Then there are a lot of points along that continuum -- nurses and HR reps work mostly with people. Economists a little of both. Software engineers and carpenters mostly with things.
We may not agree on a complete ordering but we will get reasonably close to each other, I suppose.
An accountant can stay deep down in quicken for days, and it is ok. Just because they interact occasionally with an client, doesn't make them a people's job.
On the other hand, most Sales job are all about people.
And if there is so much grey zone that is open to interpretation, wouldn't that mean the study is rather measuring ones own perception of what they are working with?
Now I don’t mind socializing with people at work and making a bit of small talk but I have zero interest in the sort of collaborative work that involves daily meetings. I’m far more productive when I can be left alone to focus on the task and it drives me crazy when people constantly interrupt me.
I know the emails they’re talking about. They’re not as simple as writing the facts. Writing an extremely complex technical email in jargon and ways for people who aren’t familiar with any of it - even slightly - and explaining each detail concretely is quite the process.
It’s annoying when I have to write a 6,000 word email that is easily misunderstood because most others barely have an idea of the subject matter but it happens more often than I’d like to say.
Tbh - I find the emails pointless but this is what happens in low trust (dysfunctional) organizations.
Yes but did you join the profession for the Scrum meetings or for the programming?
(speaking for myself, it was programming; never thought would get paid so much to do what I already love doing)
And with ChatGPT coming up we all will have soon to resort to a mixture of arguing, begging and threatening to make computers do what we want.
I don't think the distinction of working with people vs working with things is clear enough to say wheter my job means I am doing the one or the other. So how could the participants in the study do the same? I'm assuming there are lots of occupations in this grey zone and even situations where in one company the same occupation is considered working with people while in another company it would be considered working with things.
I can see multiple issues the study runs into which would be interesting to see how/if it answers. A) Does it measure peoples perception of wheter they work with people or thing? B) Do the authors make their own interpretation of which occupations lands in which category? How do they then eliminate their own biases in what working with that occupation means? C) Did the authors observe the participants and make a judgement call based on their day-to-day activity? This would likely be the most accurate, but I can't imagine they did this because of the sheer cost of such an experiment.