The comfort zone is defined by the Merriam-Webster as :

the temperature range within which one is comfortable or

the level at which one functions with ease and familiarity

Fair :)

I might not understand this definition well enough, but it doesn't seem to suggest any link with "proactivity" or "goal-oriented" behaviors.

Maybe lowering the temperature makes people proactive? Or maybe management science is just shameless gibberish?

Excuse me, if this exemple is not very good for psichology.

(C'est un exemple du monde des orchidées...)

The formation of sexual cells in plants (and of sexual organs) is naturally dependent on environmental conditions, thus does not necessarily occur every year. So, the reproduction of orchids, unlike most animals, witch form all organs immediately at the embryonic stage of development, is very dependant of "zone de comfort". Thus, they reproduction can be vegetative, parasexual and sexual (Telepova 2005), all depends of comfort.

Obviously, the orchids exhibit their goal-oriented behaviour to reproduce (and what would life be without orchids:). The psychology of comfort zone is that as long as we remain there we do not grow. As we leave our comfort zone we get anxious and distressed. This is good for the ego strength because only then ego grows stronger "out of tears into triumphs". Ego has to balance or compromise between id's and superego's demands and surely needs its strength. Car l'esprit est bien disposé, mais la chair est faible.

I have an immense respect for orchids, but they aren't really proactive.

More seriously, the psychology of comfort zone sounds a bit sad. Gaining strength out of anxiety and distress is possible, I guess. But anxiety and distress can also lead to depressive states, to drug abuse (as a way to cope), to loss in self respect...

Moreover, I am not aware of a paradigm in psychology that focus on the benefits of anxiety and distress for acquiring new skills.

The paradigm is rooted in Freud's psychoanalysis, invented on Berggasse 19 in Wienna; it gave rise to the psychodynamic psychology, the iceberg metaphor, where most of our consciousness is located under the water. Then when Titanic collides against it and provokes our massive death anxiety, we realize the depth of the ocean. Anxiety is not a sad thing, yet, it is hurtful but promotes growth. Depression can serve as a defense against too much work, too much running from place to place; it is a state that makes you stop, ponder about life's meaning. It makes you face the fragility of life, and the things you run away from. Then you are far out from your comfort zone, but in a place where you need to be, to progress as a human being.

I disagree.

Freud theories are way too far from the current meaning of "comfort zone" to give any validity to "comfort zone" expression.

When you feel a massive death anxiety, you are not "out of your comfort zone", even though you may be in a phase of your psychoanalysis that will make you progress.

Piaget's work on development stage also underline a loss of equilibrium when children transition between cognitive stage. This could also be seen as "getting out of comfort zone", except that it would be applying a theory in a complete different context without any justification.

I think Vigotsky views on the process of skills acquisition might fit better to the question of progressing in the workplace. In this paradigm there is no need for anxiety, people progress by expanding their zone of proximal development with the encouragement and advises from a tutor.

Okey, that is your opinion.

I agree with your view Jamie P.

As a teacher, I have also witnessed a great degree of variation in response to stress. When facing a new kind of algorithmic problem, some students seemed somewhat overexcited, writing a lot on their textbook, trying all sorts of way to find a solution. On the other hand, some students seemed somewhat paralyzed and were unable to write down anything.

From my experience, the students reactions were not correlated to their level of personal work in the class. Some of the "excited" group being clearly not very involved during courses, while some of the "paralyzed" group being hard working most of the time.

Going back to the expression "leaving ones comfort zone", it seems to me that it is used in management without considering individual responses to challenge. And that the wording "comfort zone" is poorly chosen to describe workplace situations.

Hi Pierre-Yves, good that you take an interest!

Take a look:

https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/29208/6/Corbett_finalproof_.pdf

"This paper examines the provenance of the ‘comfort zone’ and argues that the claimed organisational and psychological benefits associated with moving outside this zone are illusory and unsupported by empirical evidence. Indeed, it will be suggested that such rhetoric, and the lean management practices it has informed, is based on a misreading of the theoretical models and findings from which it is derived. It is argued that this misreading reinforces a style of management based on the deliberate inducement of stress amongst employees in lean organisations. The paper concludes by considering if, how, and what employees might be able to recover from this double bind."

Very interesting!

Akshaya de Groot The paper that you shared is rather interesting, but it approaches the problem of the comfort zone from the different perspective, and uses the arguments from societal (and even ideological) point of view. I find that Corbett reasonably criticizes the concept of inducing stress in employees to improve their performance. However, on the individual level of analysis, I find the concept of comfort zone pretty easy to understand, and rather useful. We would have never learned to read or ride the bicycle, if hadn't left our comfort zones. Would we?

Thank you for this reference Akshaya de Groot !

Odly enough I didn't received a notification when you posted it, that's why I'm responding late.

Anyway the paper is very interesting and offers some refreshing perspective on what we have come to accept as normal management.

Yes Boris Popov, that makes sense. We need to move, and explore new things or situations, in order to learn.

Still, being critical towards the concept of "getting out of your comfort zone" reminds me of making the moving and exploring as free of fear as possible.

Then I have to develop "learning without fear", which implies a different learning process than "learning to overcome fear".

Although the latter can definitely, at times, be a separate topic.

Akshaya de Groot "learning without fear" sounds very exciting. Indeed, psychological arousal (which is, in my opinion, necessary in the event of leaving our comfort zone) does not equal anxiety. So, the concept of "optimal anxiety" (as can be found in management literature) doesn't sound right to me. "Optimal arousal", or "optimal stress", well, it does. Stress can, de facto, be positive. Anxiety cannot. There are both quantitative (level of arousal), and quality (cognitive appraisal) differences between positive stress and anxiety.

Thank you Boris Popov , I will try to increase my knowledge of "positive stress" :–)

Comfort zone is a major hurdle for people who want to be exceptional.