I don't think that's true. Lisa Su is a fantastic CEO but doesn't strike me as incredibly charismatic. That said, maybe it's a good thing...I'm not sure if semiconductors is the best industry for extroverts.
More likely because they have money and people who work for them don't. "Charisma" comes from projecting power - some people are backed up by money which gives them required confidence and other people can fake the feeling of having such backup.
It comes down how great safety net given person has. If they know they can do anything, and they can pay their way even out of murder, then they will have the so called "charisma".
It lists Sergey Brin as a Yahoo co-counder. I question their research.
And most people, I think, when they talk about extroverts just mean people who talk a lot. I don't see how anyone could identify an introvert (or an extrovert) from a conversation in a business setting.
Promotions in business are all about politics. Politics can happen with a couple of well placed whispers and a short speech if someone has mastered that game.
Effectiveness in business is all about we-don't-quite-know-what, so not much to talk about there.
Thanks for posting but the definitions of introvert and extrovert have been abused so much at this stage. The pandemic made it worse. I have heard people claim introverts are happy with lockdowns and don't want to go back to the office.
If you follow the notion that extroverts talk a lot, then by definition an introvert is the opposite.
My own interpretation is that introverts focus on getting things done, which is just a lot easier to do without distractions, e.g. away from the office.
Also, for me the #3 trait of a good leader is the most important, you have to display technical and professional expertise.
When your work is of a technical nature, it doesn't inspire confidence in your leader if they have no technical knowledge.
If introverts focus on getting things done what do extroverts do in your eyes? Just hang out?
There's a book about this called Quiet, I it. It's an overview of the like social history of the concepts of intro- and extroversion, and also research about these traits. The difference seems to be more about stimulation and arousal than like social preferences or anything to do with work.
Introverts get more aroused from the same stimulus than extroverts do. This manifests in a bunch of different ways. The social ones are most obvious because human connection is the most common source of intense stimulus in human lives.
But for example extroverts are more likely to be "adrenaline junkies" because they need more stimulus to feel the same degree of excitement. This has nothing to do at all with social stuff or talking or "getting things done" it's just a thing. There are dozens or hundreds of correlations like this.
The interpersonal and social differences are the most obvious effects, but they aren't at the core of what these things are.
I feel a lot of introverts enjoy patting themselves on the back. Case in point you found a book called quiet. Is there a book on the other side of the spectrum called "loud"?
Did it not register that the very first sentence of my comment was calling the other poster out for that sort of self-congratulatory introvert framing?
Did you read anything in what I described of the book that seemed overwhelmingly positive about introverts because it kind of isn't.
Are you under the impression that I'm an introvert? Because uh no.
I get what you're saying I just don't see why you're saying it to me I guess.
Haha fair enough, sorry I was kind of snarky about it. I thought you were intentionally misinterpreting to start an argument. Good lesson about giving people the benefit of the doubt for both of us I guess.
>>"My own interpretation is that introverts focus on getting things done,"
I think there's an implicit unstated assumption here of what "getting things done" means.
When I was a "individual contributor" / "Subject matter expert" for most of my career, that indeed may have meant sitting down alone and coding / configuring / etc.
In a leadership role now, "getting things done" for my role is now 100% about engaging with other people, supporting them, understanding them, motivating them, guiding them (in as subtle and non-invasive and stealth method as manageable:). This has been a big hurdle / growth opportunity for me as an introvert, but also gave me a ton of new perspectives I haven't had first two decades of my work.
I don't need to be an expert in security to listen to my security person explain an issue that needs to be fixed. It does make it easier to empathize because I've been in the code trenches before, but it's certainly not required for a good leader.
A good leader has many traits, and almost all of them start with communication.
Like technology, leadership can also be learned. The downside of learning good leadership, is then you see all the bad leadership that stands out. For example, blaming someone else or otherwise not taking ownership of a mistake is bad at any level, but really the sign of a terrible leader.
I mean...I am an introvert, living with two other introverts, and we're all thrilled with work-from-home, and don't particularly want to go back to the office. Some of this is, indeed, because of our introversion, and what that means for regular interactions in an office setting. Some of it is for other practical reasons.
But I wouldn't be so arrogant as to attempt to generalize from even a small handful of examples to an entire population.
Rather than the word politics a better word would be networks.
Where you go in life depends on how many connections you create with people. And connecting with people requires energy. Introverts loose energy in the act of connecting while Extroverts gain energy. Therefore Extroverts will have an edge becoming a hub in a network or a connector of many networks.
People who can lead have to be hubs or connectors. The Introvert that leads usually have a bunch of hubs and connectors that bow and bend to them, which happens only if they bring something very unique to the table.
OT the most introverted people I know are also the most near-sighted. It got me to wondering if introversion is a protection in nature for near-sightedness.
Not sure about the correlation with being introverted, but the sunlight-nearsightedness correlation is pretty well established [0], specifically light in the near ultraviolet range [1].
There was a really interesting article on HN years ago about this, but I can't find it. The researchers suggested this effect was a good reason to mandate outdoor recess for children during the school day – maybe in Australia?
I have high myopia and I had plenty of outdoor time in my childhood on par or even higher than my buddies who did not developed myopia.
Less anecdotal evidence is prevalence of myopia in south-east Asia where people have more exposure to bright sun than in Europe.
My pet hypothesis about myopia is exposure to high glycemic food like white rice or white bread that simulate growth just little bit too much that is enough to develop the eye few microns too big and cause myopia. But that hypothesis also has a lot of issues.
I would have throught this would be the case because introverts are more likely not needing to look far due to staying indoors most the time (and in my case, staring at monitors). Which means the eyes won't be getting "exercised" to look far.
My theory is that extroverts simply rely more on biases to crudely categorise people. Treating people like individuals and learning about each of them is strenuous, which would explain why introverts gets tired from socializing while extroverted people don't.
It just means that they spend less effort getting to know you. So instead of knowing a lot about few people they know a little about many people. It isn't inherently better or worse, just different.
Extraverts gain energy from getting to know people. I don’t think they’re lazy or don’t care about people, but they truly get energy from talking and being around others. That’s how they recharge.
Introverts expend energy doing the same thing. A happy hour can be exhausting, but enjoyable getting to talk to people.
I’m… somewhere in between but operate in the extremes. I can be recharged from a party and being in good company or I can be recharged by staying inside all weekend and being alone. But it’s not like both recharge me all the time, and I haven’t figured out how to predict what will be needed far in the future.
My weekend needs depend on my week I guess and how much I have been or will be interacting or traveling. I generally like people though. If I didn’t like people or didn’t want to get to know them, I can’t see how being an extrovert and around people would be a energizing.
Basically everyone gets energy from being around good company regardless if you are introverted or extroverted. Just that if you spend more than you gain from it then it feels as if you lose energy. However if an introverted person is around people they are comfortable with and don't have to spend effort to get to know then they too go positive just as you described here.
> I don’t think they’re lazy or don’t care about people
Nobody said that, they just invest less doesn't mean that they are fundamentally different.
I gain no energy from interacting with others, ever. I may find certain group activities fun, but definitely do not gain energy from it. The only time I seek out others for an activity is when the solo or AI (ex: in a game) alternative just doesn't work as well.
In the past extroverts had a huge advantage, as building a network of people required going out of the house. With the adoption of internet and the speed of technology, talking to people all the time can be a disadvantage/waste of time compared to just learning from the internet and finding people there.
Sure, politics is still important, but not as crucial as before. Elon Musk spent most of his young life reading technical books in the library and learning programming, while people who get into politics/banking are doing sports and lots of social events / social clubs.
He is not programmer. He is manager and the he is at most successful when he charms people. His whole thing is making other people do stuff rather then do stuff.
Building a network that has any sort of stickiness still require connecting with people one-on-one. And forming a connection that triggers an empathy/trust response still requires socializing with people. And in my experience Zoom can be even more draining to talk to people on than an in person meeting.
But learning is just one dimension of your life. Networking and building relationships is crucial for nearly all other important things, both personal and professional.
I agree - at least from my a bag of data points I have. Unfortunately, the common perception is extroverts. This happens when people just read news and consume media without real experience.
Introverts can make good leaders but too often these "introverts are great" articles are pointed to by those who just want an excuse for their poor social skills and lack of impact.
Case in point, my last boss was a visible, forceful woman who emphasized relationship building. It took me a year to learn she actually is heavily introverted and spends her weekends not talking to anyone. She was an effective introverted leader but she was also just an effective leader, period. It wouldn't occur to her to share this article.
On the other hand, plentny of low impact people believe they have great ideas but they aren't able to articulate them to get any traction or even feedback. Rather than learning how to handle these situations, they chalk up their ineptitude to introversion. That's the kind of people I find takes comfort in these articles.
Different people have wildly different definition of introvert vs extrovert as well.
I find that "gets energy from interaction vs lose energy from interaction" is more productive than "shy vs loud".
I was visibly shy for first two decades of my life; I look (and am) a "people person" for the last two decades and most recent friends/colleagues wouldn't know I'm an introvert; and I'm doing reasonably well in people-manager role. But whereas after a hard day my sister wants to go out and party and this will rejuvenate her, after a hard day I want... nay, need, some "me time" - alone with book or computer or tv or music to recharge. I'm stereotypically the first person to leave a party of my best friends - I love them, I love our time together, but at some point I had enough input and need to depart.
My point is: I think "introvert" is a defining characteristic of me; but "have people skills" is just that - skills. I don't think I'll ever change whether I gain or lose energy from social interactions; that seems a pretty built-in aspect of my personality. But I can and did tremendously change how I actually interact with people - it may come easy to some, harder to others, and seemingly impossible to yet others, but it is in principle a learnable, acquirable skill.
So, "6% of Business executives think introverts have people skills needed" makes me think this is an accidentally tautology - I'm pretty sure they mentally have defined "introverts" as "those with poor people skills", and that's not I think the most accurate definition.
My wife and I are both introverted, but people often don't believe that, especially with her. But after a party, or an event we are both exhausted. For me at least I think it comes from the effort I have to use to model the mental state of others. It does not come naturally.
I understand what you say 5/5. I spend a lot of energy trying my best to understand others, to go beyond their facade, to ask about thing I disagree with, etc. Also, I have hard times when people judge or mock me (even if done in friendly way), etc. I hardly pass over it so, again, takes some energy.
It's more complicated then introversion or extroversion. You are describing high empathy and fear of not pleasing others.
You act a certain way to cater to other people and possibly spend way too much energy on it, hence the exhaustion.
Most people aren't constantly modelling the mental state of others. You don't need to be in a constant state of anticipating the emotions of the other party when talking to them.
Just talk. Don't spend too many cycles overly concerned about what others think.
I tend to be rude, insensitive, or even offensive if I don't run a background process to prevent it. I don't want to hurt people's feelings, it just happens because I think differently, so my instinctual model for reasonable speech is different too. Those things I say wouldn't offend me for instance. After people get to know me and understand I can mostly turn it off and they will forgive. Strangers, or clients, I keep it running.
I think the ideal is likely some middle ground between no filter whatsoever and trying to meticulously model the mental states of others, which definitely does sound exhausting.
Rather than focus so much on others, it may work better to focus on making your own mental state relaxed, amused, lighthearted, etc. and then try to include others in that without worrying much about their states of mind. A lot of what attracts people socially is simply maintaining the ‘right’ mood—one that is enjoyable and accessible to others. The details of what someone says or does are less important.
You might notice that many life-of-the-party types aren’t necessarily that empathetic or “good listeners” or whatever when you talk to them. These things can help, but aren’t necessary or sufficient to make people generally enjoy being around someone. Much more important is simply that the person is visibly, genuinely having a good time, and is generating that sense of well-being for themselves rather than relying on others to supply it for them.
If I'm around nerds I don't have to model state, they are similar enough to me that just being myaelf works. But in the company of the non analytically minded, what I have in rude moments referred to as muggles, I have been told my conversation seems random, jumping between topics. They are connected but the ties aren't apparent to that audience. I also have been told I seem like I am trying to show off by how much I know when I bring up topics that they see the connection to but it feels like an obscure reference to them, when I'm really just keeping the conversation going with something I thought they would find interesting, because I would have found it interesting.
The idea that there is such a huge difference between nerds and people who aren't nerds is misconceived.
Not only are people who aren't nerds capable of being analytical, but nerds themselves are highly able to be irrational and stupid.
Case in point I've seen nerds who are so stupid they think of themselves as autistic savants who can't "understand" normal humans and must "model" them in order to interact.
No nerds are just people typically on the lowest rung of the social ladder with interests in specific technical topics like anime, chess, etc. They are not more analytical then the rest of the population.
You've been told what you've been told because it's true. There are tons of people like you and it's not people who are analytical.
It's people who like to think of themselves as more analytical then the rest of the population. You think some topic your switching to in a conversation could only have been discovered by your powerful analytical mind but it breaks the flow of conversation and is literally not as intelligent as you think it is.
You are not intelligent enough to comprehend the purpose of conversation. Conversation is a two way street it is not a platform for you to show off your intelligence. Think of it like this, when you go off on your intelligent tangent, does the other party understand but remain uninterested? If they understand what your saying then that means they have the analytical ability to keep up with you. It's just they find it not interesting enough to continue. So the problem isn't your analytical mind. It's your lack of analytical ability to comprehend the situation at hand.
Additionally I doubt you actually are that much more intelligent. Do you have genuine IQ scores to back up your claim? Even people at 150 can be quite normal. The things you describe typically happen at much higher IQ scores, so people who think of themselves this way, by probability are more likely to be deluding themselves rather then actually being that much more intelligent.
The "muggles" thing illustrates pretty well what I mean. Regardless of whether it's true or not, if you're standing with a group of people at an event thinking "these people are boring muggles who don't get me--this sucks", people will pick that up and most of them will probably find it off putting.
Instead you could try to adopt a mindset more like: "these people may not be intellectually interesting to me, but every human has the potential to be interesting, funny, or otherwise enjoyable in some way--I'll make the best of it and have some superficial fun without getting too deep". You're going to get much better results this way and it's easier/less tiring than focusing on the feelings of others.
Wow! Fantastic insights! Now I have a clue about why introverts lose energy from interaction... Would love to see more materials on this topic - why introverts lose energy from interaction.
I've had similar experiences in my own career. People skills are just that, skills which can be practiced.
As an aside, your last paragraph made me think of a funny edge-case, the extrovert with poor people skills. This might look like a person who seeks out social interactions and may try to start or force a conversation without knowing when to end it or whether the other participant is enjoying it or feels like they're being held hostage.
I find the "gets energy from" definition to be too situation-dependent. All personality trait definitions suffer from this, but some more than others.
Consider an extrovert who just spent a whole week not getting any privacy, not even to use the loo. That person may very well test as an introvert at the end of the week.
Or consider an introvert who has been isolated from her closest friends for a month due to an illness. That person may test as an extrovert at the end of the month.
I tend to think of introversion as "tendency to be content with solitude", the difference being that instead of needing to recharge by being alone, an introvert is OK with being alone for a time. Most introverts still need social interaction, but they want to set the terms of that interaction.
I also think of introversion as "tendency to rely on inner dialogue". I have to go away and be alone to understand a problem, then come back and discuss the solution. Other people need someone else to provide that dialogue; I imagine them as having an inner monologue, but I can't see inside their minds.
I'm not a psychologist and I don't know if these definitions hold water. I'm just an introvert who over a lifetime has learned it can fun to be outgoing, and that being a leader requires practice and a good role model, regardless of whether you are introverted or extraverted.
> Other people need someone else to provide that dialogue; I imagine them as having an inner monologue, but I can't see inside their minds.
One of the most surprising realisations of my life was reading that a portion of the population don't have an inner dialogue. The constant stream of verbiage that the voice inside my head uses to articulate my experiences seems such a fundamental part of consciousness that I struggle to picture life without it.
I wonder how much, if at all, that phenomenon contributes to the personality of people who think out loud.
> Or consider an introvert who has been isolated from her closest friends for a month due to an illness. That person may test as an extrovert at the end of the month.
As an introvert who lives alone and took an extended break from work around the time the COVID lock-down started, I can tell you for certain that I would not have tested as an extrovert at any point.
Perhaps...but then you've mis-categorized the person as an introvert when they are actually socially awkward or, as you say, they have: "...poor social skills and lack of impact."
There are both introverts and extroverts who have "poor social skills and lack of impact".
Noisy extroverts who don't know when to stop talking is one example off the top of my head.
Is there any actual correlation between low social skills and introversion or is this just something people like to whack introverted people over the head with?
In my own experience I've witnessed people, in general, who struggle to communicate or communicate effectively. I've also witnessed people who over communicate or dominate communication and are equally destructive. There's also something else I've noticed, which is that leaders are often perceived as effective when they're leading people whom their leadership style is compatible with.
Perhaps, but only because the introverts have been beaten over the head repeatedly by the extrovert dominated culture. A socially intelligent introvert looks like a councillor, adept at understanding people in one on one situations, able to bring out the best in people.
> There's also something else I've noticed, which is that leaders are often perceived as effective when they're leading people whom their leadership style is compatible with.
Puts the finger right on the important spot. People "get" you more if you relate to them in a familiar way.
Which means that being an effective leader requires stuffing your "but I'm an X" ideas, and adapting to the people you're leading. (Step 2 is teaching them to adapt as well - it's not about permanently disguising yourself)
I would expect that one develops skills mostly by practicing, and extraverts typically get more practice with social interaction, simply because that is how they enjoy spending their free time.
On the other hand, introverts may compensate e.g. by reading literature on social skills, or spend more time reflecting on what happened; and unless they are isolated, after a few decades they also get lot of experience. While extraverts may get stuck in the "high-school style of human interaction" and have difficulty move forward.
Overall, I would guess that an average extravert will be much better than average introvert e.g. at small talk. But if you need a specialist, e.g. a therapist, the chances are more balanced, because for either it requires going beyond just following their instinct. But this is all just a guess.
> There's also something else I've noticed, which is that leaders are often perceived as effective when they're leading people whom their leadership style is compatible with.
Yep. But imagine that you have ten people in a room, five extraverted and five introverted. The extraverts will create a group in the middle of the room, and introverts will sit alone near the corners. If you randomly pick a leader, you will probably tell them to lead the group in the middle of the room -- and that is a task better suited to an extravert.
Yes logically there should be. The more skilled you are at something in general the less energy you expend in it. This includes socializing.
Without data it can't be truly known. But such data is likely garbage as it's very hard to quantify good social skills.
However if you remain impartial the intuition and logic is inescapable.
The less skilled you are at socializing the more energy you spend on deploying that skill. This means a good portion of introverts are introverted because they are bad at socializing.
I mean if you think about it what I said is utterly and completely obvious. It's this oversupply of "the benefites of being an introvert" articles that is making people think otherwise.
This stuff is BS science. The introvert extrovert classification is an arbitrary division. Doing science on this division is like doing an experiment on "do people with long hair make better leaders?"
No, you are saying that you cannot be an effective leader using an introverted style. It is not necessary to run around hustling relationships in an extravert way in order to be effective. An introvert leader at their peak looks like the patrician from Terry Pratchet, Havelock Vetinari. He doesn't spin around burning energy building countless relationships, but understand the motion of people well enough to influence with out really being seen to influence. Subtle control through deep understanding rather sheer force of will.
> One on one relationship building is something that introverts excel at
But...didn't you also just do the same thing?
People are good at things they try to be good at. Being an introvert has nothing to do with that, nor does extroversion. Meaning, people that prioritize interpersonal skill and relationship building have the potential to become good leaders, regardless of their particular alignment.
I find the kind of generalization and meanness in your comment is counterproductive: and also commonly trotted out when justifying the extroversion dominance in organizations.
Also: social anxiety and shyness are very real problems that can easily be induced by the shame, ridicule, and lack of acceptance that introversion often is accompanied by. The fact that these things are often equated with “socially inept/incompetent” is extremely problematic.
No offense but it sounds like you are more interested in being offended than comprehension and evolution.
My whole point is that social skills and interaction are just that - skills. You can invest in them if you are introverted or even if you have some social anxiety (as, I suspect, I do.)
If someone instead insists that there's nothing for them to learn, that their "badness" with people is a badge of honor in some way, then they just justify being bad at the expense of people around them.
But, I guess we can just ignore that, forego the opportunity to improve, because you find it problematic :)
You’re the one suddenly bringing up an unwillingness to learn.
It’s quite telling, too, as the language you used suggests you don’t view these things as medical conditions or disabilities, but instead personal failings to overcome.
Also, pointing out meanness in a comment isn’t the same as being offended: it’s quite presumptuous really.
When you find yourself starting a comment with "No offense but", perhaps look at why you felt your comment might cause offence. Then rewrite it in a kinder and less mean way that doesn't need a disclaimer.
Your comment would have come across better—as trying to help, not trying to mock—without the first and last lines, which seem to break the guidelines.
Anxiety and shyness is not the same as introversion. Extroverts have as much anxiety and are shy too. Introverts give public speaches or perform publically.
> Case in point, my last boss was a visible, forceful woman who emphasized relationship building. It took me a year to learn she actually is heavily introverted and spends her weekends not talking to anyone. She was an effective introverted leader but she was also just an effective leader, period. It wouldn't occur to her to share this article.
Maybe if workplaces would be more acceptable of introverts she wouldn't have to spend the whole weekend recharging. Indeed this is not the first article making the case for introverts and it is obvious that introverts can act like extroverts and vice-versa. But there is a price to pay, e.g. needing some recharge time.
> On the other hand, plentny of low impact people believe they have great ideas but they aren't able to articulate them to get any traction or even feedback.
Plenty of high impact people just spill out their ideas and let other people spend many iterations to proof that those are bad ideas. Many introverts come up with excellent ideas and let them speak for themselves.
Apart from that one shouldn't forget why people have been hired in the first place. So they bring something to the table and not everything was on the job description or is common knowledge. I wish there was more appreciation for different approaches, also given that almost half of the population is considered introverted.
I very much disagree. I am not sure if it is a question of culture, nurture or what, but when I do mess up, I acknowledge the mess up, ask for forgiveness and move on. Up until that point, it certainly would not occur to me to either ignore it or just keep pressing in the wrong direction despite being objectively wrong.
Unless you did not correctly quote the advice, nothing that you said in this post invalidates the previous advice. Being wrong _is okay_, but if you're suggesting something, you should remain calm and be confident your suggestion is in line with your current understanding of a problem space. If wrong, continue to remain calm, acknowledge, apologize and move on. Being wrong shouldn't shake your confidence (again, even if you're an introvert).
I think I am willing to agree with your interpretation of the quote. It may have not been a good example since I can't really go into more details here.
I do have a philosophical objection though. Unlike Dr. House, I do not possess merely theoretical capacity for being wrong. I recognize I can be wrong and I recognize that me being wrong has real world consequences that I need to consider.
It is not about shaking my confidence. It is about whether it is possible I am wrong in this particular case. Confidence is pointless here since the consequences involved will not be BSed away.
> I think I am willing to agree with your interpretation of the quote. It may have not been a good example since I can't really go into more details here.
All good. I totally accept that that individual quote did not do justice to the situation you were trying to convey. I am not trying to be aggressive.
> I do have a philosophical objection though. Unlike Dr. House, I do not possess merely theoretical capacity for being wrong. I recognize I can be wrong and I recognize that me being wrong has real world consequences that I need to consider.
I am an overwhelming extrovert. I believe that your gripe is less about inro vs. extro, and much much more about culture. I have worked in environments where being wrong but trying hard is applauded, and I have worked in environments where being wrong (regardless of how or why) is shamed. The latter feels bad to me, as it sounds like it would you.
> It is not about shaking my confidence. It is about whether it is possible I am wrong in this particular case. Confidence is pointless here since the consequences involved will not be BSed away.
I totally agree with you. If getting something wrong will cause any kind of problem (beyond just, "lets fix it and keep going"), it's a culture problem and rightly will impact your confidence.
I would say, your boss was probably a moron, but not necessarily because they were an extrovert.
>> but not necessarily because they were an extrovert.
I had to think about it, but I think I agree. Him being an extrovert had little to do with this particular approach. I just associated it with him, because, well, he was hard to miss.
maybe they want to avoid dealing with folks with aggressive attitudes like yours, and find life more pleasant dealing with more rational, level headed people or no one.
I think you are onto something here. On the other hand, current breed of leadership is primarily full of type A, highly visible, forceful personalities that are, at best, difficult to ignore, but hard to take seriously.
But I do like your point about how introversion is used an odd excuse. One of the first videos on the subject in one of my MBA classes was on that ( Susan Cain, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0KYU2j0TM4 ).
Introverts can make good leaders, but it can be difficult.
Note I'm using what I feel is the most common definition of introversion/extroversion even if it is somewhat of a "pop" psychology definition, i.e. introverts recharge by quiet time alone, extroverts by being around others.
When you are a leader, a huge part of your job is being around other people a lot, and communicating with them, often times having difficult conversations. I'm introverted, I think I have fairly good (or at least OK) social skills and I'm emotionally introspective, I was an engineering director and I think I was pretty good at it. However, it left me feeling completely exhausted. Every day I would come home and basically crash because I was spending a huge portion of my day talking to people. It negatively affected my relationship because it was hard for me to be available to my partner when I was so tired from interacting with other people all day.
Contrast this with an extrovert, who actually gets energized by all of those daily interactions. It's very difficult to compete with that behavioral mindset in a job where a majority of work is person-to-person interactions.
Not saying my experience is the same across all introverts, just expressing my frustration at a lot of these "introverts have super powers!" type articles that have an underlying message that some jobs (i.e. "leaders") are intrinsically more valuable than others.
Angela Merkel and Obama are introverts.. Bolsonaro, Johnson and Donald Trump extroverts. Looking at the past year that's 'nuff said.
It seems some countries have a preference for extroverts, and confuse loudness and random action taking with ability. Fooled by charisma – especially Western nations seem to continuously fall into this trap.
Introverts need to develop a different style of leadership than extroverts. They need their own playing field.
I identify as introvert, and I was in a leadership role. My style was to develop the company strategy, then discuss it with a few select executives who I knew to be direct, honest, rational and usually right. Use their input to iterate and refine and then disseminate the strategy to the entire company.
I ensured that everyone in the company understood the strategy and understood their role in executing it. I.e., rather than an emotional plea to 'follow me because I'm persuasive', it was 'follow me because you can see the plan and your role in it and if you don't buy in, I am open to hear and assimilate your thinking.'
Perhaps a succinct description would be: An Extroverted leader keeps focus on themselves. An Introverted leader keeps the focus on the plan.
Wasnt it more of follow me because I am boss basically? You said you had small circle of people you listened to and the rest was informed about plan and their place in it.
Here is my take: today business is frequently about doing something that brings no benefit to the people at all (just take these 'startups' who exploit nothing but people's gullibility and/or addiction), that should give introverts an edge, because we gradually grow to be ignorant of other people's feelings for our poor ability to read other's emotional reactions in everyday's life. Because of this natural everyday feedback loop being weaker, we are less impacted by conscience, so in the one-sided, cynical online business world of today, we get an edge over others.
What if the introvert vs. extrovert categorization is a concept invented by so-called "extroverts", to pad their egos?
It's a concept that places randomly, emotionally acting people on the same level as people who try to think rationally before acting and prefer quietly educating themselves over socializing, as "they are just different personality types". It's a concept putting people that spend all their evenings in bars drinking on the same level as those they perceive as "introvert bookworms". They don't have to admit that the quiet wallflower who doesn't seem to be interested in participating in their primate dominance games is just more intelligent, careful and thoughtful than them. It's thus a quite useful idea for people who don't do a lot of non-social activities.
It even gives those "extroverts" an excuse to pathologize and patronize "introverts", just as they do during other social settings. Even the article has a list of "coping" strategies at the end, such as "Balance your time: For every 1-hour meeting, make sure to plan at least 30 minutes to yourself." – as if thinking before speaking makes you mentally ill and require special treatment.
This seems like a heavily polarizing and flamebatey comment. It’s not an us-against-them thing, and I would even argue that introvert vs extrovert is much less binary than your comment suggests.
Deeply sorry if I could not make myself clear to you, thanks for showing me with a downvote. What I'm trying to do is dissolve these binary categories and find another explanation for their presence in public discourse.
I agree with your overall sentiment but it is a polarizing comment and it does not propose an alternative. If the group with worse values is better at normalizing their values, no progress is made.
This is a strange suggestion to me because, if anything, I tend to find the opposite. That is, introversion has a lot of positive connotations (introverts are thoughtful, sensitive; extroverts are vapid, etc.), and people are generally more eager to describe themselves as introverts than extroverts.
* Let’s not confuse “introvert” with “shy” or “socially awkward”. There are plenty of introverts that can turn it on when needed. It may not be their favorite thing but they can do it and often pretty well. These people will have no problem in leadership. And there are others that are either too shy or socially awkward that won’t do well.
* In the end it’s about social skills. There are plenty of extroverts that will never make it in leadership because they lack the skills.
This article is just another example of clickbaity slander as they come.
> Myth #2: Introverts don’t have the “people skills” to lead
> Myth #3: Introverts are bad communicators
The explanations given for these "myths" in the article are not reasonable enough. Anyway, these are not myths, they are observable and explicable patterns. Just like nearly every other skill, communication and people skills require practice. Introverts are much less likely to have enough practice for leadership-worthy people skills than extroverts, especially if they don't bother pushing their limits for it.
A person who gains energy from social situations and from being alone fits the technical definition of both introvert and extrovert. This is the rational consequence and deduction from the English definitions of the words introvert and extrovert.
The definition literally permits people to possess both qualities at the same time. Yet people choose to irrationally pursue this either/or mentality that both qualities exist on a single spectrum.
So logically what you said makes zero sense. That means your illogical. Being illogical and irrational is completely independent of introversion or extroversion.
Count me in! When is our next meeting?
Joke aside, I also don't like this binary distinction because I find myself on both sides of the scale. Reading the comments here makes me think that there's probably a lot of unnecessary tribalism (we vs them), confirmation bias and overgeneralization that makes discussing this topic harder than it already is.
This is one of those HN posts made to generate clicks for the media company and their articles. I think that bane of this forum and this practice should not be encouraged.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but the general theory still applies.
Sales is more important than we like to admit. In most sales - extroversion is an advantage. Extroverts tend to get more recognition and know more people. They are typically have an advantage when recruiting.
Introversion has many advantages too. It's what makes one more likely to invest in developing a deeper skill. Introverts tend to deeply understand the problems they are solving and do a good job of removing red tape. In certain roles, they may have a better understanding of key potential hires.
If the industry you are in in not technical, the odds are that a extrovert would be a better fit as a leader.
if the industry you are in is technical and/or engineering, the odds are that an introvert would be as good a leader (and possibly better).
126 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadAnd most people, I think, when they talk about extroverts just mean people who talk a lot. I don't see how anyone could identify an introvert (or an extrovert) from a conversation in a business setting.
Promotions in business are all about politics. Politics can happen with a couple of well placed whispers and a short speech if someone has mastered that game.
Effectiveness in business is all about we-don't-quite-know-what, so not much to talk about there.
Given a long enough conversation, I can most of the time.
Let's also keep in mind the true meaning of Introverts (and extraverts) https://carlkingdom.com/10-myths-about-introverts and not the common misunderstood concepts of shy/anxiety symptoms.
My own interpretation is that introverts focus on getting things done, which is just a lot easier to do without distractions, e.g. away from the office.
Also, for me the #3 trait of a good leader is the most important, you have to display technical and professional expertise.
When your work is of a technical nature, it doesn't inspire confidence in your leader if they have no technical knowledge.
There's a book about this called Quiet, I it. It's an overview of the like social history of the concepts of intro- and extroversion, and also research about these traits. The difference seems to be more about stimulation and arousal than like social preferences or anything to do with work.
Introverts get more aroused from the same stimulus than extroverts do. This manifests in a bunch of different ways. The social ones are most obvious because human connection is the most common source of intense stimulus in human lives.
But for example extroverts are more likely to be "adrenaline junkies" because they need more stimulus to feel the same degree of excitement. This has nothing to do at all with social stuff or talking or "getting things done" it's just a thing. There are dozens or hundreds of correlations like this.
The interpersonal and social differences are the most obvious effects, but they aren't at the core of what these things are.
Did you read anything in what I described of the book that seemed overwhelmingly positive about introverts because it kind of isn't.
Are you under the impression that I'm an introvert? Because uh no.
I get what you're saying I just don't see why you're saying it to me I guess.
I think there's an implicit unstated assumption here of what "getting things done" means.
When I was a "individual contributor" / "Subject matter expert" for most of my career, that indeed may have meant sitting down alone and coding / configuring / etc.
In a leadership role now, "getting things done" for my role is now 100% about engaging with other people, supporting them, understanding them, motivating them, guiding them (in as subtle and non-invasive and stealth method as manageable:). This has been a big hurdle / growth opportunity for me as an introvert, but also gave me a ton of new perspectives I haven't had first two decades of my work.
A good leader has many traits, and almost all of them start with communication.
Like technology, leadership can also be learned. The downside of learning good leadership, is then you see all the bad leadership that stands out. For example, blaming someone else or otherwise not taking ownership of a mistake is bad at any level, but really the sign of a terrible leader.
But I wouldn't be so arrogant as to attempt to generalize from even a small handful of examples to an entire population.
I also feel like I can diagnose people, but most of the time I have no empirical evidence that I'm right. How do you get that evidence in your case?
Where you go in life depends on how many connections you create with people. And connecting with people requires energy. Introverts loose energy in the act of connecting while Extroverts gain energy. Therefore Extroverts will have an edge becoming a hub in a network or a connector of many networks.
People who can lead have to be hubs or connectors. The Introvert that leads usually have a bunch of hubs and connectors that bow and bend to them, which happens only if they bring something very unique to the table.
introverted people are more likely to spend time indoor (away from the UV of sunlight) which lead to your observed correlation.
There was a really interesting article on HN years ago about this, but I can't find it. The researchers suggested this effect was a good reason to mandate outdoor recess for children during the school day – maybe in Australia?
[0] https://insights.osu.edu/health/myopia
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-39...
Less anecdotal evidence is prevalence of myopia in south-east Asia where people have more exposure to bright sun than in Europe.
My pet hypothesis about myopia is exposure to high glycemic food like white rice or white bread that simulate growth just little bit too much that is enough to develop the eye few microns too big and cause myopia. But that hypothesis also has a lot of issues.
Introverts expend energy doing the same thing. A happy hour can be exhausting, but enjoyable getting to talk to people.
I’m… somewhere in between but operate in the extremes. I can be recharged from a party and being in good company or I can be recharged by staying inside all weekend and being alone. But it’s not like both recharge me all the time, and I haven’t figured out how to predict what will be needed far in the future.
My weekend needs depend on my week I guess and how much I have been or will be interacting or traveling. I generally like people though. If I didn’t like people or didn’t want to get to know them, I can’t see how being an extrovert and around people would be a energizing.
> I don’t think they’re lazy or don’t care about people
Nobody said that, they just invest less doesn't mean that they are fundamentally different.
I gain no energy from interacting with others, ever. I may find certain group activities fun, but definitely do not gain energy from it. The only time I seek out others for an activity is when the solo or AI (ex: in a game) alternative just doesn't work as well.
But offline is much better for creating relationships and trust, and for politics.
So most of the advantage is still left for extroverts.
Case in point, my last boss was a visible, forceful woman who emphasized relationship building. It took me a year to learn she actually is heavily introverted and spends her weekends not talking to anyone. She was an effective introverted leader but she was also just an effective leader, period. It wouldn't occur to her to share this article.
On the other hand, plentny of low impact people believe they have great ideas but they aren't able to articulate them to get any traction or even feedback. Rather than learning how to handle these situations, they chalk up their ineptitude to introversion. That's the kind of people I find takes comfort in these articles.
I find that "gets energy from interaction vs lose energy from interaction" is more productive than "shy vs loud".
I was visibly shy for first two decades of my life; I look (and am) a "people person" for the last two decades and most recent friends/colleagues wouldn't know I'm an introvert; and I'm doing reasonably well in people-manager role. But whereas after a hard day my sister wants to go out and party and this will rejuvenate her, after a hard day I want... nay, need, some "me time" - alone with book or computer or tv or music to recharge. I'm stereotypically the first person to leave a party of my best friends - I love them, I love our time together, but at some point I had enough input and need to depart.
My point is: I think "introvert" is a defining characteristic of me; but "have people skills" is just that - skills. I don't think I'll ever change whether I gain or lose energy from social interactions; that seems a pretty built-in aspect of my personality. But I can and did tremendously change how I actually interact with people - it may come easy to some, harder to others, and seemingly impossible to yet others, but it is in principle a learnable, acquirable skill.
So, "6% of Business executives think introverts have people skills needed" makes me think this is an accidentally tautology - I'm pretty sure they mentally have defined "introverts" as "those with poor people skills", and that's not I think the most accurate definition.
You act a certain way to cater to other people and possibly spend way too much energy on it, hence the exhaustion.
Most people aren't constantly modelling the mental state of others. You don't need to be in a constant state of anticipating the emotions of the other party when talking to them.
Just talk. Don't spend too many cycles overly concerned about what others think.
Rather than focus so much on others, it may work better to focus on making your own mental state relaxed, amused, lighthearted, etc. and then try to include others in that without worrying much about their states of mind. A lot of what attracts people socially is simply maintaining the ‘right’ mood—one that is enjoyable and accessible to others. The details of what someone says or does are less important.
You might notice that many life-of-the-party types aren’t necessarily that empathetic or “good listeners” or whatever when you talk to them. These things can help, but aren’t necessary or sufficient to make people generally enjoy being around someone. Much more important is simply that the person is visibly, genuinely having a good time, and is generating that sense of well-being for themselves rather than relying on others to supply it for them.
Not only are people who aren't nerds capable of being analytical, but nerds themselves are highly able to be irrational and stupid.
Case in point I've seen nerds who are so stupid they think of themselves as autistic savants who can't "understand" normal humans and must "model" them in order to interact.
No nerds are just people typically on the lowest rung of the social ladder with interests in specific technical topics like anime, chess, etc. They are not more analytical then the rest of the population.
You've been told what you've been told because it's true. There are tons of people like you and it's not people who are analytical.
It's people who like to think of themselves as more analytical then the rest of the population. You think some topic your switching to in a conversation could only have been discovered by your powerful analytical mind but it breaks the flow of conversation and is literally not as intelligent as you think it is.
You are not intelligent enough to comprehend the purpose of conversation. Conversation is a two way street it is not a platform for you to show off your intelligence. Think of it like this, when you go off on your intelligent tangent, does the other party understand but remain uninterested? If they understand what your saying then that means they have the analytical ability to keep up with you. It's just they find it not interesting enough to continue. So the problem isn't your analytical mind. It's your lack of analytical ability to comprehend the situation at hand.
Additionally I doubt you actually are that much more intelligent. Do you have genuine IQ scores to back up your claim? Even people at 150 can be quite normal. The things you describe typically happen at much higher IQ scores, so people who think of themselves this way, by probability are more likely to be deluding themselves rather then actually being that much more intelligent.
Instead you could try to adopt a mindset more like: "these people may not be intellectually interesting to me, but every human has the potential to be interesting, funny, or otherwise enjoyable in some way--I'll make the best of it and have some superficial fun without getting too deep". You're going to get much better results this way and it's easier/less tiring than focusing on the feelings of others.
As an aside, your last paragraph made me think of a funny edge-case, the extrovert with poor people skills. This might look like a person who seeks out social interactions and may try to start or force a conversation without knowing when to end it or whether the other participant is enjoying it or feels like they're being held hostage.
Consider an extrovert who just spent a whole week not getting any privacy, not even to use the loo. That person may very well test as an introvert at the end of the week.
Or consider an introvert who has been isolated from her closest friends for a month due to an illness. That person may test as an extrovert at the end of the month.
I tend to think of introversion as "tendency to be content with solitude", the difference being that instead of needing to recharge by being alone, an introvert is OK with being alone for a time. Most introverts still need social interaction, but they want to set the terms of that interaction.
I also think of introversion as "tendency to rely on inner dialogue". I have to go away and be alone to understand a problem, then come back and discuss the solution. Other people need someone else to provide that dialogue; I imagine them as having an inner monologue, but I can't see inside their minds.
I'm not a psychologist and I don't know if these definitions hold water. I'm just an introvert who over a lifetime has learned it can fun to be outgoing, and that being a leader requires practice and a good role model, regardless of whether you are introverted or extraverted.
One of the most surprising realisations of my life was reading that a portion of the population don't have an inner dialogue. The constant stream of verbiage that the voice inside my head uses to articulate my experiences seems such a fundamental part of consciousness that I struggle to picture life without it.
I wonder how much, if at all, that phenomenon contributes to the personality of people who think out loud.
As an introvert who lives alone and took an extended break from work around the time the COVID lock-down started, I can tell you for certain that I would not have tested as an extrovert at any point.
There are both introverts and extroverts who have "poor social skills and lack of impact".
Noisy extroverts who don't know when to stop talking is one example off the top of my head.
In my own experience I've witnessed people, in general, who struggle to communicate or communicate effectively. I've also witnessed people who over communicate or dominate communication and are equally destructive. There's also something else I've noticed, which is that leaders are often perceived as effective when they're leading people whom their leadership style is compatible with.
Puts the finger right on the important spot. People "get" you more if you relate to them in a familiar way.
Which means that being an effective leader requires stuffing your "but I'm an X" ideas, and adapting to the people you're leading. (Step 2 is teaching them to adapt as well - it's not about permanently disguising yourself)
On the other hand, introverts may compensate e.g. by reading literature on social skills, or spend more time reflecting on what happened; and unless they are isolated, after a few decades they also get lot of experience. While extraverts may get stuck in the "high-school style of human interaction" and have difficulty move forward.
Overall, I would guess that an average extravert will be much better than average introvert e.g. at small talk. But if you need a specialist, e.g. a therapist, the chances are more balanced, because for either it requires going beyond just following their instinct. But this is all just a guess.
> There's also something else I've noticed, which is that leaders are often perceived as effective when they're leading people whom their leadership style is compatible with.
Yep. But imagine that you have ten people in a room, five extraverted and five introverted. The extraverts will create a group in the middle of the room, and introverts will sit alone near the corners. If you randomly pick a leader, you will probably tell them to lead the group in the middle of the room -- and that is a task better suited to an extravert.
Without data it can't be truly known. But such data is likely garbage as it's very hard to quantify good social skills.
However if you remain impartial the intuition and logic is inescapable.
The less skilled you are at socializing the more energy you spend on deploying that skill. This means a good portion of introverts are introverted because they are bad at socializing.
I mean if you think about it what I said is utterly and completely obvious. It's this oversupply of "the benefites of being an introvert" articles that is making people think otherwise.
This stuff is BS science. The introvert extrovert classification is an arbitrary division. Doing science on this division is like doing an experiment on "do people with long hair make better leaders?"
You make it sound like introversion is a disability rather than a default orientation.
But...didn't you also just do the same thing?
People are good at things they try to be good at. Being an introvert has nothing to do with that, nor does extroversion. Meaning, people that prioritize interpersonal skill and relationship building have the potential to become good leaders, regardless of their particular alignment.
Also: social anxiety and shyness are very real problems that can easily be induced by the shame, ridicule, and lack of acceptance that introversion often is accompanied by. The fact that these things are often equated with “socially inept/incompetent” is extremely problematic.
My whole point is that social skills and interaction are just that - skills. You can invest in them if you are introverted or even if you have some social anxiety (as, I suspect, I do.)
If someone instead insists that there's nothing for them to learn, that their "badness" with people is a badge of honor in some way, then they just justify being bad at the expense of people around them.
But, I guess we can just ignore that, forego the opportunity to improve, because you find it problematic :)
It’s quite telling, too, as the language you used suggests you don’t view these things as medical conditions or disabilities, but instead personal failings to overcome.
Also, pointing out meanness in a comment isn’t the same as being offended: it’s quite presumptuous really.
Your comment would have come across better—as trying to help, not trying to mock—without the first and last lines, which seem to break the guidelines.
Extroverts can be also socially inept.
Maybe if workplaces would be more acceptable of introverts she wouldn't have to spend the whole weekend recharging. Indeed this is not the first article making the case for introverts and it is obvious that introverts can act like extroverts and vice-versa. But there is a price to pay, e.g. needing some recharge time.
> On the other hand, plentny of low impact people believe they have great ideas but they aren't able to articulate them to get any traction or even feedback.
Plenty of high impact people just spill out their ideas and let other people spend many iterations to proof that those are bad ideas. Many introverts come up with excellent ideas and let them speak for themselves.
Apart from that one shouldn't forget why people have been hired in the first place. So they bring something to the table and not everything was on the job description or is common knowledge. I wish there was more appreciation for different approaches, also given that almost half of the population is considered introverted.
"If you turn out to be right, that is great. If not, that is ok too. But it is vital that you remain calm and confident irregardless."
And the most fucking annoying thing about his approach is that it works.
Did he really use this non-word?
I would not call it professionalism at all.
I do have a philosophical objection though. Unlike Dr. House, I do not possess merely theoretical capacity for being wrong. I recognize I can be wrong and I recognize that me being wrong has real world consequences that I need to consider.
It is not about shaking my confidence. It is about whether it is possible I am wrong in this particular case. Confidence is pointless here since the consequences involved will not be BSed away.
All good. I totally accept that that individual quote did not do justice to the situation you were trying to convey. I am not trying to be aggressive.
> I do have a philosophical objection though. Unlike Dr. House, I do not possess merely theoretical capacity for being wrong. I recognize I can be wrong and I recognize that me being wrong has real world consequences that I need to consider.
I am an overwhelming extrovert. I believe that your gripe is less about inro vs. extro, and much much more about culture. I have worked in environments where being wrong but trying hard is applauded, and I have worked in environments where being wrong (regardless of how or why) is shamed. The latter feels bad to me, as it sounds like it would you.
> It is not about shaking my confidence. It is about whether it is possible I am wrong in this particular case. Confidence is pointless here since the consequences involved will not be BSed away.
I totally agree with you. If getting something wrong will cause any kind of problem (beyond just, "lets fix it and keep going"), it's a culture problem and rightly will impact your confidence.
I would say, your boss was probably a moron, but not necessarily because they were an extrovert.
I had to think about it, but I think I agree. Him being an extrovert had little to do with this particular approach. I just associated it with him, because, well, he was hard to miss.
Thank you. That was an interesting conversation:>
But I do like your point about how introversion is used an odd excuse. One of the first videos on the subject in one of my MBA classes was on that ( Susan Cain, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0KYU2j0TM4 ).
Note I'm using what I feel is the most common definition of introversion/extroversion even if it is somewhat of a "pop" psychology definition, i.e. introverts recharge by quiet time alone, extroverts by being around others.
When you are a leader, a huge part of your job is being around other people a lot, and communicating with them, often times having difficult conversations. I'm introverted, I think I have fairly good (or at least OK) social skills and I'm emotionally introspective, I was an engineering director and I think I was pretty good at it. However, it left me feeling completely exhausted. Every day I would come home and basically crash because I was spending a huge portion of my day talking to people. It negatively affected my relationship because it was hard for me to be available to my partner when I was so tired from interacting with other people all day.
Contrast this with an extrovert, who actually gets energized by all of those daily interactions. It's very difficult to compete with that behavioral mindset in a job where a majority of work is person-to-person interactions.
Not saying my experience is the same across all introverts, just expressing my frustration at a lot of these "introverts have super powers!" type articles that have an underlying message that some jobs (i.e. "leaders") are intrinsically more valuable than others.
It seems some countries have a preference for extroverts, and confuse loudness and random action taking with ability. Fooled by charisma – especially Western nations seem to continuously fall into this trap.
Housing prices skyrocket and people are poorer in general.
The Corona policy is chaotic and Germany is behind in vaccinations.
I'm not sure this is a great record.
Wondering how you evaluate the "track record" of the "extrovert" people I mentioned.
I identify as introvert, and I was in a leadership role. My style was to develop the company strategy, then discuss it with a few select executives who I knew to be direct, honest, rational and usually right. Use their input to iterate and refine and then disseminate the strategy to the entire company.
I ensured that everyone in the company understood the strategy and understood their role in executing it. I.e., rather than an emotional plea to 'follow me because I'm persuasive', it was 'follow me because you can see the plan and your role in it and if you don't buy in, I am open to hear and assimilate your thinking.'
Perhaps a succinct description would be: An Extroverted leader keeps focus on themselves. An Introverted leader keeps the focus on the plan.
It's a concept that places randomly, emotionally acting people on the same level as people who try to think rationally before acting and prefer quietly educating themselves over socializing, as "they are just different personality types". It's a concept putting people that spend all their evenings in bars drinking on the same level as those they perceive as "introvert bookworms". They don't have to admit that the quiet wallflower who doesn't seem to be interested in participating in their primate dominance games is just more intelligent, careful and thoughtful than them. It's thus a quite useful idea for people who don't do a lot of non-social activities.
It even gives those "extroverts" an excuse to pathologize and patronize "introverts", just as they do during other social settings. Even the article has a list of "coping" strategies at the end, such as "Balance your time: For every 1-hour meeting, make sure to plan at least 30 minutes to yourself." – as if thinking before speaking makes you mentally ill and require special treatment.
* Let’s not confuse “introvert” with “shy” or “socially awkward”. There are plenty of introverts that can turn it on when needed. It may not be their favorite thing but they can do it and often pretty well. These people will have no problem in leadership. And there are others that are either too shy or socially awkward that won’t do well.
* In the end it’s about social skills. There are plenty of extroverts that will never make it in leadership because they lack the skills.
> Myth #2: Introverts don’t have the “people skills” to lead
> Myth #3: Introverts are bad communicators
The explanations given for these "myths" in the article are not reasonable enough. Anyway, these are not myths, they are observable and explicable patterns. Just like nearly every other skill, communication and people skills require practice. Introverts are much less likely to have enough practice for leadership-worthy people skills than extroverts, especially if they don't bother pushing their limits for it.
A metrovert is someone who derives energy from socializing but also derives energy from being alone. I think I would be a metrovert.
Tons and tons of these types of people exist. I'm curious as to why people decided to categorize everyone into just introverts and extroverts.
A person who gains energy from social situations and from being alone fits the technical definition of both introvert and extrovert. This is the rational consequence and deduction from the English definitions of the words introvert and extrovert.
The definition literally permits people to possess both qualities at the same time. Yet people choose to irrationally pursue this either/or mentality that both qualities exist on a single spectrum.
So logically what you said makes zero sense. That means your illogical. Being illogical and irrational is completely independent of introversion or extroversion.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but the general theory still applies.
Sales is more important than we like to admit. In most sales - extroversion is an advantage. Extroverts tend to get more recognition and know more people. They are typically have an advantage when recruiting.
Introversion has many advantages too. It's what makes one more likely to invest in developing a deeper skill. Introverts tend to deeply understand the problems they are solving and do a good job of removing red tape. In certain roles, they may have a better understanding of key potential hires.
If the industry you are in in not technical, the odds are that a extrovert would be a better fit as a leader.
if the industry you are in is technical and/or engineering, the odds are that an introvert would be as good a leader (and possibly better).