Jennifer's Solution

In this series of posts, we are talking about introverts and the problems they face in a society that idolizes extroversion.  In the last post, I began analyzing a hypothetical situation that a young scientist and introvert, Jennifer, is facing.  Her supervisor has called her into his office and accused her of "hiding in her shell" and not being a "team player".  I explained that his words were in fact a verbal attack, which requires a specific response to counter effectively.  I pointed out that the specific charges Jennifer's boss has leveled at her (hiding, not a team player) constituted the "bait".  Jennifer fell for the bait and responded by defending her "quietness" and desire to work things out on her own before sharing with others.  This was a mistake because it opened the door for further unfair characterizations (lone wolf).

In this post, I will reveal the "presupposition" contained in the supervisor's attack.  The presupposition is the real attack, but is one that usually remains unspoken by the attacker.  The victim of a verbal attack should address only the presupposition and ignore the bait.  In this case, the presupposition is that Jennifer's innate nature (introversion) is not compatible with the job she was hired to do (scientist).  This is a more complex presupposition than we've considered in previous examples and is perhaps a bit more challenging to counter.  But let's try.

How can we state a response that addresses the charge (Jennifer's apparent lack of essential skills) and also effectively counters a bias against introverted people?  Successful responses to a presupposition should be stated in the form of a question. Jennifer might say,

"When did you begin thinking that work involving individual contemplation and concentration was not good?"

Such a response ignores the bait and restates Jennifer's mode of working in positive terms (individual contemplation and concentration)--in direct contrast to the negative, inappropriate terms her supervisor used (hiding, not a team player).  Her supervisor will likely be caught off guard by her response (in fact, I would bet on it).  People who use verbal attacks to control other people are often completely thrown off their tracks by this because they are accustomed to defensive responses.  They usually either completely abandon the attack or they are forced to provide a more specific example, which is easier for the victim to counter.  Let's assume instead that Jennifer's supervisor is a bit faster on his feet and replies:

"Unnhh. I didn't mean that I think solitary work, concentration, and thought were not good. I just think you are too quiet."

Now the supervisor is on the defensive and may continue in this vein for a bit--protesting that he was only talking about her quietness.  He's brought up her quietness as a negative again, however.  Her response might be:

"I'm glad to hear that you appreciate the fact that many scientific tasks require quiet contemplation, without distractions, to most efficiently accomplish them.  Why then would someone who works well this way be criticized for it?"

Jennifer has now directly challenged the idea that "quietness" is a sign of failure and pointedly asked why she is being criticized for it.  Her supervisor might respond,

"Well, when you are so quiet at meetings, your coworkers will think you are hiding something from them or that you don't have any ideas at all."

Now the supervisor is being forced to be more specific and to justify his original charge with examples.  In reply, Jennifer might ask which coworkers think this?  Her supervisor will not likely name anyone (whom Jennifer can later easily ask).  By now, it should be clear that it's not really Jennifer's coworkers who have a problem with Jennifer's quietness; it's her supervisor. She should key in on this and continue to ask for reasons why someone who is quiet might be "hiding something" or might not have "any ideas at all".  Jennifer can continue guiding the conversation toward more specifics and ask for clear justifications for his criticism.  The key is that she should not apologize for her quietness or for her way of working and processing information.  If she responds in a quietly forceful, but professional, manner, she will get her point across.

Hopefully, over time, her supervisor will come to appreciate Jennifer's introspective nature.  If not, she may need to find another position that is more in line with her natural way of thinking and working.

Quiet People

In the previous post I described a hypothetical situation in which Jennifer, a marine biologist in her first job, has run into a problem.  Her boss has expressed his concern over her lack of participation in meetings and for not being a "team player".  Jennifer is stunned because she is simply a quiet person who does not say the first thing that pops into her head, unlike her coworkers who blather on about anything and everything, often nonsense.  The situation Jennifer finds herself in is not uncommon for people who are naturally quiet, introspective, and cautious in their interactions with other people.

I just finished reading Quiet: the Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain.  According to Cain, there are many people, perhaps as much as half the population (the data are not clear on this), who are introverts. Introverts are people who prefer quiet, minimally stimulating environments, which is different from shy people who fear negative judgement (although a person may be both an introvert and shy).  Such people often experience bias in a world that seems to have embraced the idea that people should work in teams and without office walls...and that those who don't enthusiastically participate are flawed.  She makes the case that many schools and workplaces, particularly in the US, increasingly emphasize "groupthink" and idealize the gregarious, verbally confident person.  People who are naturally quiet and contemplative and prefer solitude to work out their ideas are considered to be less than ideal or even maladjusted.

Prior to Susan Cain's book, there was an essay I read many years ago in "The Best American Science and Nature Writing" (2004) called Caring for Your Introvert by Jonathan Rauch. He describes introverts as people who need lots of time alone. He quite nicely captures their reluctance to go to parties, awkwardness (and aversion to) "small talk" and "pleasantries", and the appearance of being aloof or "too serious" (often untrue). Rauch describes himself as an introvert, albeit one with good social skills.  He can fake it....just as many introverts can.  He loves long, intimate, intellectual conversations.  Extroverts, on the other hand, seem to revel in superficial banter.  Not that there's anything wrong with that....it's just a different preference and way of interacting with other people.

Rauch asks the question, "Are introverts misunderstood?" His answer: "Wildly."  Introverts keep their thoughts to themselves mostly, whereas extroverts are "open books".  They do their thinking out loud, voicing every thought that pops into their heads.  The introvert, on the other hand, is mentally sorting through a lot of material and perhaps will share what they decide is most relevant and insightful, leaving the less clear or premature ideas unspoken.  It's not that introverts are hiding anything; they just don't see the point in spewing their thoughts out, unformed and messy, in a constant deluge.  The upshot is that extroverts have no clue as to what introversion is all about.  They come to various incorrect conclusions about introverts because their understanding is based on superficialities (and introverts don't help by being inscrutable most of the time).

Extroverts, by being overly verbal and apparently open with their thoughts, give the impression that they are holding nothing back. The observer finds this behavior to be guileless, genuine, straightforward, truthful, and open. I don't think this is necessarily an accurate assessment (more about this later), but this is the typical impression an extrovert conveys.  So it's no surprise that the introvert's behavior is seen as being cool, standoffish, judgmental, secretive, solitary, or bashful.  Such an impression may stimulate in the observer feelings of being judged, excluded, or dismissed.  They become uncomfortable, wondering what this quiet person is really thinking.  Is she thinking I'm stupid, incompetent, or unworthy? Why doesn't she say what's she's thinking? It must be bad...that's the only reason someone would keep quiet for so long....

You can see how quickly people can jump to incorrect conclusions when they do not understand what underlies other people's behavior.  The fact that perhaps half of the human population is misreading the other half is cause for concern.

Rauch asks, "Are introverts oppressed?" His answer is yes, undoubtedly.  His thesis is that extroverts dominate our modern society (at least in the US), and their influence has gradually led to the adoption of extroversion as the ideal. Extroverts, who prevail in social life, politics, and business, have ultimately set our social expectations of what's acceptable and what's not. The outcome of this celebration of extroversion is bias against people who are naturally introverted.  More troubling is the move to "socialize" introverts; to force them to change their behavior, either through direct pressure to attain extrovert skills or indirectly through social pressure to conform to the extrovert ideal (the party animal).  This argument is also made by Cain in her book, except she goes into much greater detail, backed up by extensive research into the topic.

An interesting observation made in Rauch's essay is the distinction between how introverted men and women are judged.  Often, the male introvert is characterized as the "strong, silent type".  Think Gary Cooper in Frank Capra's classic, Meet John Doe.  He's quiet, but still admired for being strong-willed and talking only when he has something of substance to say.  Quiet women lack such an alternative persona; they are more likely viewed as being haughty, withdrawn, or shy.  Never in a positive light.  When I googled "strong, silent type and women", I did not find examples of female Gary Coopers.  Instead, I found links to descriptions of why women prefer the strong, silent type of man.

So we have Jennifer, who is a strong, smart, quiet woman with good ideas and excellent skills.  Yet she is not only undervalued by her boss and coworkers, she is being pressured to change her inherent nature.  In the next post, I'll examine what is wrong with this belief that Jennifer and other introverts need to change and become "team players" and what she can do to protect herself from such misguided thinking.

I'm Not Hiding

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario:

After receiving a Ph.D. in marine science, Jennifer started working for a government science agency.  She's a quietly confident person who prefers to think before she speaks, unlike many of her co-workers who jabber endlessly during meetings, never really saying anything of substance. She's noticed that the people who do the most talking are often viewed as being the smartest or most productive workers, even though much of what they say is nonsense.

At her six-month performance review, Jennifer's supervisor says, "You're doing really good work, but I'm wondering when you are going to come out of your shell. We need people who are good team players and actively participate in staff meetings and share ideas with everyone." Jennifer is shocked and dumfounded. She stammers, "I'm not hiding...I'm just quiet and like to work things out by myself. When I'm sure I've got a good idea and some preliminary plans, then I share my thoughts with others." Her supervisor looks askance and replies, "I'm not a big fan of the lone wolf style of working. People get suspicious when someone keeps all their thoughts to themselves."

Jennifer stumbles out of her supervisor's office in a daze.  She went in thinking that she would be praised for the excellent work she's doing. Now she's wondering if she has a future here.  

What went wrong? What should Jennifer have done or said? Should she try to change her naturally quiet, introspective nature to better fit in with this workplace atmosphere?

In the next series of posts, I'd like to explore the idea of how people like Jennifer are undervalued and even discriminated against. I will dissect this hypothetical situation and try to provide some ideas as to how Jennifer might have handled her supervisor and what she might further do to address this problem.

Verbal Attack, Take Two

In the last post, I described how one would go about defusing a verbal attack involving gender bias. I showed how to avoid the “bait” in a verbal attack and to instead address the underlying presupposition, which is the less obvious attack. In the next example, we will look at an interaction in which the target of the attack handled himself pretty well, but perhaps could use some help.

In that scenario, Mike is a new father and has applied for family leave to help his wife care for their newborn. He walks into the coffee break room and sees several of the other faculty members sitting around the conference table.

Robert, a somewhat conservative fellow, says, “Hey, Mike. I hear you’re getting some kind of special “mommy leave” and won’t be able to teach your usual courses this semester. Guess you figure the rest of us will carry your load!”

Mike replies, “I’ll be here part time and teaching only one course. My wife applied for maternity leave, but we chose to share it so that she could return part time to work…she has a new research grant. On the days she works, I stay home with the baby and vice versa. The department arranged for a post-doc, who needs teaching experience, to take my undergraduate course for the semester. I’ll still teach my graduate seminar. Overall, our choice benefits everyone.”

“Well, that’s a pretty sweet deal, “ Robert says, looking knowingly at the onlookers at his table.

“Actually, any employee can apply for family leave…to take care of a newborn, a seriously ill spouse, or an elderly parent. Any of you might need to use it one day.” Mike decides to have his coffee in his office and walks out.

Let’s analyze how Mike responded, given our insights into verbal attacks.

The “bait” is clearly the charge that Mike is taking “mommy leave”, a derogatory characterization of maternity leave, normally the prerogative of women. Robert has not only denigrated maternity leave, but has also impugned Mike’s masculinity. Many men would fall for the “bait” and attempt to defend themselves, only encouraging more ribbing from coworkers. Mike avoids that bait and instead addresses the second charge--that the other faculty will have to do his job for him while he stays at home with his newborn. That’s a pretty good answer, because it completely ignores the challenge to his manhood and addresses what is a concern of his coworkers—increased teaching load due to Mike’s absence.

However, Robert then voices the real presupposition: that Mike is getting a “pretty sweet deal”…implying that Mike is benefitting due to his special family situation, an option not open to the onlookers (whom we’ll assume don’t have children). Again, Mike ignores the “bait” that he’s getting special treatment and addresses the incorrect presupposition that family leave only benefits those employees with children. He gives some specific examples that childless employees might encounter.

Notice also that Mike keeps his comments civil, non-emotional, and focused on providing information that his coworkers might find useful. When Mike fails to respond emotionally to the teasing, Robert and the others will likely lose interest.

The part that could be improved upon is at the end, when Mike retreats to his office with his coffee instead of spending his break in the coffee room (as he had obviously planned to do). This action might signal that Mike is actually uncomfortable, despite his effective riposte, and lead to more teasing at a later date. Instead of retreating immediately, he could readily change the subject and say, “Hey, what did you guys think of the game last night?” He should stick around for fifteen minutes or so, until it’s clear he’s not being chased off.

Then, if he doesn’t want to talk to this oafish group any longer, he can say, “Well, I’ve got to get back to work on that revision of the paper I just had accepted by Nature. See you guys later.”

How to Respond to a Verbal Attack Involving Gender Bias

In the last post, I provided two hypothetical scenarios illustrating a type of gender bias known as The Maternal Wall.  In both cases, the perpetrator (of bias) used a "verbal attack" to express criticism of the target or victim of bias.  I've previously discussed how to recognize and defend yourself against "verbal attacks".  So I thought it would be worthwhile to take each of these examples and show how one might handle such situations.

In the first hypothetical example, Joan has a problem with her department chair who assumes that when she is not in her office, it is because she is taking care of family business.  In the interaction I described, her boss asked if her kids were sick, because he had not seen her all week. In reality, Joan was attending a conference, which the chair knew about beforehand.  Apparently, the chair is in the habit of making such statements to Joan.  Such interactions are known as verbal attacks (you know you are the victim of one when your gut tightens and you feel defensive).  In this example, however, the verbal attack involves gender bias (against an employee who is a mother).

There is a very effective method for dealing with verbal attacks, which I will apply to this example.  Verbal attacks contain two parts: the "bait", which is the obvious attack, and the presupposition, which is the less obvious attack.  In Joan's case, the bait is the charge that she was out of the office because her kids were sick.  The presupposition, however, is that Joan is not doing her job.

The best response to a verbal attack is to ignore the "bait" and respond only to the presupposition.  Here is a revised version of Joan's conversation with her chair:

Ben asks,  “Joan, are your kids sick?  I haven’t seen you the past few days.”  

Joan calmly replies, “Ben, when did you start thinking that I was not doing my job?

Startled, Ben says, “What? I didn't say you weren't doing your job!"

Joan says, "Well, I'm often out of my office for various work-related activities, such as teaching my classes, attending conferences, and doing my fieldwork....as are all the other professors in the department.  Yet, I seem to be the only one you assume is out of the office for personal reasons.  Why is that?"

Ben, now completely flummoxed, replies, "Uh, Ahh.  That's not what I think....uhhh....I'm sure you are doing your job...." [clears throat and begins looking around for the nearest exit]

There might be other ways for Joan to respond, but the point is not to fall for the bait and instead directly address the underlying attack.  The attacker is usually so accustomed to getting a defensive answer that s/he will be discombobulated, at least momentarily.  Let's assume, however, that Ben quickly recovers and continues his plan of attack:  

Recovering his composure, Ben says, "Actually, what I wanted to ask you about was whether you could pick up our seminar speaker at the airport at 5 pm this evening?” 

Joan has plans to attend her son's softball game after school.  She replies, with a hint of censure, "I have a previous commitment at that time.  If you had given me more notice, I might have been able to work it into my schedule.  Isn't this a bit late to be organizing the speaker's schedule?" 

Ben frowns and replies, “Uhh, well, actually....I do have a schedule, but Joe, who was supposed to pick up the speaker, has a family emergency and can't do it.  I guess I'll have to instead."

So in this example, Joan has completely turned the tables on Ben and put him on the defensive.  She has also managed to extract the real story from Ben regarding why he's asking her at the last minute to pick up the seminar speaker.  Interestingly, Joe has had to cancel because of family obligations, information that drives home the point that it's not only Joan who has a family.

Contrast this with the original reaction of Joan in which she went for the bait and set herself up for the additional "test" of her devotion to her job.  You can see how the latter reaction would confirm Ben's biased thinking about Joan and encourage continued verbal attacks (i.e., Joan's defensive reaction to such attacks actually invites further attacks).  By not going for the bait and directly addressing the presupposition, however, Joan has short-circuited Ben's specific attack, which will likely make him think twice about trying it in the future.  A commenter yesterday recognized the mistake that Joan made in explaining that she couldn't pick up the seminar speaker because she had promised to go to her son's game.  That response just reinforced the chair's bias toward her.

In the second scenario, Mike, a new father, is being teased by coworkers about taking family leave to care for a newborn.  His responses to the gender bias and verbal attack were better than Joan's, but perhaps we can improve upon it.  See if you can identify the "bait" and then come up with an alternative response that directly addresses the underlying presupposition.  I'll follow up in the next post.