The reason why it's a problem is because when a coworker is always in his or her own little bubble and you know nothing about them it is harder to get along with them and thus harder to work with them. And by the same token, if you like and get along with the people in your environment, then you'll be happier and thus more productive.

I don't believe in this at all. Some of the most effective people I've worked with were people that quietly worked in their own space for 4 hrs before lunch and 4 hrs after lunch. Some of them socialized with coworkers after hours, some didn't. At least in engineering field I don't believe it is important to be that open with people unless maybe you're in sales and need that social vibe all day to keep in state. Engineers can be highly effective staying in their own space unless communication is required and omitting the usual everyday small talk BS that wastes 1-3 hours of your day

Sure, those people who keep entirely to themselves may be highly effective programmers. But they will likely not be effective communicators, and unless they are their own manager and work on teams of one, they are going to be less effective overall than someone who can communicate.

ahh, I get it. It's the openness while interacting, not necessarily eagerness to initiate interaction. I agree with this.

This attitude is why so many people bemoan the "frat house / in-group" culture of companies. Why can't you have a pleasant conversation about the problems you are trying to solve at work?

I'll be more specific about openness. It's not bad to be socially introverted. Many of us are somewhat, especially in comparison to the average member of the population.

But imagine you're at a restaurant with your team and someone orders a dish you've never tried. Do you simply decline to try a bite? Or do you try a small bite in case you might like it? I find that openness to new experience correlates highly with good problem solving skills and team cohesion.

Many group/team interactions are essentially minor culture clashes, and being able to navigate them requires being open to different points of view, etc.

Replace dish with drink (or worse, joint). Do you still think people who "decline to try" have a problem? That they should try in case they might like it?

I'm really NOT keen on trying chocolate-cover ants, thank you.

Nobody should try anything they are uncomfortable with, and I think involving substances in the workplace (except in moderation) can be risky.

But why not try one ant? I'd try one.

Some people are vegetarians. Others are Muslim or Jewish and only eat halal/kosher foods.

Many groups are discriminated against (historically or presently), and members of those groups may not be too keen to open themselves up to unfair stereotyping. I've dated a girl who would never tell a prospective employer she was Jewish; she just wouldn't eat a pork dish and would probably seem evasive to you.

That doesn't even account for those who may just be squeamish or petrified of insects. Still others have embarrassing dietary restrictions.

It's hard to fathom when you have mainstream traits and limitations (it certainly was for me), but many people who consider themselves others are reluctant to give away information that could later be used to hurt them. Sadly, this reluctance is often justified.

Good points. I was initially thinking a food metaphor was a good one, but it isn't due to the examples you gave.

Food is so so so personal and cultural. It's insane to believe someone not eating/not eating a particular food has anything to do with workplace performance.

> It's insane to believe someone not eating/not eating a particular food has anything to do with workplace performance.

True, I meant it as a metaphor for the kinds of new experiences/ideas one encounters day to day in the workplace.

As metaphors go it's actually pretty good: people often have very specific, very individual, and entirely valid reasons to not eat something. Just as they can have the same for experiences under different conditions. Change the conditions, and you might get entirely different outcomes.

What I'm saying is, the one-shot impressions from interviews are horribly inaccurate. There is simply not enough data, plus the measuring instrument (interviewer) is flawed also in nonreproducible ways.

A simple thought experiment: let's say I build a machine that measures confidence and ability to read the room. Would it select different candidates than you?

I wouldn't. I don't really like food that much. It's easy to ignore when you've had something a million times, but it's harder to ignore when it's a completely new, unpleasant sensation.

But, I understand that other people do like food. And that's ok.