
      food, that's just fine with me. I'm just observing that the world
      will respond in certain predictable ways if they make that choice.

      > I'm naturally more of an extrovert, myself, but am aware
      > that some of the subconscious peripherals that may contribute positively to
      > my work experience (seeing a coworker's smile, the way they sit, a photo on
      > their desk, yes even a scent) may not be important or motivating to others.

      Yes, me too. Especially scents. I have a very sensitive sense of
      smell, even at my advanced age, and when a smoker comes back in the
      room, I really don't want to pair with them.

      > I have found when I'm not physically with a team, or we're spread out, or
      > I'm managing a remote worker, we do spend a LOT of time anyway in contact
      > with each other anyway, whether IMing, phone, audio or teleconference.

      Sure. But do the introverts do that naturally all on their own? I
      suspect not.

      Ron Jeffries
      Fatalism is born of the fear of failure, for we all believe that we carry
      success in our own hands, and we suspect that our hands are weak. -- Conrad
    • Show all 176 messages in this topic