"...i'm Dyslexic..."

[joeylittle]

So, a few days later she pulls me into the conf room to go over a call and the tone on the call and what not, what not. In that same "meeting" she also said to not give out "personal information" like that and that the new people were all looking at each other weirded out by me. Which made me feel horrible! She didn't care that it was against policy. She cared I said I was dyslexic at all and I don't get it. It's not like I said it from left field.

Well, you did.

I don't know that she is being weirded out by dyslexia. I think she's telling you it was unnecessary personal information. And, to be frank, it was unnecessary personal information. I think it would have been the same if you'd said that you used the ACW because you always needed to take a drink of water after you got off the phone, because you have mucus issues.

The "because I'm" wasn't needed. She's telling you not to make it personal - regardless of what it is.

That's my take on it.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

@joeylittle, I get that I didnt have to advise why. But what I don't get is the "its like I had too much wine with friends and started to become too personal with them" comparing it to my pain meds and "everyone was looking around and at each other and seemed to feel weirded out about you".

I understand I talk to much. Totally understood. I do that in here, I do that everywhere. I don't get what she said. She could have said (just like I could have said less) to just explain things with a bit less details. Its not if I should or shouldn't but the "it's improper" that I am questioning.

 

[joeylittle]

Its not if I should or shouldn't but the "it's improper" that I am questioning.

Personally, I think it's improper because it's unnecessary. What she's saying is that it's a level of information that is not wanted at that kind of meeting/context. Too familiar, too personal for an orientation meeting.

I've worked a few jobs where it was the culture to just not talk about anything life-related; mostly call-center stuff, similar to what you are doing.

Now, is there some objective version of 'right' here? Not really. But I personally see her point. I don't know that she needed to describe the looks in the room, but I doubt it was about the dyslexia so much as it was about the level of familiar/social information.

 

[J'qel]

Yes and no. I don't think it was about dyslexia, because that could totally be necessary info. Letting folks know that if they have problems they can arrange for it is definitely important, and most folks now should know what dyslexia is, it's not exactly a closet secret.

If you said something like "And I wear cardigans because it hides pokey nipples from the male employees so they don't stare at my chest.." Okay, that might be a bit much (though some women might appreciate it as a personal aside)..but dyslexia? It's a common problem. Many people, even if they aren't dyslexic have spelling issues. Getting extra time to work it out is important. Letting them know that they can be accommodated by their workplace is also important.

You're american, so dyslexia isn't taboo. Heck (no offense) spelling issues aren't taboo. So talking about it is good.

Yes, I've worked at a call centre-incoming-and contrary to most-I loved it. I liked helping people find what they needed and getting them reservations so it would be all set up and waiting when they arrived. I used to get calls that I would fill in when folks asked me about their cats, their spouses and other issues (I can type and talk about random issues at the same time).

A number of my classmates had accents or other issues. I think it would have helped them enormously had they been able to make accommodation. If someone like you had said: "I'm dyslexic" At least one more would have come forward with their own issues and another whose first language wasn't english may have also (it was his third language).

It would have helped them all enormously.

Again, I think you should really find out what they think dyslexia is, because in first world countries, it's hardly a deep dark secret-not to mention it's an issue of discrimination.

 

[joeylittle]

Yes and no. I don't think it was about dyslexia, because that could totally be necessary info. Letting folks know that if they have problems they can arrange for it is definitely important,

I think it's appropriate for the supervisor to do this, when they are running the meeting; for an employee to do this, it's not always appropriate. It depends on the organizational culture, the employee's position in the hierarchy, and the purpose of the meeting.

If other employees are there specifically to speak to ways they've adapted the policies to accommodate various issues, then yes. But if it's not an accommodations meeting, there's no reason to provide the 'because'. It could have been left at "I do it this way in order to do my best work; but then I need to manually take myself off ACW inside the 30 second window."

Even then, supervisor may have had an issue with @lostforgottensoul telling the new hires they can adapt policy in that way - though, Lost, you've said that she didn't care about you doing the workaround.

Personally, I like running a room where everyone can speak. My only point is that I can see where the supervisor would have found it to be too much information.

Not much different from

1. "we can take 10 minutes breaks once per shift" vs
2. "we can take 10 minutes breaks once per shift, though I split that into two five-minute breaks.", vs
3. "we can take 10 minutes breaks once per shift, though I split that into two five-minute breaks because I have blood clots and need to walk around periodically".

(1) is totally employee-appropriate, (2) is appropriate for an employee if they are there to talk about flex in the policies - though it would still be better phrased as "...though you can ask for permission to split that into two five minute breaks" - and (3) is only appropriate coming from a supervisor (who is setting a tone of personalization and informing them about accommodations) or an employee who has been asked to proactively provide this kind of accommodations information.

Probably also worth pointing out - common-sense doesn't always apply to employment structures; if it did, they'd not need so many organizational charts and codified rules and regs.

When in doubt, it's always in the employee's best interest to offer little to no personal information in a meeting, unless that information is tied directly to the purpose of the meeting; and even then, it's good personal protection to be discrete.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

is only appropriate coming from a supervisor (who is setting a tone of personalization and informing them about accommodations) or an employee who has been asked to proactively provide this kind of accommodations information.

I will say its not an accommodation. I just have it set that way. So to say its against policy is really not fully correct. Goal is 30 secs of averaged ACW. If you are meeting, exceeding, or near goal, they don't care how the phone is set. If you forget to go back to Ready In, often, and sit there, often, for a very long time, then its a problem.

I said "against policy" because they had something out about force Ready In after so many secs. That is a preferred thing. Not a must thing.

So I miss spoke about against policy. Its not a written policy.

• "we can take 10 minutes breaks once per shift" vs

• "we can take 10 minutes breaks once per shift, though I split that into two five-minute breaks.", vs

• "we can take 10 minutes breaks once per shift, though I split that into two five-minute breaks because I have blood clots and need to walk around periodically".

We have two 15 mins breaks that can be taken as three 10 min or any mixture as long as they equate to 30 mins.

And I would say "blood clots" is MUCH different then dyslexic. I get the point of "too much unneeded information" and have always got that point, but, I am asking about improper and being a conduct issue. The meetings are where everyone gets a say. She will quiet us down when she is going over stuff but it is more of an open talk meeting and since she has NEVER taken a call from a customer nor used any of the systems that we use to do so, she will commonly allow us to answer questions for others and show others things after the meeting. It wasn't when she was talking. I didn't interrupt her facilitating. It was a Q&A time and everyone was talking and several answering both questions he had.

My point was, no you won't get into trouble as I have done it the entire time I've been here. I included why when I didn't have to, but again, it was an open conversation time, and advised him to just be careful and not forget you are in there.

She commonly asks us to not tell customers "I can't talk and type at the same time" to fill dead air, but has never said "don't tell employee/co workers.

So, my question is more is saying I am dyslexic up the same ally as saying things like "I take three 10 min breaks because I have to pee a lot" (which several co workers have said to me...outside of a meeting)? And again, totally casual not formal meeting, open discussion, in a timeframe of open discussion with several others talking.

 

[joeylittle]

And I would say "blood clots" is MUCH different then dyslexic.

Just used it because it's a medical example - so it equates in terms of points re: 'good for others to know about'.

So, my question is more is saying I am dyslexic up the same ally as saying things like "I take three 10 min breaks because I have to pee a lot" (which several co workers have said to me...outside of a meeting)?

Yep - outside of a meeting, worker-to-worker, is much more appropriate. So we can use this example as well. The thing to always ask yourself is whether the 'why' is going to contribute to the meeting in a meaningful way. If it's not going to, it just doesn't matter, at all - and can motivate a boss to tell you that it wasn't appropriate to share that info.

We have two 15 mins breaks that can be taken as three 10 min or any mixture aa ling aa they equate to 30 mins.

I was just making up an example as a 'what if'...not trying to guess your break structure. Sorry if that wasn't clear, though I think it was.

If it was clear - if you knew I was using a 'what-if' - the interesting question would be, why did you need to explain your break structure to me?

We are on the forum, so it doesn't matter either way - but if you had an automatic response to give me the 'why' of your break structure, you could examine what drove that impulse.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

if you knew I was using a 'what-if' - the interesting question would be, why did you need to explain your break structure to me?

Because you spoke about breaks and it was an example of what i would advise of too much information or being improper ("I have to pee a lot").

ETA: And now that I re-read it. I was trying to advise how laxed they are. How relaxed of an enviroment it is. But too much info isn't my question anyway.

Ok, this is where what I'm asking is getting confused. So, lets take this outside of a work enviromemt, as my sup did. Say you are out with friends, and even drinking wine, though not needed in her example, and you got into a conversation on some topic that some how dyslexia came up (so not out of left field), would saying "I'm dyslexic" be improper?

I get its too much and unneeded info. That wasn't what I was questioning. I am questioning improper vs not improper human interaction due to the fact that I have no idea how to (or learning how to) properly interact with people.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

I may not have worded this correctly. The first few questions without context, in general, is where my confusion was. I grew up in much different "normals" and so I am still trying to learn what is improper, in general, and what is proper.

Context does matter but in this situation with the confusion, it really didn't. I just put it into context so no one got confused at why I was asking.

My therapist got it as its easier to explain in person. And even then it took a few go arounds to really get to what I was confused about.

It is very common for me to say something in a group of people and they look at each other and laugh, though what I said wasn't funny. I say improper things, in general, all the time. So my question wasn't really questioning the meeting itself and what is proper or improper to say in there but in a general sense.

Like, for instance, you wouldn't bring up bladder function (or lack there of) in a meeting but most also wouldn't do so in a general sense. Or even like you and your spouse's sex life. You may have some close friends that you would but in general you wouldn't bring up the new position you and your spouse just found that was awesome. That was the question. Because I am still learning how to properly interact with people.

So my therapist answered it that is most likely what she prefers in a meeting, everyone keep all of their personal info to themselves, and thats totally fine and I am cool with that, understand that, and she isn't wrong to ask for that. But its not improper to say in general if it got brought in a general group of people (like a group of friends).

It may seem silly but it is a real struggle of mine. And her friends & wine example and new people looking around and at each other being weirded out compunded the confusion.

So I hope that makes more sense. And thank you for the dialog as it helped a lot!

 

[joeylittle]

In a group of friends, things that follow the arc of the conversation are generally fine.

In a group of work-friends, I'd still suggest that nearly all topics about ones medical history are better off avoided - especially if you are trying to learn boundaries around that kind of stuff. You'll learn more by letting other people take the lead on introducing topics that might be too personal.

If you weren't saying that you struggle in determining what was appropriate, I'd give different advice.

Hope this helps.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Hope this helps

It does! Thank you!

You'll learn more by letting other people take the lead on introducing topics that might be too personal.

Yeah, I def need to sort of back off and follow the lead of what others bring up. Sometimes I get stuck there too as something on that topic may be inapproprate or too personal or whatever but yeah, I'm learning.

It seems so silly to me but a serious real struggle. Thanks for helping!

 

[Lola Nocheprieta]

I understand and agree with where @joeylittle is coming from, re: just talking too much and sharing too much, but I also really appreciate @Friday's point re: the ADA. Since I work with adult college students with disabilities, I'm big on "de-stigmatizing" even the word disability. I think that if the supe is really formal, and she has had this kind of conversation with other employees who mentioned something non-disability-related (but not otherwise flagrantly inappropriate like intimate bodily functions or sex), then cool, she's applying her standards to everyone. But there is no way to know that, since likely she would have had those conversations one-on-one.

For some people, having a learning disability is deeply personal, and sadly, a source of shame. For others, it's a non-issue. If I had been at the meeting and said, in response to a question a new employee was asking, "Oh, I take my calls *this* way, because I have ADHD and just can't type and talk at the same time," I do not think there is anything wrong with that. It was offered in the interest of furthering peer-to-peer learning and best practices. Personally, I would be *highly* offended by the supe's comment to me. I think her response is out of proportion to the disclosure and the context in which it was given. The more people who "come out of the disability closet," the more folks will recognize that disabilities of all types are just part of the human condition and lifespan, and the less stigma and shame others will feel. You may well have made someone else feel less alone by your comment, AND given them a helpful hint, to boot!

Since I used the word "disability closet," sexual orientation is another analogy to consider. Straight people talk about their spouses in casual conversation, and that is generally not seen as unnecessarily sharing personal information. But for a long time well-meaning straight people would say, "Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay, but do you have to make a point of telling people? It's no one's business." There's a difference between saying, "Well, I'm a lesbian, and because of that ..." all out of context to the conversation, and just casually mentioning my wife (which outs me as a lesbian), as say, part of a conversation about what we all did over the weekend. I don't know if this analogy is quite on point, but I think there is overlap with the "not readily apparent" nature of some disabilities and sexual orientation, societal stigma, and internalized shame.

I, for one, applaud you for mentioning it with aplomb and little fanfair ... just another fact of life and arguably relevant. :) Just my $.02