

The Importance of Utilizing Extroverts and Introverts in Team Meetings - mooreds
http://www.katiealbee.com/blog/2015/3/2/the-importance-of-utilizing-extroverts-and-introverts-in-team-meetings

======
BasDirks
The distinction between introvert and extrovert is shallow psychology. They
are sometimes used condescendingly by angsty individuals at either side of the
imaginary spectrum. The truth isn't even that most people fall somewhere in
between. There is no gray area, because these matters are not black and white.
Their use leads to generalization and over-simplification of delicate subject
matter. Introvert vs. extrovert is _always_ a sledgehammer where a scalpel is
required.

A getting-things-done approach to people, ie. "utilizing", can be dangerous. I
think that those who've got it already get it, and those who don't will learn
a mindset that doesn't make them better.

EDIT: I'd like to see this article rewritten without retortion to a false
dichotomy, because it has some good take-aways.

~~~
cauterized
Yet it can be a useful dichotomy. I work on a team led by a textbook extrovert
that also includes two of the most extreme introverts I've ever met, along
with several people who fall toward the middle of the spectrum. Making sure
the office is a comfortable environment for the introverted team members and
that they get a chance to share their (often very valuable) insights is an
ongoing but crucial struggle.

------
mjburgess
> Extroverts tend to prefer to think on their feet; openly sharing their half
> formed thoughts knowing that their ideas will finish molding themselves
> through the process of talking. Introverts, however, prefer to think their
> thoughts through to completion in their heads before verbally sharing their
> ideas with others

Yes, this distinction exists: between those more inclined to involve others
quickly and share thoughts openly - thinking publicly, and those who prefer to
think privately. I'm an extremely public thinker which can be frustrating,
peculiar (, and impressive) for some people.

A good (fictional) example of a public thinker would be House (MD.) who often
just used other people as props for thinking out-loud, was confident in
everything he said regardless of whether it was well thought out or not:
preferring to fail quickly rather than spend time getting to the truth.

Most examples of 'truth-seeking' however, in fiction are portrayed in the
reverse: unlike sherlock on who House is based, columbo/poirot/etc. are all
fairly private people who don't give much away (and indeed, in columbos case,
deliberate hide what he thinks) until they have the full picture.

It doesn't need to be dressed up in knowingly-phrased half-baked pop psych,
and I dont think it has anything to do with extra/intro-version, at least,
very little.

------
mooreds
I agree, the title feels like business-speak, but the true value of the
article is the affirmation, through example, that "A great leader ... always
makes room for everyone to bring their ideas to the table."

------
dschiptsov
For "utilizing introverts" a mailing list is good enough.

"utilizing".. fucking clowns.

~~~
cauterized
The title sucks but that doesn't make the point of the essay invalid. Both
extroverts and introverts have valid and important things to say, but they
need to be encouraged to share their thoughts in different ways. You're not
doing you r business any favors if you conduct meetings in a way that fails to
enable introverts to share information and ideas in a way that's comfortable
to them.

~~~
dschiptsov
I think this is "cargo management" \- a low rate stuff. Bad psychology. Bad
management.

First of all, so called introverts usually are deliberately avoiding to be
dragged into a meeting with idiots. Instead, they prefer and actively using
different forms of communication, which does not demand to exercise any social
skills in public, like mailing lists or forums, which saves them from an
unpleasant burden and discomfort. Those who are unable to understand such
simple premise are qualified for idiots.

Secondly, most of meetings are irrelevant waste of time - ritualized events,
designed for "parasitic" management to justify its existence and status. This
statement could be easily supported by successful existence of project like
LLVM, Linux Kernel, ____BSD, Webkit, you name it, which gives a remarkable
results without any explicit, well-paid management and idiotic artificial
"productivity" metrics and rituals of loyalty and status of any hierarchical
social groups.

It is OK to have an "emergency" meeting in some special occasion. It is
tolerable to deal with incompetent management in cases when it solves real
problems and shields techies from distractions, but being forced to meet weak-
minded, role-playing idiots, for the sake of their gratification from a
meaningless public performance, who will encourage me to _share yourself
completely_ \- no, thank you.

That's why, perhaps, I am not utilized at any Java sweatshop. But I had enough
meetings in my IT career.)

~~~
mooreds
Hmmm..that is an interesting perspective. I have been to plenty of useless
meetings, but also to plenty of meetings which were useful. The latter were
characterized by a clear agenda outlibg issues, sides that had different
understanding of that problem, and a respect for everyone's time.

Maybe I am naive, but I thank that face to face meetings are still the highest
bandwidth means of communicating, especially with strangers about goals that
are still fluid. Don't get me wrong, they have drawbacks (synchronous, not
every one needs to be there the entire time but it is hard to skip in and
out).

I have seen plenty of email chains "go off the rails" and waste plenty of time
too.

