Personality matters when working remote



Working remote is not for everyone.  Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicators, Gallup strength finders, Enneagram, even your horoscope will all tell you a bit about yourself, but no single one will fully describe you.  All self-assessments hold some value, but ultimately it is best to constantly reassess your situation to find your ideal working conditions. Your ability to work remote will also most likely change over time.  The option to work anywhere will seem attractive (or not) to different people for different reasons. Sorry, as in most things, there is no one size that fits all AND fits well. That just doesn’t happen. Some people are pre-disposed to a remote working situation, but that does not mean it is the best for them.  It is more likely that certain positions are better able to be performed in a remote setting, but that does not mean the same for those individuals performing them. Many things should go into making the decision of where and how to work. No one thing can be the one and only reason, because that could also result in loss of productivity.
There is not (that I know of to date) a great assessment tool that is able to profile the ultimate remote employee. Even if there were, I doubt I would recommend it. What is important is to try out new things, up to the point that they are not too disruptive, and then to constantly reassess the situation. Really, people should be reassessing things more often in general anyway- do you still want to be doing a certain type of work can be much more important than where or how you do it!
The biggest thing I could recommend is to try it out. Give it some time though, as things will settle down and work out only over time. The most important thing is to have flexibility. If you are too rigid about being in a certain place, at a certain time, you are already likely to be losing productivity. Without any clear structure though, the same thing will happen. It’s a balance, and it is different for everyone.
Things other than personality that make a difference is  work type. As I said, it will be easier to assess whether or not a certain position is a good fit for remote conditions. Two main things that play a part in assessing positions: the industry, and social factors/teamwork/creativity (you know, all those things centered around people and how they engage with one another). More on these to come.

Comments

Kate Chase said…
Chantal,
This is so relevant to me; now working my first mostly-remotely job. It's a challenge! And I very much enjoy my travels (across the country) to be in the office once per month. There are a lot of upsides but since I love working in teams I miss the mini-meetings and easy energy of having people around. Even without a perfect assessment I think where one is on the Introvert/Extrovert continuum can lend some insight into the comfort of working remotely. Perhaps we can chew on how to build an assessment for this :-)
November 13, 2011 at 7:21 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Your own worst boss

Working remote takes some getting used to. Managing your own time is not a skill that is fostered in traditional work environments where employees are expected to fulfill certain hours of the day instead of producing a defined amount of measurable work (more in this post ). When switching to a remote environment, people need to learn how to manage their time and any conflicting diversions. Learning to prioritize is the first step. Knowing your goals, and tracking your own ability to produce will help to hone in on how and when to work.  It is actually more common for employees new to a remote environment to overwork. It is difficult to set clear boundaries. There is often a general assumption that if work is not seen it is not done. However, there is actually nothing more effective than personal accountability.  No manager will ever be able to manage an employees time or hold them accountable as well as any one person may do for themselves. From the book "The intellig...
Read more

Why Remote

Office buildings are expensive, very, very expensive. The average annual per seat cost in the U.S. is around $15,000 (this varies per study/industry, but not by much). Now multiply that by the number of employees in your company, and you get my point.   On top of the financial implications the environmental impacts are huge.   Depending on the physical footprint of an office building, the carbon footprint of operating it increases the expense many times over. Unfortunately, those expenses are not always accounted for. Throw in the cost of commuting, and maintaining homes that remain empty all day, and the expenses just keep building up. Why? Because this is “how it’s done”? Well, the way work is done has shifted. Technology allows people to connect, communicate, engage, and work from anywhere. Even professions that seem absolutely tied to physical space, or are based on human interactions are able to become increasingly virtual. This is not a bad thing! Virtual doe...
Read more

How work is viewed

A large portion of being able to shift to a successful remote environment is centered around how work is defined within the organization. Many companies still operate in an outdated fashion- employees that are present in the office from 9-5 are productive. If managers are able to see employees, they assume that is enough. It’s not. Work should be focused on product, not presence. Every individual has an optimal time and preference of production. If all employees are asked to occupy the same time and space in order to produce, then the majority of productivity is lost. Productivity is no longer based on a Fordist concept of parts per hour, so there is a need to redefine what product looks like. Product should be defined per industry, organization and individual, not to be confused with physical presence. Collaboration is an important factor in any organization. With the virtual collaboration tools that are available however, physical presence is not as important as shifting an o...
Read more