The distinction between introvert and extrovert is shallow psychology. They are sometimes used condescendingly by angsty individuals at either side of the imaginary spectrum. The truth isn't even that most people fall somewhere in between. There is no gray area, because these matters are not black and white. Their use leads to generalization and over-simplification of delicate subject matter. Introvert vs. extrovert is _always_ a sledgehammer where a scalpel is required.
A getting-things-done approach to people, ie.
"utilizing", can be dangerous. I think that those who've got it already get it, and those who don't will learn a mindset that doesn't make them better.
EDIT: I'd like to see this article rewritten without retortion to a false dichotomy, because it has some good take-aways.
Yet it can be a useful dichotomy. I work on a team led by a textbook extrovert that also includes two of the most extreme introverts I've ever met, along with several people who fall toward the middle of the spectrum. Making sure the office is a comfortable environment for the introverted team members and that they get a chance to share their (often very valuable) insights is an ongoing but crucial struggle.
I always suspected most people are ambiverts. Do you get your energy from other people or need to recharge alone? Well, both. It depends on the day. In the end this no more meaningful to describe a person than any given stereotype.
> Extroverts tend to prefer to think on their feet; openly sharing their half formed thoughts knowing that their ideas will finish molding themselves through the process of talking. Introverts, however, prefer to think their thoughts through to completion in their heads before verbally sharing their ideas with others
Yes, this distinction exists: between those more inclined to involve others quickly and share thoughts openly - thinking publicly, and those who prefer to think privately. I'm an extremely public thinker which can be frustrating, peculiar (, and impressive) for some people.
A good (fictional) example of a public thinker would be House (MD.) who often just used other people as props for thinking out-loud, was confident in everything he said regardless of whether it was well thought out or not: preferring to fail quickly rather than spend time getting to the truth.
Most examples of 'truth-seeking' however, in fiction are portrayed in the reverse: unlike sherlock on who House is based, columbo/poirot/etc. are all fairly private people who don't give much away (and indeed, in columbos case, deliberate hide what he thinks) until they have the full picture.
It doesn't need to be dressed up in knowingly-phrased half-baked pop psych, and I dont think it has anything to do with extra/intro-version, at least, very little.
I agree, the title feels like business-speak, but the true value of the article is the affirmation, through example, that "A great leader ... always makes room for everyone to bring their ideas to the table."
The title sucks but that doesn't make the point of the essay invalid. Both extroverts and introverts have valid and important things to say, but they need to be encouraged to share their thoughts in different ways. You're not doing you r business any favors if you conduct meetings in a way that fails to enable introverts to share information and ideas in a way that's comfortable to them.
I think this is "cargo management" - a low rate stuff. Bad psychology. Bad management.
First of all, so called introverts usually are deliberately avoiding to be dragged into a meeting with idiots. Instead, they prefer and actively using different forms of communication, which does not demand to exercise any social skills in public, like mailing lists or forums, which saves them from an unpleasant burden and discomfort. Those who are unable to understand such simple premise are qualified for idiots.
Secondly, most of meetings are irrelevant waste of time - ritualized events, designed for "parasitic" management to justify its existence and status. This statement could be easily supported by successful existence of project like LLVM, Linux Kernel, BSD, Webkit, you name it, which gives a remarkable results without any explicit, well-paid management and idiotic artificial "productivity" metrics and rituals of loyalty and status of any hierarchical social groups.
It is OK to have an "emergency" meeting in some special occasion. It is tolerable to deal with incompetent management in cases when it solves real problems and shields techies from distractions, but being forced to meet weak-minded, role-playing idiots, for the sake of their gratification from a meaningless public performance, who will encourage me to share yourself completely - no, thank you.
That's why, perhaps, I am not utilized at any Java sweatshop. But I had enough meetings in my IT career.)
Hmmm..that is an interesting perspective. I have been to plenty of useless meetings, but also to plenty of meetings which were useful. The latter were characterized by a clear agenda outlibg issues, sides that had different understanding of that problem, and a respect for everyone's time.
Maybe I am naive, but I thank that face to face meetings are still the highest bandwidth means of communicating, especially with strangers about goals that are still fluid. Don't get me wrong, they have drawbacks (synchronous, not every one needs to be there the entire time but it is hard to skip in and out).
I have seen plenty of email chains "go off the rails" and waste plenty of time too.
A getting-things-done approach to people, ie. "utilizing", can be dangerous. I think that those who've got it already get it, and those who don't will learn a mindset that doesn't make them better.
EDIT: I'd like to see this article rewritten without retortion to a false dichotomy, because it has some good take-aways.