To the extent that introvert and extrovert, as unfalsifiable subjective descriptions, really mean anything anyway, it has nothing to do with listening to people speak.
Listening is simply a conversational skill and has nothing to do with meyers-briggs personality type. Some people are naturally better at listening and others aren't. Some people practice and gain skill others do not.
I would put the purported plus of introverts "listening to people speak" a bit differently. To generalize, extroverts talk to work through their own thinking. So some/much of what they say is that process in public. As a young introvert, I often got annoyed at their listening dead zones, until I realized they were still working through their own patterns as they integrated what others had to say. In the world of extroverts, introverts do this behind the scenes.
I don't think the way a person works through their thoughts is closely related to listening.
There are a number of circumstances under which people fail to listen. Two common ones are:
1. One's own speech fills in the entire time leaving no one else a chance to talk.
2. One's listening time is wasted mentally preparing what you are going to say and anticipating an opportunity to say it. So others talk, but you aren't paying attention.
(1) would be a problem associated with "extraverts" while (2) would be a problem associated with "introverts." But in fact, if you really got someone to observe your behavior you might be surprised to find how often you are guilty of the first. The introvert/extravert labels are somewhat dangerous models to apply to your own behavior.
There is at least one more common pattern, which I would call "half-listening" -- thinking about something else entirely.
I don't really know what studies there are on this, but the belief that introverts are better listeners is widespread (just google on "introverts better listeners" -- compare that to "extroverts better listeners").
True, and again I don't really think the __vert label means much when it comes to half-listening.
But what does introvert really mean? There's a vague understanding that it's a kind of person who "directs energy inward to the mind as opposed to outward to the environment."
Lots of programmers spend a lot of time programming, which is a solitary activity, so they all think "they are introverts." Just like all these other people who "are introverts." It's very comforting. But it's lazy.
Most people express both kinds of behavior, and are quite capable of thinking in different ways. People who become Buddhist monks don't have to be "introverted people" but they practice what would be described as introverted behavior. Do they "become introverts" via training? Someone who has spent most of their life programming can learn to direct energy outward playing soccer. They can learn to experience the thrill of improvising a story to a crowd, making it bits as you go based on how you want them to feel about it.
The general assumptions are way too broad. "uncomfortable in social situations" - Why? Low self-esteem? Maybe it's as simple as bad posture. You are slouching and don't realize it, this means you have to make a lot of effort to use your voice. This makes you reluctant to talk and when you do, your voice is soft and sounds a bit strained and uncomfortable. It's hard for people to hear you and they don't enjoy listening, so they have to ask you to repeat yourself, you get frustrated and feel embarassed. So you go home and say "I don't like social situations." "I must be an introvert." When really you just need to practice standing up straight and breathing properly.
It could be hundreds of different things depending on the person, and giving yourself a broad label like "introvert" and "extravert" only interferes with your ability to understand those things.
Summary: Introverts make great problem-solvers because they listen more than they talk. When introverts are able to vocalize or communicate their efficient problem-solving techniques, they become leaders. A frequent problem that many introverts have is that all the talkers/extroverts in the room never give them a chance to properly vocalize their thoughts. The Internet changed the dynamics a little bit, because introverts are now able to "speak" without waiting for humdrum lulls in conversation.
... the most powerful person in the room is often the most quiet
Another problem is that extroverts sometimes take credit for the "thoughts" of introverts (those that have been written before spoken).
The article mostly just reiterates the strengths of introverts, which you can get from reading about Meyers/Briggs personality types or similar sources. What would have been more interesting would be a comparison of the leadership styles of introverts vs. extroverts: my hunch is that introverts provide deeper strategic leadership, but are not as good at things like bolstering morale. But if anyone has links on this, I'd love to see them. As an introvert who is often frustrated by the strategic thinking of his own organization, I find the subject interesting.
Even as an introvert, I think that extroverts can sometimes come to the same well-planned decisions through more of a conversational process, deliberating out loud and with the help of others.
But the title and point of the article are simply why introverts can make good leaders, not necessarily why extroverts aren't just as good.
Justify that. All treyp said was that extroverts could make up for their weaknesses, not that they had any given strengths. It's not that I agree or disagree with you—but the "+1" implies that you think this is what treyp meant, when he was establishing a much weaker argument.
Whatever treyp said, my point is that introverts have strengths that extroverts don't have and vice versa. Thus to say one group is inherently better at managing than another is wrong.
If I read his comment wrong, then so be it.
EDIT: after reading my initial comment, I realized that it might have sounded a bit "pro-extrovert" which wasn't my intent. I've edited it to be a bit more clear.
Yeah, so the article is very pro-introvert. I just wanted to point out that I don't think it's the case that introverts are better at leadership than extroverts. The article isn't claiming this, but I have a feeling that the HN audience might up-vote this because that's how they interpret it. I was just trying to give a friendly reminder that there are different qualities that make people good leaders. Both of them can excel.
But the article still serves its purpose. In the business world, there's a tendency to assume you must be extroverted to be a great leader. There's an assumption that introverts should be doing other things like engineering, that introverts don't have the "people skills" necessary to be great leaders. The article makes a good case that this just isn't so.
"They also use their calm, quiet demeanors to be heard amid all the organizational noise and chatter. (One thoughtful, reasoned comment in a meeting can move a group forward by leaps and bounds.)"
I've noticed that this is my greatest strength as an introvert. I tend to not say that much in meetings, but when I do, people listen. It's gotten to the point where I rarely have to talk over people.
Much of the narrative of this article seems to be predicated on the implicit suggestion that introverts are about substance, deep thoughts, abstraction, careful consideration, aforethought, judiciousness and balance, and extroverts mostly about superficial banter and infantile thumb-sucking that passes for discussion or decisionmaking.
To say the very least that could possibly be said, I think there is zero of the envisaged correlation here.
I think introverts are best leaders only in certain leadership roles. Leadership roles that require technical and deep thinking seem to better fit introverts. While leadership roles that are more people facing are better suited for extroverts.
Bill Gates's introvertness and leadership of driving the technical direction of Microsoft, while Steve Ballmer's extrovertness of being the sales guy.
Is there a good test for being introvert or extrovert? I have always imagined that an extrovert just has a better ability and finds it easier to express his/her emotions.
However, the Wikipedia definition sounds more like a description of egoist/altruist:
Introversion is "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life".
Extraversion is "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self"
The definition that I've found most useful is that introverts get recharged when they are by themselves, whereas extroverts get recharged when they are around people.
This separates a person's interpersonal skills from their intro- or extro-vertedness.
This definition is useful for me because I'm pretty outgoing in "party" situations, but eventually need to spend alone time, recharging, I guess. On the other hand, I have friends who hate to be alone.
"[introverts]...tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours."
I can definitely be pretty active at parties and stuff, but this is something that I've learned to do as I realized how being my "natural" self turns people off. I guess you can say that my social stamina is low and I need to rest more than extroverts do.
Is there a good test? If by "good" you mean "scientific" then the answer is certainly no. There are tests where you answer questions about how you think about various different kinds of real-life scenarios and will assign you to one or the other. The tests use casual and vague definitions and the label is assigned based on entirely subjective self-measurements.
"Do you enjoy being the center of attention?"
Since everyone shares traits of introverts and extraverts, it's easy to take a test and read the vague description they give you and think "oh yeah that sounds like me."
I don't know that it's fair to say that the MBTI isn't scientific. Do you agree with the scientific assumptions and methods? Maybe not, but that's a lot different from not being based in science at all.
MBTI classification is unscientific because there are 16 pre-defined categories with complex definitions and the tests filter 100% of test-takers into one of those categories. There is zero possibility that a test will fail to find the appropriate label. There is no way to prove the test wrong.
You can show that an animal was missclassified as an invertebrate by showing the flaws in the test that failed to identify the spinal cord that exists. If you disagree with your MBTI label, you can just take the test again and answer the questions differently, at which point your label changes. Or does it? Nobody knows, because MBTI is a game masquerading as science.
When zoologists label something 'frog' or 'mouse', they observe specific traits that differentiate the mice from frogs and group them into categories. The specific observable traits and the definition of the species are essentially the same thing. It's possible to discover an animal with traits that correspond neither to frog, or to mouse. It's possible (though obviously unlikely because our skills at observing and describing physical traits in animals are far superior to our skills at observing complex patterns in our own behavior) for a test to mis-classify a frog as a mouse, and that a subsequent test will show the flaws of the original test.
MBTI doesn't do that. MBTI tests assign unspecific predefined labels to test-takers, and that's why I say it is not science. There is no real discovery.
Science does the same thing in many instances. Cellular life is divided into 3 domains: archaea, bacteria, and eukaryote. ALL cellular life is presorted into one of those three domains, and new ones get placed appropriately as discovered.
Disagreeing with your MBTI label doesn't mean you can take the test again and answer questions differently - if you can honestly answer a question in a different way, you fall on the spectrum between things.
What many people miss is that the labels are merely points on a spectrum, each of the four factors is given a percentage rating showing how strongly that factor applies (70% E, for example, implies 30% I - you're more extraverted than introverted, but still have that introversion in your personality).
I'm not saying MBTI is 'science', as there's no way to scientifically prove personality traits, but your specific argument against it is flawed.
>Science does the same thing in many instances. Cellular life is divided into 3 domains: archaea, bacteria, and eukaryote. ALL cellular life is presorted into one of those three domains, and new ones get placed appropriately as discovered.
Actually I must contradict that assertion. It is theoretically possible to observe cellular life that is not adequately described by those three labels. It is highly improbable because the descriptions are the result of thousands of man-years of study, and covers everything we've been able to discover so far. But because the definitions are strict and based on empirical observations, it can be done.
In fact, Achaea is a relatively new sub-category of Prokaryote, because the increasing number of empirical observations stretched the limits of the existing definitions. Scientists found life that failed the Eukaryote test, nominally passed the Prokaryote test, but were really sufficiently different from other Prokaryotes such that a new term was assigned. This is because real effort was made to make the definition of Prokaryote strict and precise based on empirical observations. That leaves open the possibility that unexpected observations (discoveries) will challenge the usefulness of existing definitions. That won't ever happen with MBTI. You can never take a Meyers-Briggs test and have the test fail to categorize. Every test gives you an answer, a personality type that reads like a horoscope. The types are not strict and precise like the definitions of cellular life, they are vague and inclusive like your horoscope. You don't read it and think "interesting new knowledge!" you read it and think "this is so true! This is me!"
Consider the human conditions that MBTI fails to identify. It cannot identify a psychopath. It cannot identify a schizofrenia. It cannot identify alzheimers disease, or any sort of mental illness even due to physical damage to the brain. It cannot, technically even determine whether the subject is human (although that could be a reasonable assumption). If this methodology can not and will not ever be able to distinguish between recognized psychiatric diseases, is it really reasonable to expect that it can differentiate subtle personality traits based on the results of a questionaire? Is it really telling you anything useful about yourself? You could have a serious, potentially dangerous mental condition like bipolar disorder and all the MBTI will tell you is that you "enjoy being with people."
Incidentally whether it's a spectrum or not doesn't change the argument at all. A person who scores 50%/50% introvert/extrovert is not a discovery. The test fully accounts for this.
An egoist is a person who is concerned with how good they are. Whether they're an introvert or extravert would only define where they project that feeling.
For instance, an egoist introvert would likely spend all day thinking about how good they are to themselves. An egoist extravert would spend all day telling everyone else how good they are.
I don't buy this. At work I used to have tons of problems with people that communicates little. The ability to communicate fast and the ability to use the right words to make clear what you mean is vital.
Also instead to do useless work because you can't just tell in five seconds if this is going to be OK sucks. A lot of wasted work. I think that the ability to communicate well is very important IMHO, and it's unrelated to being introverts or extroverts as far as I can tell.
I'm not sure I understand your point. You're saying that an article claiming that introverts have strengths that can make them good leaders is invalid because people need communication skills. But then you claim that that's not really related to introversion/extroversion?
It has been reported that a full 40% of executives describe themselves as introverts... Doesn't this disprove the claim that introverts are best leaders? What metric of best are we using and where's the hard data?
I wasn't aware that there was a metric of who's a better leader. I suppose we're also going to need more metrics for who's friendlier or has the best idea?
Listening is simply a conversational skill and has nothing to do with meyers-briggs personality type. Some people are naturally better at listening and others aren't. Some people practice and gain skill others do not.