As some will be aware, there has been a discussion of introversion going on in the comments section of this blog as a result of the post I made on Friday which discussed the conditions for innovation to flourish.
In that comments section a person I do not know said, in response to discussion on the difficulties many introverts face in modern, open plan working environments
Thanks for your considered response.
I've no issues with your analysis — however what I'm unsure about is how this works in the world of work for the majority of people. It's not clear to me how a company can set up options for the majority of workers (rather than management types) who would like their own space. One example might be a car factory.
By way of background (which I never normally do as I have experienced people telling me what as bastard I am) — I worked at a senior level for a large financial services organisation in the call centre space. Also, I have set up and run my own call centre company. Clearly all recruits into these businesses had to be comfortable with open plan working & team dynamics with a lot of social activity (!). Otherwise the job is not for them. This also applies to management in this particular industry.
Innovation in this area is produced by professional management teams and technology suppliers. I've met some serious introverts in the deep weeds of major technology companies who were given what they wanted as their employers recognised the capability. But — this is a few people & cannot be replicated in the mass market.
In summary my point is — choice of occupation is critical for both extrovert and introverts.
Be interested in your view.
I took a day or two to consider this, partly because I was very tired yesterday and needed a good walk to get my head around anything.
My response is, I am afraid, fairly robust.
I know that once it was also said it was not possible to accommodate women in the workplace.
Or ethnic minorities.
Let alone those from the LGBTQ communities.
It was all 'just too hard, and upsetting for the majority' to do that.
Considering people as they are was not considered necessary. They had to comply or lose out. That was the doctrine.
And that is what I am hearing in this comment. Introverts should accept their lot and lose out if necessary.
I happen to think that is wrong. It is discrimination on the basis of a person's inherent human qualities. And that is unacceptable.
No one can be sure how many people are introvert. Fewer probably identify as such than probably are. But if you want to make a guess maybe half the population are, and for maybe half of them it's a big enough issue to impact on their lifetsyle choices in a significant way. I'm guessing, but as a start point that seems fair.
I am one of those introverts, however well adjusted to social situations I can appear to be (which is why most people I know are surprised by the suggestion).
I could not work in an open plan office.
Should I be denied work opportunities in that case because I am an introvert?
If so, why?
Isn't this an issue that should be addressed?
And if not, why not?
I'm not trying to be awkward. But can anyone tell me why introverts should suffer discrimination in 21st century society?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Get a job that suits your personality and capability. If you don’t like heavy lifting don’t work on a building site. If you don’t like kids don’t be a teacher…and I could go on. We as individuals have freedom and choice so make the most of it.
You have made six contributions here so far Colin
I hope you realise just what an unpleasant person you appear to be from them
I will be deleting you in future. This is my place and I really do not want your company
Well done, Richard. The following quote from Anatole France wonderfully captures Colin’s perverted interpretation of freedom of choice:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
Anatole France (16 April 1844 — 12 October 1924), born Jacques Anatole François Thibault, was a French poet, journalist, and novelist.
Thanks Andrew
Well put
Perhaps a little harsh on Colin, but as you say it’s your page…. and he does express a somewhat limited understanding of the real world constraints most people experience in their lives.
Archetypal Tory mindset (?)…perhaps extrovert mindset (?). “I can do this ergo everybody else should do it aswell.”
Some people have a complete empathy bypass which allows them to live in a rarefied world of relative privilege ….recent polling indicates, that at least amongst those who will vote, they constitute the majority of our fellow citizens.
However distasteful we find this, it is the ‘real world’ we live in and precisely what you and most of your regular contributors rail against and wish to see changed….ameliorated.
I find Colin’s remarks illuminating as to the sheer scale of the challenge which faces us.
In an ideal world his suggestion that we should all be doing the type of work we are suited to is absolutely wonderful. Now then….how do we get there?
I am an extrovert (although since retirement and as I’ve got older, I have shifted much closer to introversion – the opposite direction to you Richard) and when I worked, my management team was predominantly extrovert – to the considerable detriment of the introverts on the team. But, as you (robustly) suggest Richard, adjustments can be made. In management meetings, the introverts complained that they didn’t understand how the extroverts knew when an (extrovert) colleague was going to draw breath so that they could make their contribution. The result was that by the time the introvert was ready to say their bit, the topic had moved on and we lost their ideas. So, at frequent intervals, instead of everyone pitching in, we went round the table, giving the introverts the time they needed, and the airspace we needed to get their valued contributions. A small change, but to everyone’s benefit. Again, the facility to work in peace and quiet was provided by bookable sole offices or home working – again, simple and obvious adjustments. I am convinced that with the will to do so, in very different working environments, it would not be beyond our collective wit, to come up with similar simple adjustments.
I agree with you
But it requires extroverts to know there is a problem before a solution is made available
Thanks for your contribution
When I started work in the late 60s in the electronics manufacturing industry, we had large offices of perhaps a dozen people. Still open plan but not vast. In the 80s it changed to (literally) industrial-sized warehouses holding over 100 doing highly intensive design work, not the ideal environment and of course upper management had their own cosy offices elsewhere.
I have always self-identified as an introvert – hate crowds, dislike being the centre of attention even when getting praise so these working environments grate. Later on, in the civil service, the management trends were to have continuous reorganisation (otherwise known as ‘transformation’) also involving physical relocation around a massive site. Yet again, open plan was designed even to the extent of knocking down partitions in older buildings, shrinking the desk size at each iteration of the organisation’s reorganisation and all the while having endless appraisals with line manager meetings.
In the end, I was probably less than 50% efficient, totally unable to concentrate for more than 5 minutes when you are tasked with digging out defects in complex software. All small offices were systematically eliminated, meeting rooms permanently booked in advance, so nowhere quiet to get work done.
Boy, am I glad to be out of that!
I can well understand that!
I self define as a black lesbian female, and I think what you are doing here is really important Richard. I am also an introvert and I hadn’t thought about the discrimination I might also be suffering there because of it.
There is discrimination literally everywhere in society and the only way to combat it is to remove anyone with any non-approved views from anywhere near the levers of power.
I am not sure I like the term removal
But I do most emphatically want re-edcuation
Some sort of high school-level education on introversion is a must. First, it wouldhelp teen introverts feel less self conscious about not liking parties and other hellish social experiences they’re supposed to enjoy. Secondly, it might help extraverts not take it too personally when introverts seem to shut them out.
Agreed – especially re parties
Although I have to say, with pleasure that my sons have negotiated these by realising how shallow they are and they and their friends seem to find much better things to do
I have no idea if that is my influence, or not
I think you should lead a campaign to re-educate people against discrimination of introverts Richard. You have the huge public persona to do such a thing.
I think you should also make sure you cover all kinds of discrimination that people don’t normally cover. Anything that makes one person different to another that gives them less chances in life and discriminated against.
I do think we should remove these people who don’t have politically acceptable thoughts and views. They shouldn’t be allowed to push their micro-aggressive views on anyone else. I don’t think re-education goes far enough, as some right-wingers will never be able to be re-educated.
It’s all about time…
This is not the best use of mine
But I have come out about it
@Lucia. You have a hard row to hoe in contemporary British society.
“There is discrimination literally everywhere in society and the only way to combat it is to remove anyone with any non-approved views from anywhere near the levers of power.”
There is an inherent paradox here….To whom would you grant the power to ‘remove’ anyone with non approved views……? and indeed to whom would you give the right to determine what views meet with approval ?? We used to trust the ‘Church’ to do this as agents of an omniscient God. That didn’t work very well …. and it’s easy enough to understand why.
In Latin this comes as “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Who regulates the regulators ? ..or words to that effect.
It has often been said that anyone seeking public office should be automatically barred from applying or standing for election. It’s like a joke, and in common with the best jokes there’s a truth embedded in it.
One often discussed way to address the problem, is the idea of choosing government members by sortition. Random selection. In theory that way the unacceptable views would, by definition, be proportionally represented and therefore outvoted.
They tell me that sortition was how the original Greek model of democracy functioned.
Persuading an established professional class of politicians to approve such an idea in what they regard as THEIR parliament would be the classic case of asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.
One benefit of the Brexit fiasco is that many more people are now seeing our current model of governance as deeply flawed and at least thinking about, and discussing, other ways we could do it better.
We must be able to do better!
I’d say I was a natural introvert who believes that if I have been a given a job to do, I will research it diligently beforehand and then bring what I have found to a collective group of end users and operators for refinement and implementation.
What I found in practice though is far from being interested in my work, people are inclined to be more interested in who I am – figuring me out is what they are interested in first.
I find this rather bizarre. I go to work to work. And although I can build a support networks of like minded people at work I don’t necessarily go to work to make friends, although I have made friends with colleagues after I no longer work with them.
This ‘trying to work me out’ seems part of an unofficial acceptance trial for some of us.
I have recently started to go on nights out with colleagues where lots of drinking take place. I have enjoyed their company – had a laugh even and taken their piss taking of me in good humour – but the drink – goodness me I cannot keep up. All my colleagues are either in their 50’s or older and shall we say cannot see their feet (or other male protuberances!) when they look down. The younger men are on there way to being that way.
I feel obliged and have been told that I am now officially ‘one of the lads’ but I cannot help but feel that what has really happened is that they have satisfied themselves that I am not a threat to them, and that by hanging out with them, it is important to them that I am seen to accept them first, and that the quality of my work or output comes second.
The thing is you feel this pressure to conform and take part because you know that if you don’t, any uncertainty about you could get in the way of the progress you wish to make – even if that progress is expected by the very people who you have to reassure with your complicity (i.e. senior management).
It’s just people. But never underestimate that doing a good job can actually scare people, threaten them and if that happens you are in a very difficult place.
I will have a work night out this week
Thankfully I have some colleagues I wish to share it with
But then, we don’t see each other very often
Your words are wise
Richard
Just a couple of points re your response which I think worthy of clarification:
– when you say introverts are discriminated against, what do you mean. For example there are jobs which are fundamentally ‘open’ environments (car production lines might be an example). Clearly the production line is as it is, how can the car company accommodate someone who wants a job on the ‘line’ but doesn’t want to work in an open environment?
– I’m not sure what you’re suggesting should happen in office environments where open plan is the standard. Are you suggesting that failure to give a person who requests it an office on their own is discrimination?
I am suggesting we rethink the way we work
Isn’t that obvious from what I wrote?
And isn’t why we need to do so also obvious?
Or are you one of those who still thinks a woman’s place is in the home?
That is what it reads like
Don’t suppose you’ll publish this but:
– Clearly I’m not explaining myself to facilitate understanding
– Of course I understand that you are suggesting re-thinking the way we work. What I’m asking is how this can be done at a practical level in the examples I gave which are a substantial proportion of the working environment. Clearly you will not or cannot do so.
– Your suggestion that I think ‘a woman’s place is in the home’ extremely insulting given that I have recruited large numbers of people of which around 80% were female. At no point in my posts have I ever suggested anything like that. I have rigorously applied equal opportunity policies throughout.
Rethinking workplaces to remove discrimination requires real change
You assume no change because it is apparently too hard
Why?
I am baffled
Very little work needs to be done the way we do it now, I suggest
And much is done in the way you think appropriate is deeply demeaning to almost anyone, and lowly paid
I note your female employment rate
I will leave you to work out my conclusion
Hi Richard,
another article that has got me thinking about me, introversion and the workplace.
When I first starting work (late ’70’s), I worked in small offices with 4-6 colleagues, but within a few years I had offices of my own. I guess I was lucky because I didn’t move into a large open plan office until the mid-90’s, where I was allocated a desk, but seldom worked at it!
Almost unconsciously, I started to change my work habits. I had always had significant control of my worklife and now found myself working 0600-0900hrs and 1700-2000hrs in the office and more and more from home. From the year 2000, until I retired last year, I worked almost continuously from home – this was a compromise, as I didn’t work well in open plan, but the isolation was quite debilitating. I was very good at what I did, so a blind eye was turned to a practice that HR did not allow.
The introvert/extrovert dilemma, shall we call it, is a continuum from extreme introvert to extreme extrovert and the only real way forward is to know thyself, find your niche and, seek to work in an organisation that has some cognition of the workplace dynamic. Unfortunately, over my career, I have seen an increase in ‘Taylorism’ (time & motion) and a reduction in individual autonomy across all levels of employment. This is definitely a bad thing for mental health for everyone, not just extreme introverts, but will extreme extroverts as well,
My work was always about problem-solving, something I am very good at, I was something of a ‘trouble-shooter’ and, as an introvert, working away from the ‘noise’ was an absolute requirement for me. However, as per a posting above, I can see an introvert being able to work on a production line for example due to the isolating nature of the job. I say this as someone who worked on a building site during university summers, which mainly consisted of digging holes/trenches and mixing cement in a mixer – this suited me fine as the hole/mixer was my ‘window’ to thinking. I toned my mind and body at the same time!
Would it be helpful for all school leavers to understand their psychological selves? Do we leave it company recruitment, which we know is baised towards extroversion and, dare I say it, psychopaths. Is it possible to be an introvert and a psychopath..? I will have to find out now…, damn!
I strongly believe that school students need to be told about this
It is a fact of life….
Introverts make up approximately 30% of the population.
Extroverts the same.
Which leaves those who are neither, or are both at different times. Ambiverts.
Those who think assembly-line workers are extroverts may like to dwell on the fact that extroverts dislike environments where interaction is hindered. An assembly-line is such an environment (I have worked on a few, talking is difficult while assembling parts, and frowned upon too)
I won’t repeat what I wrote on the other post. Just to add from the responses here.
When I was on JSA and job-hunting 1990s/2000s there was no option to only apply for work I felt suited my temperament. I had to apply for everything and go to any interviews set and take a job if it was offered. The fact I knew I would hate it had no currency with the authorities so I kept my trap shut. I get the sense things are even worse now. I was in a state of near collapse during the process and certainly not in a place to devise some way out of it by developing self-employment/freelance ideas. That is why the idea of a citizen’s income appeals. I would have been able to take part time work and have breathing space left to create a second income.
Interviews – they are another nightmare even if I rehearsed until dizzy. I report what has been said to me in conversation – not in an interview scenario – but you can imagine interviewers thinking the same. One lady said to me ‘you are very considered in your replies. You think before you answer’ she was making a positive point to me. Another lady at a different time said ‘you are very hesitant. You don’t seem to know what you want’ There you go – wrong -footed at every interview because I couldn’t rattle out at the speed desired. It led to far too much time spent unemployed and claiming the pittance handed out.
Unfortunately for me, and the nation, I ended up drastically under-employed for my educational and personal abilities. I won’t go into how bored and unhappy I was in the final stages.
Trying to use my retirement to rectify that.
Hazel
Enjoy the liberation
Richard
Many of you might find the book Deep Work by Cal Newport interesting. As the name suggests, the author proposes that those who cultivate the skills and and environment needed to work deeply gain a competitive advantage over those who can only perform the “shallow work” (Non-cognitively demanding, logistical-style tasks, often performed while distracted) that is prevalent in today’s work places.
Open plan offices are, according to Newport, a mistake with it’s roots in attempts to replicate the serendipitous creativity and innovation achieved at places like Bell Labs (transistors, solar cells, lasers, communication satellites, cellular communication systems, fibre optic networking, empirical validation of the Big Bang Theory) and MIT’s building 20 (Chomsky grammars, Loran navigational radars, video games). In these places, diverse mixtures of skills were brought together under one roof and given freedom to explore new ideas. It was a deliberate strategy at Bell Labs but MIT had simply run out of space. Either way, the buildings had variations on a hub and spoke model that gave people quiet space to work but forced them together in common areas like hallways and receptions and they definitly were not open plan.
Knowing the ways of these things, I suspect the wholesale adoption of the open plan model comes from cost-savvy management latching onto a business trend and realising they can get more people into a building if they take the walls out. Call me a cynic if you will!
I’m not sure it’s an introvert/extrovert thing though. I’m quite strongly introvert and I find the idea that it’s all been a horrible mistake quite appealing, but I don’t think anyone can do their best work in a distraction heavy environment and/or when they feel like they are permanently on display to their colleagues and superiors.
(BTW, if Colin is still here, it took me 18 years of my career to find a job where I can reliably be left alone to concentrate and it wasn’t for lack of trying, let me tell you)
Thanks
This is a great thread, very interesting. I am definitely more introverted, but weirdly I work as a trainer and really enjoy it, but I realise it places me in a very controlled relationship with the groups I work with and I get to decide my interactions with them. Richard, you may be interested in a book called Shy Radicals, which includes a manifesto against extrovert supremacy towards a state favouring introversion. I agree with you about the world favouring extroverts. My own view is that the various forms of discrimination that exist in the workplace, whether that’s racism, sexism or even against introverts, and also the ways in which work demands take precedence over people getting on with their lives, are all symptoms of the fact that work is fundamentally problematic and cannot be tweaked to make it not so. It is a subjugated state – we are forced to work for the things we cannot live without: food, water, shelter, and so on, which are all otherwise forcibly withheld via the privatisation of what were once the commons.
I like your thinking
Are most politicians extroverts? I don’t know, but many seem to be. Maybe the mess we are in has something to do with the kind of people who go into parliament and make it to the top. Cameron, Johnson (the next PM?), Trump are classics. We are not well served by their like.
Maybe we need more introverts in politics, though that seems like a contradiction in terms?
Analysis suggests there have been quite a number of introvert US presidents
I a. Sure it is true elsewhere
It may be harder now
@Graham Hewitt
As introverts have a deep aversion to lying, I suspect the vast majority of MP’s are extroverts. More introverts in parliament may benefit our democracy!
I am an introvert and know from experience that it is possible to adapt to introverts. Until I became seriously ill in October (I am still recuperating) I worked at a place that managed to do just that – except on auction days when I had to be more customer facing I was very largely left to get on with behind the scenes stuff, being excused all telephone handling and dealing direct with customers at our premises only when there was no one else to do so. I look forward to returning to my old duties when my health allows (they want me back too – I was good at the thing I did)
Good luck with getting better Thomas
The world needs introverts
‘Clearly all recruits into these businesses had to be comfortable with open-plan …and team-working’
I think you were commendably restrained with him. There is a monstrous arrogance lurking in there. What all the recruits ‘had to’ do was eat, pay rent, keep warm…and assure the government they were actively looking for work. The employer is not interested in whether his workers are ‘comfortable’, but very interested in how ‘productive’ they are, down to measuring the number of key strokes and the length of the toilet break. He is ‘interested’ in how many he can squeeze into his expensive square footage. And when he can’t squeeze any more, he’ll make the desks ‘hot’ so that the final trace of ‘personal’ space, the family photo’s, the cuddly toy from the children have to go too.
Like others here, I am old enough to remember both small offices and, in a legal environment, individual carrels where one could read case papers in peace and quiet. I remember when, as with much/all else, all this changed post 1979, in the Neo-lib Thatcher revolution. I remember a lovely, hugely respected lady who was crushed when ‘open plan’ (a whole generation were not asked whether they were ‘comfortable’ with the revolution) removed her from her carrel, her space, her peace, her quiet.
Eventually, unable to cope, and desperately unhappy, with the torrent of bollocks that came down from on high she retired early. I learned recently that she died in a home, her final years ruined by a slow descent into dementia. And nothing will dissuade me from the view that her enforced transformation from much loved, and brilliant, colleague to ‘work unit 4871’ was the catalyst.
Those who thrive in the new environments, the ‘bastards’ who designed for themselves environments in which they CAN thrive, seem puzzled as to why people call them ‘bastards’.
And having thrived they stash £100 billion of assets where they can’t be taxed.
And in so doing they drive the price of property higher, and squeeze ever more work units into ever smaller spaces where they will continue to have no choice but to ‘ be comfortable’.
Thanks
You should read: “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking” by Susan Cain
I have….
Cool …good book really resonated with me – Yes I’m an introvert too. 🙂
🙂
According to the book Weapons of Math Destruction by Cathy O’Neil, algorithms play an increasingly large part in the hiring and management of lower and middle grade workers in the US and Multinationals everywhere, so that a large part of the workforce are now just used as widgets to be slotted in and out of ‘production’ whether it is service production or whatever it is.
This is most evident in zero hours type contracts, but in the US increasingly used in jobs higher up the pecking order. Because the algorithms have slurped data from all sorts of sources, (including erroneous data) from the internet, people are denied an opportunity to actually ‘be’ a ‘person’ in the first place.
This is an important thread Richard. Thank you. I hope someone will consider taking it up as a campaign because the algorithmisation of our present day society is a serious, little understood infection
That is a really important point….
It embeds the discrimination and no-one need take responsibility for it
Thank you all for this wonderful discussion which probably does concern at least half of the people on this planet and possibly affects everyone.I think it is likely that there are great number of people who move from introvert to extrovert and back again switching between the two depending on how life is treating them ,I think it might be easier for an introverted person to be extrovert for a while when things are going well and it might be difficult for an extrovert to be introverted for a while ,the expression “coming out of your shell” I believe is common but the opposite not so much.
I’m no psychologist but I do find it immensely interesting to talk about this aspect of human nature ,there are so many clever people around who have a great deal to say about it.FAB.
I am not sure people do switch states
Introverts just find it easier to display the traits of extroversion on some occasions than others
I can do that. I have to do that. I learned to do so because what I have done in my career demanded it and I gave in to the demand to achieve a goal
But I’ve always been an introvert and I really cannot see that changing
Efficient management means you must accommodate the needs of your staff.
They’ll work better, they’ll be healthier and happier.
It’s always possible to do it if you really try. Trouble is, many modern management schools and courses practically eliminate introverts…one way or another.
We end up with a situation where very many capable people, and their ideas, are sidelined.
I was lucky, as an introvert, I had my little office, my space. My meetings were made to last as long as necessary…so not long.
People who liked the sound of their own voices could exercise it elsewhere. Every one was happier.
Always possible, feasable. Change of culture needed.
Agreed….
It is possible
I think that there can be a misconception surrounding introverts …that if they’re not speaking up and joining in, that there’s nobody home. Not only is that wrong, and certainly cruel, but it means that introvert is denied the opportunity to work in an environment where they can flourish, develop their ideas, get lots of work accomplished, etc. They aren’t second rate workers. They are sometimes the brainpower behind really innovative ideas. But only if their ideas are allowed to flow.
Possibly ‘working at home’ is a good idea, when it’s applicable, but it’s certainly not enough. More places should do more to provide peaceful spots for introverts to feel productive. For starters, open-plan offices? They don’t have to be done away with, but they could certainly be modified. Even cubicles with head-high, soundproof dividers, rather than just ‘desks’ could help a lot.
At meetings, every person should be routinely given equal time to speak, to make points, to put ideas forward–time that doesn’t get hijacked by eager beaver extroverts. If an introvert knows he or she will be listened to and their ideas treated with the same gravitas as anybody else’s, they will feel appreciated and happy where they are. And the business will benefit from their considerable input.
Attitude matters. I totally agree with Richard. Saying something can’t be done before giving it a try is what ensures that today’s problems will be tomorrow’s problems as well.
Agreed! Especially about meetings
And classes, come to that…..
I am an introvert.
I am not a pathology, a diagnosis, a weakness, an incapacity, a challenge, a victim – in short I am not a problem and do not need fixing
I am not the same as shy or sensitive or socially anxious or on the spectrum.
(I can be any of these things but they do not make me an introvert)
I am not better nor am I worse. I am different.
I do not need a different workplace environment because i am a snowflake who can’t cope.
I want a different workplace because I want to give my best.
This is true whatever environment I work in, whatever job I do.
This is more than reason enough to make changes but let me go further
Look at the problems we all face.
Not just in this country but across the world and as a species.
If we are to rise to the challenges we face, if we are to make the changes necessary to stave off disaster then we cannot squander the abilities of any group when what we need is everyone at their best. This means embracing introverts and working to provide them with an environment where they can thrive. This applies equally to person or group that is prevented from thriving by any sort institutional bias whether intended or not.
The problems facing us will require radical change and they will require our best.
The answers will not come from business as usual, they will not come from billionaires putting all the money they don’t need into their charitable foundations, they will not come in an app or from having a carrier (with or without planes) with which to project force overseas, and they will not result from groupthink or be found by following the herd.
The answers will come from all of us, we will all have our parts to play.
They will come from diversity, not pc tokenism but a true diversity of people and their diversity in thinking, in problem solving, in ideas. The answers will come from lone geniuses and large teams, from experts and amateurs, from new technology and traditional indigenous knowledge, the answers will be shouted out and they will be whispered.
We must be prepared to let go of what we think we know and be willing to try something new.
We should consider what democracy means to us and how we want it to work (some form of PR and sortition), whether forcing people into ultimately unproductive, as regards the threats we face, work simply so that they can survive is an effective use of a human life (UBI), whether the creation of money should be shrouded in myth and its benefits accruing to a few or should be out in the open and used for societies benefit (MMT) and lastly whether we want to pretend that there is no problem or to make a start with some of the answers that we have right now (GND)
Theres a lot to be done but lets start with something easy.
Be aware of who you work with, be aware that one size doesn’t fit all, be prepared to ask them what they need, understand that confidence is not competence and that the loudest voice is not necessarily right. Be prepared to invest some time in researching and understanding extroverts and introverts, this applies whether you are an extrovert or introvert, and then see what you can do to help people achieve their potential.
It’s a start.
I don’t think in straight lines
I am an Introvert
I am a part of the solution
Now a blog post
[…] was posted as a comment on the blog last night by someone using the name Dambrill. I thought the name was apt. And so I am […]