It really depends on what you mean by "socializing". You described (in my estimation) someone who turns off all notifications in company chat, and simply refuses to participate unless it's on their specific terms and time schedule. Perhaps I read into that a bit too much.
That goes well beyond not "socializing" - that's simply not communicating in real time.
Do you really think that holds true for the people actually doing the work?
Really depends on the work. An ops team? Absolutely holds true. You can't do your job effectively without constant communication with other team members, as those projects tend to be short lived, rapid paced, and involve half a dozen disciplines working together at a time. There is a strong correlation between how much someone participates with their co-workers in such an environment and in job performance as seen by the customer.
A programmer working on deep algorithms that are implemented as third party modules into a larger application? I wouldn't expect them to ever participate in chat.
A programmer who is working with 4 other programmers on a rapid development project of a bunch of microservices that must interact together cohesively? Yeah, unless they are a rockstar I would rather a mid-range dev who is great at teamwork vs. a stellar dev who refuses to participate and help the team on demand. A good team won't randomly bother everyone for no reason - there has to be a balance though.
All in all it really depends. There is certainly room for all types, it's simply the jobs where you can afford to not be available and communicative with a team in real time have been rather rare in my career. Statistically speaking I pretty much stand behind my statement - unless you are exceptional (and most people by definition are not) doing the "head down working" thing is likely bad for your career and I'd even go further and say it's likely bad for your actual productivity in general.
If you simply mean hanging out in the random non-work-related channels and chatting about off topic stuff, then I agree. My experience is also with 100% remote teams, and I assume if you added up the chat+office socializing in a "regular" organization you might get a different sum.
Thanks for humoring me. For context, my day job is not software development; I'm a command judge advocate in the Marine Corps, meaning I manage the legal portfolio, which most coworkers (outside the Commanding Officer) have limited visibility on.
I find a lot of my coworkers have an attitude like yours, and I find it incredibly frustrating. We spend huge amounts of time talking about doing work, and not enough time actually doing work. I spend upwards of three hours a day just talking to people and not making any actual headway on mission-critical projects.
I agree with your reply to me that it may really come down to the different types of jobs. In your initial post it seemed like your position was that only rock stars rated "head down working" time. I think my position is more analogous to the "deep algorithm" module developer.
Comments
It really depends on what you mean by "socializing". You described (in my estimation) someone who turns off all notifications in company chat, and simply refuses to participate unless it's on their specific terms and time schedule. Perhaps I read into that a bit too much.
That goes well beyond not "socializing" - that's simply not communicating in real time.
Really depends on the work. An ops team? Absolutely holds true. You can't do your job effectively without constant communication with other team members, as those projects tend to be short lived, rapid paced, and involve half a dozen disciplines working together at a time. There is a strong correlation between how much someone participates with their co-workers in such an environment and in job performance as seen by the customer.
A programmer working on deep algorithms that are implemented as third party modules into a larger application? I wouldn't expect them to ever participate in chat.
A programmer who is working with 4 other programmers on a rapid development project of a bunch of microservices that must interact together cohesively? Yeah, unless they are a rockstar I would rather a mid-range dev who is great at teamwork vs. a stellar dev who refuses to participate and help the team on demand. A good team won't randomly bother everyone for no reason - there has to be a balance though.
All in all it really depends. There is certainly room for all types, it's simply the jobs where you can afford to not be available and communicative with a team in real time have been rather rare in my career. Statistically speaking I pretty much stand behind my statement - unless you are exceptional (and most people by definition are not) doing the "head down working" thing is likely bad for your career and I'd even go further and say it's likely bad for your actual productivity in general.
If you simply mean hanging out in the random non-work-related channels and chatting about off topic stuff, then I agree. My experience is also with 100% remote teams, and I assume if you added up the chat+office socializing in a "regular" organization you might get a different sum.
Thanks for humoring me. For context, my day job is not software development; I'm a command judge advocate in the Marine Corps, meaning I manage the legal portfolio, which most coworkers (outside the Commanding Officer) have limited visibility on.
I find a lot of my coworkers have an attitude like yours, and I find it incredibly frustrating. We spend huge amounts of time talking about doing work, and not enough time actually doing work. I spend upwards of three hours a day just talking to people and not making any actual headway on mission-critical projects.
I agree with your reply to me that it may really come down to the different types of jobs. In your initial post it seemed like your position was that only rock stars rated "head down working" time. I think my position is more analogous to the "deep algorithm" module developer.