austinuni said:
I would be less concerned with being a good conversationalist, and instead realize that being an introvert or a quiet person is not a problem of yours that you must overcome. It's only a problem for other people. If other people don't like your introversion, then that's their problem, not yours. It's most important to accept yourself, to be comfortable in your own skin, so you can be happy. If you are always struggling to meet the expectations of other people, then happiness won't come to you.
That's an extreme position that's fine for a hermit. But most people need to interact with others.
MidgetDwarf said:
The people in charge see that you are actually working, leave you alone for the most part, and if issues arise with other coworkers, you are not blamed. But you must also learn to collaborate when needed.
On the other hand, you may get "cool" crowd gossiping, rude eye rolls, or other forms of juvenile behavior. You get talked about both openly, or secretive.
What I noticed, is that people (not 100% of the case) use social skills to build a barrier regarding lack of job knowledge or under performance, and play this role for job security/advancement.
It all comes down with what ever type of person you are, and what you are comfortable with. Do not force anything. Just be yourself, no one of "good" genuine character likes a fake person.
As I discussed above (Post #21), there are co-workers who use social manipulation to con others. That's another extreme position. Let's consider a more moderate position. How much social interaction is needed for success at work depends strongly on the particular position and on the particular company. If you can work solo, and if you are rewarded strictly according to some objective metrics, fine, you don't need to be sociable. But how many jobs are like that? Even if you work as a solo independent contractor, your professional success still depends on how you interact with your clients.
Realistically, most people will need to interact with others, and most people will need to receive help from others. And most people naturally will more readily provide help to other people that they know and like than to other people that they don't know or don't like.
Consider this hypothetical situation. Staff is overworked, and schedules are tight. Let's assume everyone is competent; and no one is a shirker and a manipulator. Bob likes to keep by himself and eats lunch at his desk everyday. But, to maintain our sanity, Alice and I and several others have lunch together in the cafeteria everyday (at least we try to, as schedules permit). We talk about a range of topics besides work: family, sports, hobbies, music, cars, home repairs ....
Let's assume that I do not work directly on any projects with Bob or Alice; I have no direct obligation as part of my job responsibilities to help either one.
Scenario 1. Bob shows up at my office.
Bob: "Hi, I'm Bob. I've started working on X, which is new to me. Ted told me that you have a lot of experience in X. I wonder if you could give me some help."
CrysPhys: "Gee, Bob, I'm really tied up for the next two weeks. Could we talk then?"
Bob: "I'm on a tight schedule, and need help right away."
CrysPhys: "Sorry, just can't. Try Carol. But if she's not available, let me know, and we can talk in two weeks."
Bob walks away, muttering, "<Expletives deleted.>"Scenario 2. Alice shows up at my office.
CrysPhys: "Hey, Alice, this is a pleasant surprise. What's up?"
Alice: "I've just been assigned to work on X, which is new to me. But I know you have a lot of experience in X. We're on a tight schedule. I know you're really busy, but I was wondering if you could could help me?"
CrysPhys: "Sure, Alice. Why don't we skip the usual lunch gang. And we can discuss X over lunch. That probably won't be enough time, but I can stay late, if you can."
Alice: "Yes, that sounds good. I can stay until 6:30 today. Thanks. Really appreciate it."
Now consider this hypothetical situation. Business is not doing well. There will be a 20% layoff. In the usual lunch gang that Alice and I are part of are two of the managers who will decide who gets axed. Let's assume Bob and Alice have nominally equal performance records. Who is more likely to get the axe, Bob or Alice? Typically, objective metrics alone do not determine your success at work; subjective evaluations often also come into play. I emphasize this to new grads entering the workplace. In school, you get an A+ because you get high scores in exams, regardless of whether the professor likes you or not. At work, it's not so simple.
Again, the point is not to fake it to con people. And the point is not to be untrue to yourself, to remake yourself to meet the perceived expectations of others. The point is to interact with people in a genuine, honest, sincere manner. Depending on the position and company, social skills as well as technical skills are important to professional success. If you are in a position and company that require social skills, and if you lack them and don't take steps to rectify them, that lack becomes
your problem. If you take the attitude that it's
their problem,
they will solve
their problem by not helping you when you need
their help (if
they include co-workers), or by giving you the boot (if
they include managers with hiring/firing authority).
