Introverts v Extroverts

Insights into Personality Type

A client recently explained why they were having trouble “putting up with” people on their team. “I’m an introvert and I don’t like all the talking and discussing they spend so much time on”.

My client was called to task by HR because of a few “minor issues” with communication style/conflict. “It’s not a good use of time and I have a busy schedule. I just want to get things done efficiently”. This was a true and an accurate depiction of the experience of my client (truth and accuracy don’t necessarily co- exist). Methods of communication, levels of discussion and time spent talking, were at the heart of the issue here.

People tend towards either extroversion or introversion. Introverts speak when they have something to say, not so much otherwise. Extroverts tend to talk when they are deciding what to say, to socialise their ideas with others’ inputs, before deciding.

When little conflicts emerge, the introvert can explain it as my client did, and be mostly correct. It takes time to discuss more, but sometimes that time is productive. Sometimes it’s not. But the discussion, for one type,  also serves another function, as they use discussion to make decisions.

The emotionally intelligent (EQ) colleague will have a deep understanding of type, and how others’ behaviours reflect their type, so these few sage people go far. They allow for their own irritation/fatigue/disagreement, and wait, listen, appreciate and accommodate; they have a capacity for other types. Most people don’t.

Type matters though, and one easy type to start gaining insight into is the introversion/extroversion type. Introverts perceive relations and expression differently to the extrovert. 

While an introvert might see the cause of the issue in a team that there is too much time wasting, the extrovert might see the cause of conflict as too much shutting down discussion and hurrying on.

There are few real life direct cause and effect relationships going on in work settings; they are usually crocked scatterings of morsels, from half a cause over to another micro cause which joins forces and they both meander into other arena entirely not related to the initial cause everyone thinks is the culprit. Lots of related and unrelated aspects of people and systems cause upsets, seldom just the one that gets blamed.

Investigating

It's a dotted, curvy, broken trail, which wouldn’t easily bring anyone any comfort establishing a reliable connection. This makes doing workplace investigations so very difficult. For most issues, one person’s explanation, even when true and accurate, is not the full story, doesn’t encompass the other’s perception and importantly, regardless of introversion or extroversion, will involve both people vying for getting their version prioritised.

None of this helps anyone tasked with looking for solutions.

Although I didn’t get to query the team in the above cited case, it’s likely there are a few extroverts on it. Their explanation could be something like this “I make suggestions and say things and your client, by attitude, gesture or verbal/nonverbal communications, belittles my ideas and suggestions - which makes me feel disrespected, in front of colleagues.” This, too, seems plausibly accurate and true.

Finding Resolution

A few simple advisories could, if delivered early in the game, help a lot. When new teams are formed, where a group of people are asked to deliver a piece of work together (project-style working) or where people are loosely working together, not as a team, but within a functional area/department, they often come to the group with false beliefs or inaccurate understanding of the other people.

We tend to assume people who look like us, dress like us, are in our area of work with us, share our values to the extent that they share our ways of doing things… Ouch!

Not so. There are many different types of personality at work.  And these types are dynamic, not static. Circumstance, setting, and even the day of the week, can alter how we express ourselves and make our ‘type’ appear more pronounced: more seemingly outgoing this week than last week. Type isn’t set in stone, but types are associated with specific patterns of behaviour and habits cued by surroundings exist in all of us. It is these which inform what psychometric tests assess as type. And it’s very useful to know something about this when working with others.

The introversion/extroversion scale is one dimension of type and an easy one to assess. We are more familiar with the concept, and we feel more confident admitting to one or the other, neither seeming negative or positive per se, than we are with other dimensions of type.

However, knowing the name and a few things about it is not enough – many, like my client, don’t appear to go further than knowing the tendency. We don’t know how to assess and accept or integrate the tendency of others and thus make their behaviours, contextualised.

We don’t seem to readily appreciate that, in groups, there will be many different types, none right or wrong, all trying to communicate with each other to get work done. Everyone can be true and accurate, but work doesn’t get done. Because nobody really understands each other.

Advice

Why don’t managers, leaders, and those in strategic HR roles spend less time on ideology and more time developing behavioural insight micro trainings for everyone?

Since teams became the buzz word of modern working, why is there more time spent training for the use of Teams software than there is on training, developing on understanding team dynamics? Technology over people, again!

People working within teams should get some introduction to the different types of personality everywhere and how each can both add to our experience of work as well as irritate us and yes, seem to block our progress doing our jobs. It’s empowering to understand the source of the irritation, be pre-warned of it, develop ways to be less irritated and to express that irritation in more pro-social ways.

Gaining such insights helps everyone in everyday life, both inside and outside of work. But within the workplace, increased insights like this would reduce complaints of conflict, bullying and some harassment claims. It would also reduce the amount of time HR and other professionals have to spend trying to ‘sort out’ what are essentially communications issues between capable, productive people, who just don’t know either themselves, or their colleagues strengths and weaknesses when working cooperatively.

Some aspects of most work are socialised into group work, teamwork, project work. Tasks, at some juncture, are better achieved through communicating, discussing, talking, listening, and engaging.

While A.I. may take many of these tasks on and do them for us, A.I. can’t relate for us.

When the times come around to work together, make decisions, apply judgement, and gain specialist insights – all crucial to high level organisational functioning – knowing about other people’s emotional drivers, type and capacities helps. Then, at least, E.I. trumps A.I.