I'm an introvert. I've been working on it, now I can talk with people... however I find it terribly boring, and exhausting. I like to work on my own, talk about technical things, and get back to working on alone. It's a huge problem for my management promotion.
Over the last 16 years of my work I've noticed that the people who are being promoted are mostly (not all of course) the mediocre ones, who like to talk and make good impression (however hardly making any good work - they are just selling this as good). But they make good impression of how great they are (unfortunately they use lies to proof that, but seems like nobody cares).
A couple of jobs ago the whole management was made by the guys who were petting the boss, and were going out to pub with him. I wasn't. I hate crowded places, and insincere people. When the boss was lying about my work in my half year review, no one from the management said anything. When I was fired because of that - they were afraid of saying anything. They were talking with me that it's not fair, not with the boss. And frankly, I'm really grateful for firing me.
Now I'm still an introvert, however I have wife and kids, and I have to be more open. However only to them.
I'm working remotely as a consultant, so I have no real chances of any leadership promotion. Working remotely is great for people like me. No promotion it not. However the job pays my bills, which is also quite important.
So overall: it's harder, seems like people care more about the impression, not the employee real work.
If you don't enjoy really talking with people then you might want to reconsider whether you actually want to be a manager. Seeing as then a large part of your job would be doing just that rather than technical work.
I don't know whether it's feasible in your area of expertise, but have you considered getting into contracting? From what I can see the pay is often better than a full-time team lead would make, and there is also often a lot less expectation of joining in with office socialising. Seems like it would suit you...
For many companies, much of Management is connecting introverts and doing things that don’t look like “work.” (Coordinating and connecting are important, especially as companies grow.)
The companies I’ve seen that promote introverts are ones where:
- There is little change, and therefore less change management. (Management becomes solving optimization problems, and everyone knows their roles)
- Making key technical decisions is the single most important factor for company success. (If a company can succeed led by Yes-people, it’s likely they are more sales than tech focused)
If you want other inspiration on the case against Charisma, look up Good to Great by Collins.
It doesnt sound like you would actually be interested in a manager role. Are you looking for a promotion because you would like a higher salary? There are other routes than management. Technical Architect roles can pay as much as management roles and often don't involve people management.
You say that but an architectural position - to me at least - sounds like one where you spend a lot of time in meetings and such either discussing, explaining, or convincing. As an architect you don't just sit in a room drawing UML diagrams or whatever, but you have to sit with - often opinionated - developers and whatnot.
An architect has no business giving top down orders to anyone if they are not in the team as a productive member. A leader is right there doing the work, giving advice and support.
In my case I didn't want to manage people. I was looking for some technical roles like architect. I like talking about programming. What I don't like is just hanging out after work, and spending hours on boring chat, and that's how you get promotions in the companies I worked for. Including the technical positions. So as a result the architects and all technical stuff was made of extroverts who new quite little about the technical work. After some time it turned out that they knew quite little about any work. This is not the biggest problem. The biggest one was that they didn't seem to want to learn anything. Normal programmers were getting more and more unhappy, but the higher management was extremely happy watching how the managers can sell themselves.
And now an anecdote: a super-high-boss asked once "how much time would you need for that"... we, normal programmers, answered that about 12 to 14 months. Two days later he came back and said happily "I have sold it to the HQ, they agreed to give us the project, I told them that in 6 months it will be ready". We felt betrayed, powerless and sad... the management was extremely happy. Just guess who was told to spend weekends at work to save the managers' bonuses. The project was not delivered in that time, but I think it's quite obvious.
So my conclusion, based on my experience, is: introverts are seldom promoted, the biggest chance of promotion has a stupid mediocre person who walks after the boss replying how super he is.
This is of course just my observation. I hope I was just unlucky.
As for now, I just don't care about my promotion, I want to make interesting things, and get paid enough on time.
I'm not nearly as introverted as it seems you are, but I was a bit awkward when I'm was younger. Probably still am, but less so!
One thing that helped me was treating small talk as a game and a technical skill to master. I can still get pleasure and find interest in doing a good job of making small talk, even if I'm not interested in the topic per se. It's a complicated game for sure, which is what makes it interesting.
I wonder how much truth the 'Introverts have hidden strengths!' and 'Introverts are undervalued underdogs!' memes actually hold. Is it conceivable that not being able to freely communicate in a professional setting is 'just' a weakness without hidden upside?
More generally speaking, I think people model positive and negative personality traits to balance out. Like a fixed skill cap in an RPG. 10 points on charisma means you have to be lacking in some other field.
I don't believe this to be true in the real world.
If I look at my personal development, I'm usually tested in the middle of the extrovert/introvert dimension. I've invested in overcoming social anxieties and - it suffices to say it can be done. I'm still somewhat introverted in the sense that I need to recharge sometime in solitude. I don't believe this is a fixed, set in stone need that will never change throughout the course of one's life.
Are there any scientific publications to back up the idea of a fixed personality on the introversion/extraversion skill? Same question for inherent upsides/downsides of a personality on either side of the spectrum.
In terms of personality being fixed: I think it's important to differentiate between ability and preference. I am perfectly able to do social interaction, but never the less I prefer less of it than some people. This can be either a strength or weakness depending on my role and tasks. Extremes in either direction tend to be a weakness, although again there are roles which suits these personalities.
"This, I suspect, is one of those truths so horrible that you can't talk about it in public. This is something that reporters must not write about, when they visit gatherings of the power elite.
Because the last news your readers want to hear, is that this person who is wealthier than you, is also smarter, happier, and not a bad person morally. Your reader would much rather read about how these folks are overworked to the bone or suffering from existential ennui. Failing that, your readers want to hear how the upper echelons got there by cheating, or at least smarming their way to the top. If you said anything as hideous as, "They seem more alive," you'd get lynched.
But I am an independent scholar, not much beholden. I should be able to say it out loud if anyone can. I'm talking about this topic... for more than one reason; but it is the truth as I see it, and an important truth which others don't talk about (in writing?). It is something that led me down wrong pathways when I was young and inexperienced.
I used to think—not from experience, but from the general memetic atmosphere I grew up in—that executives were just people who, by dint of superior charisma and butt-kissing, had managed to work their way to the top positions at the corporate hog trough.
No, that was just a more comfortable meme, at least when it comes to what people put down in writing and pass around. The story of the horrible boss gets passed around more than the story of the boss who is, not just competent, but more competent than you."
I'm not sure I buy this model of the world wholesale, but I think its important to at least have this model as a competing hypothesis as to how the world is organized
i think it's important to leave the door open for the perspective you quoted here.
there's no guarantee of even distribution of traits. on average, traits are somewhat evenly distributed, however. without both understandings it's easy to get the wrong idea about the world.
I do think traits are somewhat evenly distributed, but some traits are multiplicative towards a person's net competence in a certain role. I imagine the distribution is a fat-tailed one.
Great writing there, though I can't really get past the repetition of 'sparkling with life force' as the most apt description for extraordinary people. Surely there's more to be observed?
For programmers it is easy to observe and track who actually produces value. It is rarely the extroverts (but it occasionally happens, too).
The extroverts try to extract information from the introverts in meetings, then embellish it and present it either to their superiors or at conferences.
A major career advice for introverts: Cut off the extroverts from the information flow what actually happens in the codebase, so they cannot steal the credit.
Agreed, not a zero-sum game. The goal of equality falls apart the moment you include people in the equation! We'll be stuck with that at least until everyone has access to genetic engineering.
I've noticed that whenever anybody says that they're an introvert, or that they prefer quiet spaces to work in, somebody else comes along and says, "just deal with it, you whiner!" This attitude suggests that _everybody_ is naturally "introverted" and _everybody_ would prefer a quite space to work in, but we're not going to get that, so we have to make do with what we have.
Well, these articles seem to suggest that there are two types of people: people who love to be surrounded by people and "energize" from the noise around them, and "introverts". I just wonder why there seem to be so few of the former.
> More generally speaking, I think people model positive and negative personality traits to balance out. Like a fixed skill cap in an RPG. 10 points on charisma means you have to be lacking in some other field. I don't believe this to be true in the real world.
This reminds me a lot of the stereotypes about nerds and jocks in TV shows and films, or the articles online about why nerds are unpopular. You can definitely see an assumption that 'popularity' or 'attractiveness' is somehow negatively correlated with 'intelligence' or 'being a nice person'. Half of the school tropes on TV Tropes seems to be based on that one.
That said, from my experience (anecdotal I know) and what I've heard from others, it seems the correlation between introversion/extroversion and being better/worse at various things is basically non existent. There are as many unskilled introverts and 'nerd' type individuals as there are extrovert ones, and vice versa.
I wonder how much the "recharge while alone" feeling is due to the fact that introverts feel a need to put a front and think their every move during social situations thus making the situations unfulfilling and tiring while also making them very difficult to navigate.
I find that using logic and conscious thought instead of instinct for things like social situations makes you react much more slowly to the flow these situations usually have while also making you less spontaneous and making the socializing tiresome.
Maybe because we evolved to be sociable before we evolved conscious thinking and thus we have fine honed instincts that shouldnt be overidden by thinking for these things? Who knows.
FWIW, I consider myself deeply introverted and I don't put on a front or think about anything during social situations other than focusing on whatever's going on in front of me...nothing is difficult to navigate, etc. I'm not quick witted or particularly smart and have found that over the years (I'm older) that if I simply pay open and honest attention to my surroundings and don't think about anything it seems to work out for everyone. Of course there are times it doesn't but it's definitely not due to me overthinking (if anything, it's the opposite).
But I've noticed that the typical social situation is overwhelming in a 'sensory' way, that everything is turned up pretty high, but I also know I'm alone in this (at least with my set): the noise, smells, crowding, standing, etc. etc. it's just plain tiring to exhausting. My wife loves it all, needs it regularly. I attribute the "recharge" simply to different wiring not overthinking.
Also: I haven't read the linked article yet, just responding to your comment to round out the conversation.
>I wonder how much the "recharge while alone" feeling is due to the fact that introverts feel a need to put a front and think their every move during social situations
I've heard that introverts process social information more deeply than extraverts. The extra processing causes fatigue.
I've found social situations hard, but over time and experience and a lot of alcohol I've probably developed a more intuitive, more indifferent approach to social whatnots. Give less fucks - introverts will be very reflective and whatnot about how they and what they say might come across to the other party. Which is a good trait if you're a lawyer in court, but in a social situation it doesn't matter nearly as much as you'd think.
I’ve come across a couple true extraverts recently, and it has reinforced the idea that there are introverted and extraverted personality types. Previously, I don’t think I fully believed that anyone felt recharged rather than drained being around people. Note that social, outgoing, highly-connected people can be introverts.
Because extraverts are more at home in a social setting than alone — again, hard to even imagine for an introvert — they will tend to choose being around people over being alone. Meetings at work. Drinks after work, followed by meeting friends. An awesome day involves being around other people from morning to night, and the next day they are right back at it.
Extraverts also do their processing by talking to other people, whereas introverts talk to themselves a lot more, hence the part of the article about problem-solving alone vs in meetings. Through this lens, the whole concept of a meeting ought to strike introverts and extraverts very differently. This also leads me to believe that introverts and extraverts each have unique strengths.
Can we stop pretending that introversion/extroversion is black and white?
It is a spectrum. Being slightly on either side doesn't necessarily matter. It's only important to understand your strengths and weaknesses.
Now I suppose that being on the extreme of introversion might tend to be more detrimental for one's career than being on the extreme of extroversion, but even then I'm not so sure. You can be pretty introverted and successful as a Doctor/Engineer or very extroverted and struggle.
I think introversion and shyness/social anxiety or lack of social skills always get confused. Plenty of introverts I know can function extremely well in social situations although they may not enjoy them. On the other hand others (like me) don't do well in social situations even if they want to and try repeatedly.
In the end it's about social skills and being able to perform if needed. If you lack these you are at a disadvantage no matter if you are introvert or extrovert (there are plenty of extroverted people who don't have social skills and are not successful).
A distinction ought to be made between introversion and shyness and anxiety.
Introverts don't like public speaking. They don't like crowds or certain types of group activities. But they can do them (however much they dislike it) because they aren't anxious about it.
If you clam up in front of a crowd, get sweaty and the shakes, that's anxiety or shyness. That is a separate thing to be addressed from introversion.
An introvert without anxiety is perfectly capable, however much they may want to avoid it, of giving a speech in front of a crowd without a sense of constantly suppressed panic.
To all my fellow introverts, introspect. Consider why you don't like public speaking and crowds. Is it the sensation of tunnel vision and panic? I used to avoid it because I'd develop tunnel vision and be on the verge of panic the entire time. I addressed my anxiety (via counseling), and can now handle it just fine. It's not my preference, and I'm not that skilled at it (lack of practice), but I don't feel like I'm about to breakdown on stage if I'm in front of a few hundred people. I avoid crowds of strangers because I don't enjoy it now, not because I feel a need to cling to the wall.
The only thing an introvert really has to overcome is the idea of avoiding things because of dislike. Sometimes being in a crowd or public speaking is necessary to achieve your goals (if it's not, don't do it). It's like eating vegetables. If you don't like it, but it achieves a desired goal, you do it.
If you're comfortable being an individual contributor for your whole career, you have no need to practice the skills that seem natural to extraverts. I've discovered that's not my goal. I want to change my whole organization for the better. I don't want to become a manager, I'm stepping into roles where I guide managers (more than one, not one at a time). This requires being more social than I prefer (particularly more public speaking and an active role in some types of meetings). But it's something I'm happy to do because we have some systemic issues that hold us back, and I want us to succeed and the only way to accomplish that is to step up and do it.
I consider myself something of a bivert. I like public speaking (dozens or thousands), and parties but they are exhausting. I feel socialized, I do not feel energized. I definitely need recovery from social events, and sometimes it takes days of alone time or curt replies, I just do not have the patience to coddle other people's emotional states and I certainly do not expect them to coddle mine. But then I enjoy advocating for people dedicated to whatever it is they're dedicated to - the more energy (or even emotion) they have to go down a rabbit hole that I either have no interest or expertise in, the more I'm interested in helping them by doing the things they hate doing and in some sense living vicariously through their effort. I also can't stand awards, do not care to take a compliment, and am disinterested in looking good just to get another promotion - I only care about the team and/or the project looking good.
Anyway, I definitely think introverts are underrated and misunderstood. And in particular the part of the thread's article about rigid workplace structure and mandates for loyalty and respect for authority is so archaic to me: in a previous life I was a pilot and even before my time as a pilot the industry recognized the stupidity of blind loyalty and respect for the 'captain' perhaps mainly due to the Tenerife accident, and the subsequent invention of CRL/CRM (crew resource management). That style of management seems obvious and the idea corporate workplaces still have this byzantine hierarchy is just boring as well as a business risk lying in wait.
I'm an introvert but I really enjoy working with people and being on a team. I don't really understand the trend of categorizing introverts as the isolated, non-talkative parts of a team. What separates introverts from extroverts is that an introvert is tired by social interaction. It takes work for them to do it.
So many people want socializing to be effortless but it really isn't for me. It takes effort for me to be "present" in social situations. But it's like lifting weights in that even if I find the activity tiring I like the end result so much that I keep doing it day after day.
As an example I just got off a phone call with a couple of co-workers, and I really enjoyed working through a business process with them. But I'm a little bit drained at the moment so I'm taking a short break before I start working again.
38 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 88.7 ms ] threadOver the last 16 years of my work I've noticed that the people who are being promoted are mostly (not all of course) the mediocre ones, who like to talk and make good impression (however hardly making any good work - they are just selling this as good). But they make good impression of how great they are (unfortunately they use lies to proof that, but seems like nobody cares).
A couple of jobs ago the whole management was made by the guys who were petting the boss, and were going out to pub with him. I wasn't. I hate crowded places, and insincere people. When the boss was lying about my work in my half year review, no one from the management said anything. When I was fired because of that - they were afraid of saying anything. They were talking with me that it's not fair, not with the boss. And frankly, I'm really grateful for firing me.
Now I'm still an introvert, however I have wife and kids, and I have to be more open. However only to them.
I'm working remotely as a consultant, so I have no real chances of any leadership promotion. Working remotely is great for people like me. No promotion it not. However the job pays my bills, which is also quite important.
So overall: it's harder, seems like people care more about the impression, not the employee real work.
I don't know whether it's feasible in your area of expertise, but have you considered getting into contracting? From what I can see the pay is often better than a full-time team lead would make, and there is also often a lot less expectation of joining in with office socialising. Seems like it would suit you...
The companies I’ve seen that promote introverts are ones where:
- There is little change, and therefore less change management. (Management becomes solving optimization problems, and everyone knows their roles)
- Making key technical decisions is the single most important factor for company success. (If a company can succeed led by Yes-people, it’s likely they are more sales than tech focused)
If you want other inspiration on the case against Charisma, look up Good to Great by Collins.
And now an anecdote: a super-high-boss asked once "how much time would you need for that"... we, normal programmers, answered that about 12 to 14 months. Two days later he came back and said happily "I have sold it to the HQ, they agreed to give us the project, I told them that in 6 months it will be ready". We felt betrayed, powerless and sad... the management was extremely happy. Just guess who was told to spend weekends at work to save the managers' bonuses. The project was not delivered in that time, but I think it's quite obvious.
It looked liked this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mokllJ_Sz_g.
So my conclusion, based on my experience, is: introverts are seldom promoted, the biggest chance of promotion has a stupid mediocre person who walks after the boss replying how super he is.
This is of course just my observation. I hope I was just unlucky.
As for now, I just don't care about my promotion, I want to make interesting things, and get paid enough on time.
One thing that helped me was treating small talk as a game and a technical skill to master. I can still get pleasure and find interest in doing a good job of making small talk, even if I'm not interested in the topic per se. It's a complicated game for sure, which is what makes it interesting.
More generally speaking, I think people model positive and negative personality traits to balance out. Like a fixed skill cap in an RPG. 10 points on charisma means you have to be lacking in some other field. I don't believe this to be true in the real world.
If I look at my personal development, I'm usually tested in the middle of the extrovert/introvert dimension. I've invested in overcoming social anxieties and - it suffices to say it can be done. I'm still somewhat introverted in the sense that I need to recharge sometime in solitude. I don't believe this is a fixed, set in stone need that will never change throughout the course of one's life.
Are there any scientific publications to back up the idea of a fixed personality on the introversion/extraversion skill? Same question for inherent upsides/downsides of a personality on either side of the spectrum.
Because the last news your readers want to hear, is that this person who is wealthier than you, is also smarter, happier, and not a bad person morally. Your reader would much rather read about how these folks are overworked to the bone or suffering from existential ennui. Failing that, your readers want to hear how the upper echelons got there by cheating, or at least smarming their way to the top. If you said anything as hideous as, "They seem more alive," you'd get lynched.
But I am an independent scholar, not much beholden. I should be able to say it out loud if anyone can. I'm talking about this topic... for more than one reason; but it is the truth as I see it, and an important truth which others don't talk about (in writing?). It is something that led me down wrong pathways when I was young and inexperienced.
I used to think—not from experience, but from the general memetic atmosphere I grew up in—that executives were just people who, by dint of superior charisma and butt-kissing, had managed to work their way to the top positions at the corporate hog trough.
No, that was just a more comfortable meme, at least when it comes to what people put down in writing and pass around. The story of the horrible boss gets passed around more than the story of the boss who is, not just competent, but more competent than you."
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CKpByWmsZ8WmpHtYa/competent-...
----
I'm not sure I buy this model of the world wholesale, but I think its important to at least have this model as a competing hypothesis as to how the world is organized
there's no guarantee of even distribution of traits. on average, traits are somewhat evenly distributed, however. without both understandings it's easy to get the wrong idea about the world.
We certainly know that scarcity and deprivation encourage negative feelings and behaviors.
The extroverts try to extract information from the introverts in meetings, then embellish it and present it either to their superiors or at conferences.
A major career advice for introverts: Cut off the extroverts from the information flow what actually happens in the codebase, so they cannot steal the credit.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with introversion. Introversion does not imply social anxiety lack of social skills.
These are technical terms. Their meanings are clear.
>Are there any scientific publications to back up the idea of a fixed personality on the introversion/extraversion skill?
None whatsoever, since introversion/extraversion isn't a skill.
If you mean the personality trait, then yes. It's one of the Big Five traits, which all have a great deal of supporting evidence.
How?
This reminds me a lot of the stereotypes about nerds and jocks in TV shows and films, or the articles online about why nerds are unpopular. You can definitely see an assumption that 'popularity' or 'attractiveness' is somehow negatively correlated with 'intelligence' or 'being a nice person'. Half of the school tropes on TV Tropes seems to be based on that one.
That said, from my experience (anecdotal I know) and what I've heard from others, it seems the correlation between introversion/extroversion and being better/worse at various things is basically non existent. There are as many unskilled introverts and 'nerd' type individuals as there are extrovert ones, and vice versa.
But I've noticed that the typical social situation is overwhelming in a 'sensory' way, that everything is turned up pretty high, but I also know I'm alone in this (at least with my set): the noise, smells, crowding, standing, etc. etc. it's just plain tiring to exhausting. My wife loves it all, needs it regularly. I attribute the "recharge" simply to different wiring not overthinking.
Also: I haven't read the linked article yet, just responding to your comment to round out the conversation.
I've heard that introverts process social information more deeply than extraverts. The extra processing causes fatigue.
I would have hated having to wear a suit and tie all the time though. I really, really hate ties.
Because extraverts are more at home in a social setting than alone — again, hard to even imagine for an introvert — they will tend to choose being around people over being alone. Meetings at work. Drinks after work, followed by meeting friends. An awesome day involves being around other people from morning to night, and the next day they are right back at it.
Extraverts also do their processing by talking to other people, whereas introverts talk to themselves a lot more, hence the part of the article about problem-solving alone vs in meetings. Through this lens, the whole concept of a meeting ought to strike introverts and extraverts very differently. This also leads me to believe that introverts and extraverts each have unique strengths.
It is a spectrum. Being slightly on either side doesn't necessarily matter. It's only important to understand your strengths and weaknesses.
Now I suppose that being on the extreme of introversion might tend to be more detrimental for one's career than being on the extreme of extroversion, but even then I'm not so sure. You can be pretty introverted and successful as a Doctor/Engineer or very extroverted and struggle.
In the end it's about social skills and being able to perform if needed. If you lack these you are at a disadvantage no matter if you are introvert or extrovert (there are plenty of extroverted people who don't have social skills and are not successful).
Introverts don't like public speaking. They don't like crowds or certain types of group activities. But they can do them (however much they dislike it) because they aren't anxious about it.
If you clam up in front of a crowd, get sweaty and the shakes, that's anxiety or shyness. That is a separate thing to be addressed from introversion.
An introvert without anxiety is perfectly capable, however much they may want to avoid it, of giving a speech in front of a crowd without a sense of constantly suppressed panic.
To all my fellow introverts, introspect. Consider why you don't like public speaking and crowds. Is it the sensation of tunnel vision and panic? I used to avoid it because I'd develop tunnel vision and be on the verge of panic the entire time. I addressed my anxiety (via counseling), and can now handle it just fine. It's not my preference, and I'm not that skilled at it (lack of practice), but I don't feel like I'm about to breakdown on stage if I'm in front of a few hundred people. I avoid crowds of strangers because I don't enjoy it now, not because I feel a need to cling to the wall.
The only thing an introvert really has to overcome is the idea of avoiding things because of dislike. Sometimes being in a crowd or public speaking is necessary to achieve your goals (if it's not, don't do it). It's like eating vegetables. If you don't like it, but it achieves a desired goal, you do it.
If you're comfortable being an individual contributor for your whole career, you have no need to practice the skills that seem natural to extraverts. I've discovered that's not my goal. I want to change my whole organization for the better. I don't want to become a manager, I'm stepping into roles where I guide managers (more than one, not one at a time). This requires being more social than I prefer (particularly more public speaking and an active role in some types of meetings). But it's something I'm happy to do because we have some systemic issues that hold us back, and I want us to succeed and the only way to accomplish that is to step up and do it.
I consider myself something of a bivert. I like public speaking (dozens or thousands), and parties but they are exhausting. I feel socialized, I do not feel energized. I definitely need recovery from social events, and sometimes it takes days of alone time or curt replies, I just do not have the patience to coddle other people's emotional states and I certainly do not expect them to coddle mine. But then I enjoy advocating for people dedicated to whatever it is they're dedicated to - the more energy (or even emotion) they have to go down a rabbit hole that I either have no interest or expertise in, the more I'm interested in helping them by doing the things they hate doing and in some sense living vicariously through their effort. I also can't stand awards, do not care to take a compliment, and am disinterested in looking good just to get another promotion - I only care about the team and/or the project looking good.
Anyway, I definitely think introverts are underrated and misunderstood. And in particular the part of the thread's article about rigid workplace structure and mandates for loyalty and respect for authority is so archaic to me: in a previous life I was a pilot and even before my time as a pilot the industry recognized the stupidity of blind loyalty and respect for the 'captain' perhaps mainly due to the Tenerife accident, and the subsequent invention of CRL/CRM (crew resource management). That style of management seems obvious and the idea corporate workplaces still have this byzantine hierarchy is just boring as well as a business risk lying in wait.
So many people want socializing to be effortless but it really isn't for me. It takes effort for me to be "present" in social situations. But it's like lifting weights in that even if I find the activity tiring I like the end result so much that I keep doing it day after day.
As an example I just got off a phone call with a couple of co-workers, and I really enjoyed working through a business process with them. But I'm a little bit drained at the moment so I'm taking a short break before I start working again.