
Companies would benefit from helping introverts to thrive - tomaskazemekas
http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21706490-organisations-have-too-long-been-oriented-towards-extroverts-companies-should-help?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/2016098n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/E/n
======
jbb555
Training courses seem to be a place that they've increasingly made terrible in
this way.

I'm fine with useful training where they teach you some stuff, and let you
have a go at it, and are available for questions.

But no... these days they have to make it all "interactive". Instead of
teaching stuff they have to stand there picking on people asking "what do you
know about X", and then after a few hours of "teaching" you are "rewarded" by
being forced to join a group of people for a group activity. No, it's not a
reward, it's a few hours of hell.

ugh, this is why I tend to avoid so called training these days. Why can't we
just be given actual teaching and notes and not be forced to do awful group
activities.

~~~
dopeboy
I've been part of a technical training program at a Fortune 100 company. I've
done technical training for new hires at a Fortune 500 company. I've also
volunteer taught high school kids how to code. I consider myself an introvert
with a extrovert mode that gets turned on when needed.

Couple thoughts:

* As an instructor, I hate standing in front of the class and talking. That asymmetric form of teaching is pointless and I'd argue, outdated.

* Interactivity is important in a training setting because you're learning _along_ with others. That initial path you create in your brain is dotted with waypoints that everyone in class travels together. This is powerful when learning because more likely than not, you will be able to pull each other way from common pitfalls and also connect concepts that you know about already.

* I see your point on group activity. It depends on the nature of the training. If it's a highly technical topic like a new programming language, it probably makes sense to have individual practice before any group project.

~~~
hannob
"I consider myself an introvert with a extrovert mode that gets turned on when
needed."

Then please understand that unlike you many others aren't introverts by
choice. They can't simply "turn it off".

~~~
jordanlev
I think there's a misunderstanding of what introversion is... it's not just
"being shy" versus "being outgoing", but rather (as the article and lots of
other commenters have pointed out) about what recharges your mental energy.

So it's kind of like saying "make sure you spend some time each day doing that
strenuous activity so you get more used to it". Just like someone would say
"go to the gym and work out a few times a week". Just because one person isn't
as physically fit as another, doesn't mean the less-fit person shouldn't get
any exercise at all.

~~~
ashark
I entirely fail to relate to this analogy. Boring/not-boring matters so much
more than "is this an extroverted or introverted activity?" as far as draining
my mental energy that the latter doesn't even register. I would never think:
"doing some boring solo work will totally recharge my batteries after that
equally-boring meeting I just got out of". Is it truly common to operate that
way?

~~~
jordanlev
You are probably then close to the middle of being an introvert vs. an
extrovert. If you ask someone who very much considers themselves an introvert
(like myself), the answer would be "I would _SO_ much rather do boring solo
work than sit in a boring meeting", and actually doing boring solo work would
probably be the thing I most look forward to after a boring meeting.

If you ask someone who strongly identifies as being an extrovert, I think
they'd answer the other way: after some boring solo work they're probably
craving some human interaction, even if it's in the context of a boring
meeting.

------
vidarh
I just got off a call discussing the problems of technical teams where
introverts get thrown into the deep end by being promoted to team leads etc.
often without _any_ kind of support.

I suffered through being in that position myself early in my career, and
people under me suffered as a result, and I had no follow up or help
whatsoever in terms of obtaining the skills to deal with it. It took a lot of
time to recognise the problem and "fix it".

It still saps me of energy to spend time actively reaching out to people, but
I've learned strategies to work around it (e.g. setting appointments to talk
to people so I can't get out of it without being rude prevents me from just
indefinitely postponing it), and "compensate" by ensuring I allocate "quiet
time" to recharge.

There were also a lot of little things I had to learn. E.g. I eventually
learned that simply walking around the office now and again and asking people
how they were doing got people to report far higher satisfaction with my level
of engagement, even if I spent _less_ time actually responding to issues.

My managers never engaged with me that way when I started leading teams (I
once had a manager that didn't actually talk to me for about two years - I
passed on status reports once a week and that was pretty much it), so I didn't
either for a long time. It turned out to be a very "low touch" method of
showing interest that didn't wear me down but gave very positive results.

A lot of teams struggle with bad to non-existent training of people who get
promoted into management positions, and that problem gets far worse with
people whose "default" is to not spend a lot of time talking to people, and it
puts a strain both on the team and the person put into that position that
could be reduced very quickly with some basic training and some coaching.

I actually occasionally take on contracts to do coaching for technology
managers because I love helping people shortcut all the time I wasted on it
when I first started managing teams.

~~~
CaptSpify
Tech people still have a (accurate IME) stereotype of being anti-social,
awkward, and poor communicators. Yet the career path is still set to go
through management.

A few of my bosses have been "upset" when I've declined management
opportunities. I don't have those skills, nor do I want them! It's the finest
example of the Peter Principle I can think of.

~~~
WhitneyLand
There are actually a fair number of companies that have a tech ladder. I think
the big 4 tech companies all do for starters.

The problem is mostly with non-tech companies and their "IT" departments that
largely don't get it. It would be great for employees and for labor
efficiency, but how do you even start trying to get buyin when the
leadership's head is in such a different place?

~~~
maxxxxx
My company has a tech ladder but it's incredibly difficult to climb the tech
ladder. An engineer who wants to make the same money as a manager has to be a
superstar whereas managers of the same salary level can be mediocre.

~~~
erobbins
yeah, but we have an ice cream shop.

------
pluma
Meanwhile in tech being an introvert is lumped together with "poor social
skills" and frowned upon in the name of diversity.

I've actually heard conference speakers call out behaviours as toxic that are
basically the defining character traits of introverts (not to mention people
in the autism spectrum).

Note that I'm not even talking about the shouty-sweary-abrasive behaviour
people like Torvalds are being derided for but simply preferring to work alone
rather than in a team.

~~~
arpa
Being an introvert doesn't mean you don't have to have social skills. It just
means that it's harder, more exhausting and basically you need time to
recharge via some "me time".

Of course, it's just my personal opinion and experience. As an introvert, i
dislike crowds, big events, dancing and singing; It's challenging, but very
beneficial to invest some of my energy into "being social". If you can learn
${lang}, you can learn to identify your own feelings. Once you know your own
feelings, you can learn empathy. Once you learn empathy, social skills is a
breeze.

~~~
wolfgke
> If you can learn ${lang}, you can learn to identify your own feelings. Once
> you know your own feelings, you can learn empathy. Once you learn empathy,
> social skills is a breeze.

Believe me: I think I know my feelings pretty well. But I also claim that they
are often so much different from the feelings other people have that this does
not help me to empathize. Just to give one example: How is the feeling called
that you feel when you read and understand beautiful mathematical proofs? I
have not found a name for this feeling in any psychology book that I have
read. On the other hand grief (in the sense of the feeling that people feel
when someone near dies; I hope this is the intended translation of the German
word "Trauer" \- I'm no English native speaker) is a feeling that I only know
from literature and watching people - I can confidently say that I never felt
such a feeling myself.

Back to topic: I believe the step from "knowing your own feelings" to
"empathy" assumes that your feelings are somehow related to the feelings other
people feel. I think this bold assumption does not hold very strongly for me.
Believe me: If I act on this assumption, chaos will happen. On the other hand
if I apply, say, some maximum-likelihood estimation (to use a word from
statistics, don't interpret the word "maximum-likelihood" too literally) on
how another person might feel (which is often quite the opposite to how I feel
and completely against my instincts and I would never like to be treated this
way), at least less chaos will happen.

~~~
hawski
I think that the feelings are probably almost the same, but they are caused by
different stimuli.

I would describe a feeling when you read and understand beautiful mathematical
proofs as bliss or relief (when it was hard before everything unfolds).
Dopamine kick? It is just that most people don't get satisfaction from such
things.

~~~
wolfgke
It might be nitpicking (and I'm not a native English speaker so in English the
words might have some connotations that I'm not aware of), but here is my view
why the suggested words in my opinion don't fit the feeling.

> bliss

It's not about happiness - the world is still bad - but about deep
understanding.

>awe

It's not that I'm intimidated by it - it's just the feeling of having
understood something really deep

> epiphany

it comes near, but epiphany is (as far as I understand it) the feeling of the
sudden realization (which is different), but I talk the feeling that you have
afterwards. While in panel 2 of

> [https://xkcd.com/230/](https://xkcd.com/230/)

the feeling is clearly "epiphany" the later panels transport a different
feeling (a much less "striking" one) - the latter is the feeling I mean.

> It is just that most people don't get satisfaction from such things.

But they might get the same feeling from other stimuli.

The "elegant math proof" feeling was just the description of a feeling that at
leas some HN readers seem to be able to empathize with - I also had much
stranger feelings under meditation (that I never had in "ordinary" life) that
are even much harder to describe (and I only had them one or two times - so my
descriptions might even not be very accurate).

~~~
wccrawford
I had never considered it, but it's true. I don't have a word for that. I
agree that those words aren't adequate, either.

Instead, I'd just say that I love it, and wouldn't even attempt to express my
actual feeling.

I would only have used "epiphany" to express the feeling of figuring something
out on my own, suddenly, but never the feeling of figuring out something that
was clearly designed to explain something to me. Still, it's the closest word
in this list, in my opinion. But not adequate.

------
achow
> ...the best way to encourage creativity is to knock down office walls and to
> hold incessant meetings.

Being part of office layout team in a Fortune 10 company I'm now aware that
most of the time the motivation is cost. It is way cheaper by many order of
magnitude to have an open plan office. Other cost related reasons are easy to
manage space -can be expanded and scaled down in jiffy- cheaper HVAC
installation and maintenance etc.

~~~
Cthulhu_
That's what I've been saying too (open offices are cheaper), but on the other
hand, software developers aren't cheap, are in high demand, etc. Which makes
me wonder: How come developers don't stand on their stripes more? Vote with
their feet? And why aren't companies doing more like offering perks like
private offices to top talents? I'd argue that giving a developer a few m2
more space is a lot cheaper than the developer's wage

~~~
1_2__3
I did. Until every single possible job opportunity was in an open office floor
plan.

If it hasn't become 100% like that where you are now it will be soon.

------
elcct
> Claude Mongeau, the former CEO of Canadian National Railway, for example,
> set himself the goal of acting like an extrovert five times a day. In any
> case, the majority of people are on a spectrum of introversion to
> extroversion.

Probably my comparison is too extreme, but as an introvert myself I can see
this as telling gay person to be straight five times a day.

~~~
nathanaldensr
I agree with your characterization. You will rarely, if ever, hear it worded
the other way around: "As an extravert, I try and go find a quiet corner to
think and avoid others five times a day." It seems to always be the introverts
that must put aside who they are in favor of others.

~~~
Nav_Panel
This actually sounds an awful lot like the "mindfulness" trend.

------
jondubois
Very true. I'm an introvert but I have to force myself to act like an
extrovert in order to move forward in my career... But I feel somewhat
insincere doing that and it takes a lot of effort emotionally.

I think this behaviour is necessary because the corporate environment
cultivates a culture of insincerity and sometimes downright hypocrisy.

We all want to feel good about ourselves - So we either:

\- Lie to ourselves or;

\- Accept the reality and only pretend to believe the lies (that's where the
public façade comes in handy).

~~~
RachelF
I think society is geared to rewarding the extroverts: You have to sell
yourself, and BS you way to the top of the corporation or whatever group
you're in.

Marketing is more important than technology.

Few groups actually reward introverts, who may be doing most of the real work.

~~~
yoz-y
The problem, I think, is that extroverts collaborate more easily and this
makes particular problems easier and/or faster to solve.

> Marketing is more important than technology.

I assume you meant this as a jab (if not I apologise), however with
proliferation of affordable and reproductible technology this is very true.
Marketing is not only advertising, it is also knowing what problems your
technology should solve and how to do it differently than myriads of your
competitors.

~~~
maxxxxx
"The problem, I think, is that extroverts collaborate more easily and this
makes particular problems easier and/or faster to solve."

In my company there are a lot of extroverts that only do work in group
meetings. They are insecure working alone. So six people have to go over a
document for two hours which the person that has called the meeting could have
written alone and sent to others by email for review. There is no real
collaboration going on in those meetings.

~~~
yoz-y
For me that is more of a problem of bureaucracy and middle management
insecurity than extroverts.

~~~
maxxxxx
It's about being extrovert. I would never voluntarily go into a meeting with
tons of people where it's all talk and nothing gets decided. I find it
exhausting but other people find those meetings invigorating.

------
jokoon
I remember seeing many posts of /r/introvert who were just people complaining
about introverts and introversion in general.

I also remember some school director warning me about my behavior and telling
me that humans are a social species.

The Susan McCain book really opened my eyes, in the end, to me it really seems
to be a matter of values.

It's crazy because this issue makes me pretty angry. I failed 2 degrees
because the score coefficients in teamwork projects were pretty high, not to
mention being targeted and harassed in school because you're calm and silent
most of the time.

Also I listened to some NPR podcast who talked about personality being a myth.

Basically we moved from recognizing that race and gender are bad biases, but
we have new ones now.

~~~
sliverstorm
I skipped the McCain book out of apprehension that it would basically be a
festival of self-congratulation for introverts. _Introverts are smarter,
handsomer, cooler, and just all around better, don 't you think my introverted
reader?_

Was it better than that?

~~~
taeric
I have the same apprehension. It is particularly annoying to see all of the bs
scotsman debates on introverts. Seems everyone I meet nowdays thinks they are
"really an introvert."

------
hellofunk
I think there are a greater percentage of introverts in the software
development world than in the general population, and attempting to put
developers into the same environments as many other corporate jobs just
doesn't work very well. I work with some talented guys remotely, all who work
from home and I'd casually judge them to all be more introverts than
extroverts. The key I believe is to respect someone's ability to get work done
without a lot of social interaction and judge them on how they meet deadlines
on their own, the quality of the work, and let it go at that. If they can do
this, leave them alone and let them thrive. If they can't, then it is possibly
not a good fit for your company to have them onboard.

~~~
realworldview
Why do you think that?

------
pandemicsyn
I wrote about the "Care and feeding of your introvert engineering leader" not
too long ago [0]

tl;dr Extroverted leadership teams always seem to try and set goal's for
introverts that aims to help get them "out of their shell" or fake being an
extrovert. But you need to stop trying to get me to fake being an extrovert
and leverage my actual skill's instead. "Traditional" Org's like that still
have a really hard time leveraging introverted leaders effectively. Its super
frustrating.

[0] [https://medium.com/@pandemicsyn/on-care-feeding-of-your-
intr...](https://medium.com/@pandemicsyn/on-care-feeding-of-your-introvert-
leader-1f406c3c5064#.kfxd95w7x)

------
pasbesoin
In multiple companies, I was repeatedly cited and complimented for solving
problems and carrying workloads that others couldn't.

I also was no wallflower, networking -- on my own initiative and maintenance
-- with people throughout these large organizations spanning multiple
countries.

In those same workplaces, I was met with a bureacratic, political, and not
infrequently _personal_ wall of rejection when I requested a quieter
workplace.

I was raised to "pay my dues." My advice to the current generation: There's no
such thing, particularly with respect to introversion and/or environmental
differences. If they are not already respecting you, get out.

Take it from Mr. Burnout, here.

P.S. The current "introvert" business press is just the latest round of "mind
the gap" cargo cult management. If organizations were really on board with
understanding and practicing some of what's being written -- well, too late
for me, but at least "hurrah" for future generations.

But... I severely doubt it. Same old bullies, new clothes. (And who is going
to be the first to get those performance enhancing offices, do you thing?)

So, I repeat myself: If they are not already doing it, and you identify with
the described population, GET OUT!

------
whamlastxmas
I feel like this issue is not introversion. I am an extreme introvert.
Socializing is extremely tiring for me. I used to be extremely anti-social and
had social phobias. I was bad at socializing and frankly still not great at
it.

The issue could be boiled down to a lack of self confidence. There are lots of
other things that were part of it, but mostly explained by self confidence.

I worked (and am still working) through this and I am tremendously better than
I was. My coworkers argued that I wasn't introverted when I described myself
as such once.

I say all this to make the point: the real issue is that some people are poor
leaders and have poor social awareness. Leadership is less natural for
introverts but the nature of leadership isn't any different for them because
of that introversion.

Introverts need to be able to take charge of their own lives and their own
success as a leader. Employers shouldn't need to provide quiet spaces for
them. They should make their own quiet space. If you're unable to do that at
your job for whatever reason (it's as simple as sitting in your car for a 15
minute break) then you need to move to a different environment if you have the
expectation of being a successful leader.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
I can appreciate a lot of what you're saying. Self-advocacy (aka being
assertive, etc) is hands down the best way to get anything out of life.
However, a lot of what people are talking about here is not just the absence
of provided quiet places or any other thing. It's the active resistance to
building a workspace that can facilitate a variety of workers, instead of the
assumed extrovert everyone wants you to be.

------
jaggederest
I feel like the focus on any particular personality trait is a little facile.

Really, companies should be gaining understanding and helping all of their
employees to do their best work regardless of which specific traits you're
talking about.

------
SZJX
This whole "spectrum" thing is nonsense. Classifying people in such a grossly
simplified way is like dividing the brain into "left" and "right" which was
only some eye-grabbing stunt which totally misses the essence of the issue.
What matters in constructive work is the ability to present one's ideas
clearly, coherently and convincingly, not the habit of hanging out with people
and keeping your mouth open all day. I think somehow a lot of concepts get
these two things mixed together. A lot of people are absolutely fantastic in
communicating their ideas, engaging in conversations and contributing their
unique insight in a manner that makes everybody else get what she's trying to
convey in no time. However such people might not be the type who parties all
day long outside of work, and might instead enjoy reading or creating
something on her own while idle. I don't see the least bit of problem in that
and I think those people will well succeed in business settings, in fact they
can well achieve greater success than those who only talk and don't reflect.
I'd even argue that every person who has achieved something must have spent a
lot of time on her own, learning and reflecting upon various things, instead
of wasting her time in trivial social activities all day long.

Now, what we usually call "introverts" are people who can't express their
thoughts well, who sometimes can't even pronounce words cleanly, loudly and
with confidence when ideas are needed. They tend to be quiet at formal group
settings and say nothing at all even though they might have already thought of
something. That's really just a _lack of ability (totally acquirable)_ instead
of "personality trait" or whatsoever. The type of person I mentioned in the
previous paragraph also don't necessarily enjoy talking all day long, but they
make a hell of a talker when the time is right. So, differentiating people
based on whether they "enjoy being together with others all the time" is just
such a totally laughable and nonsensical concept. And to say people should
"act like" an "extrovert" is just some other oversimplification BS. Act like a
pro who can present ideas expertly, not a brat who only knows to party all day
and crack irrelevant "jokes".

What those real "introverts" need is indeed some help in getting themselves at
least able to express their thoughts with clarity and communicate with others
in a group setting. However, to say that successful CEOs etc. are such
"introverts" is really a gross mischaracterization and something totally
missing the core of the issue.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Now, what we usually call "introverts" are people who can't express their
> thoughts well, who sometimes can't even pronounce words cleanly, loudly and
> with confidence when ideas are needed.

I don't know what _you_ usually call "introverts", but, no, that's not what
either I call -- nor what anyone I've ever encountered seems to call --
"introverts". In fact, the people I've seen described as introverts are
usually _quite good_ at expressing their thoughts well. OTOH, they range from
being emotionally drained by to being psychologically incapable of engaging in
many of the extended low-information-content schmoozing activities that are
common team-building, networking, or obligatory (by social expectation if not
outright mandate) team/company social events.

------
timwaagh
so yeah because of my supposedly flawed personality i will have 0 chances at
promotion beyond just being a developer. and developers are not rewarded very
well where i live. the logical conclusion is that i will have to become their
competitor as soon as i can. which sadly benefits nobody as i could
potentially do better with big-company resources behind me and the companies
would do better without upstarts trying to take their profits.

~~~
Cthulhu_
The trick there is to become invaluable; to be a specialist in a certain area
(like security, database management, native mobile development, data science,
AI, etc) and make yourself in demand. If you keep talking yourself down by
saying "Yeah I know such-and-such but it doesn't matter because muh
personality", then you will keep having no chance at promotion.

Actually in the IT world, it's better to switch jobs than wait (or ask) for
promotion.

TL;DR: Be confident, know what you know, know what an employer needs, sell
that.

------
nicolapede
Working in investment banking here. I sincerely hope that tech companies will
continue to thrive -- the reasoning being that at some point IB will be so
much short of talents that it will have to adjust to working
practices/policies more suitable for introverts.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Wouldn't you expect, if tech kept draining employees out of banking, that it
would disproportionately drain introverts away and leave banking more
extraverted than before?

To hear a lot of people tell it, the work of banking is largely in having and
maintaining social relationships with your clients.

~~~
nicolapede
> Wouldn't you expect, if tech kept draining employees out of banking, that it
> would disproportionately drain introverts away and leave banking more
> extraverted than before?

Sure, in fact my additional hope is that this being over-extroverted will have
a negative impact on business.

> To hear a lot of people tell it, the work of banking is largely in having
> and maintaining social relationships with your clients.

Not only that, at least in IB case. It is also a lot about tech (see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12443678&goto=news](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12443678&goto=news)
for example) and mathematical/statistical modelling.

------
wundersoy
But if your work helps you get past being so introvert, which ultimately can
make you difficult for others to work with in a team. Isn't that a good thing?

~~~
quantumhobbit
Should I have to get past being an introvert? It isn't a disorder that needs
to be cured.

Also I'm not difficult to work with in a group, I simply prefer to work alone.

Introverts lose 'energy' in a group and gain it back when they are by
themselves. Extroverts gain 'energy' in a group.

That says nothing about how well you do in a group. I know plenty of
extroverts who have toxic personalities and kill productivity in groups.

------
realworldview
I would re-title the article, _Generalization, generalization and more
generalizations_. Why, this is a typical space-filler article typical of
consumer publications, most visible in the Daily Mail, to provoke criticism,
rage, agreement but not much else. People don't always fit in the neat boxes
so don't waste time reading such common and regurgitated content.

------
callesgg
I think it seams quite crazy to group everyone like that introvert vs
extrovert.

~~~
motxilo
In the article, it mentions "In any case, the majority of people are on a
spectrum of introversion to extroversion.".

