|
I recently had an intense conversation with a fellow
industry veteran on the merits of hiring a gregarious, humorous employee
versus hiring someone who is more introverted and quiet. At a baseline, both employees are equally
skilled at their job.
I argued that the gregarious employee should be more
desirable since they enliven the work place and make it more tolerable during
stressful times. He argued that in today’s
bottom line focused corporate perspective; an introverted employee is more
valued. He asserts an introverted
employee works more and socializes less and is less of an HR risk.
While I can see his logic, I argued that the introverted
employee is more relevant in a science or business sector…not an entertainment
sector. However, he is convinced that
our industry has now mirrored these traditional industries in their work
environment – at least at the publisher level.
Thoughts?
|
It's not an either/or situation. People further from the middle on either side aren't going to be as desirable as someone more balanced.
there is no such thing as an intorvert or an extrovert. it is a response to situations. in a meeting certain people may be more extroverted than others, but that may not necessarily mean that they are extroverted in a working enviroment. in social situations some of your extroverts may become introverted. I wouldn't be suprised if generaly sociable people tense up in front of large crowds...
from what I've seen people seem to be generaly more introverted as they go into more and more unfamiliar territories. so if you want people to talk more, talk about them (and watch yourself clam-up as that programer goes off about shaders or that artist goes off about tones and tints).
so if you want to be the most effective in a work enviroment; do what it takes to get your work done. if that means you need to talk to people, talk; if it means you need to work silently, work silently. introversion and extroversion are just means to an end.
Not all people will get more extroverted as situations become more familiar to them. I've worked with people who were always difficult to approach, not because what I talking about was unfamiliar to them, or because they were new to the workplace. They were simply very quiet and didn't say much, and at times, it made you prefer just doing the work yourself because you were never too sure how much information you'd be able to get out of them anyway.
It seems like the discussion is more whether you should prefer hiring a loner or someone who can function within and contribute to a team, which I think is something of a no-brainer.
Then again, if it really is intro/extroversion we're talking about here, doesn't it depend on the job description? Environmental artist positions, for example, seem to be well-tailored to people who are comfortable going off and spending hours on end in their work with little interruption/interaction. A UI artist may have to interact more closely and more frequently with designers and testers. In my experience, the differences arise primarily in when their social "cooldown" starts -- introverts need some time alone after social interaction before they're recharged, extroverts need a certain amount of interaction. Apologies for the RPG analogy and gross oversimplifications.
Ultimately, both ends of the intro/extroversion continuum are able to contribute -- introverts can learn to adapt to moderate social interaction (e.g. programmers giving and receiving implementation advice) and extroverts can learn when to chill out.
The main thing you want from a team member is the ability to communicate. If he's naturally quiet or gregarious is irrelevant as long as he communicates whatever needs to be shared.
If I was forced to specifically choose one or the other, I'd lean on extrovert. It takes a great team to make a great game. It takes experts in creative and logical disciplines interacting with one another to develop a game. Team chemistry can make the process so much more efficient, productive and enjoyable. So assuming same level of professionalism and skills I'd say the extrovert would be valued more due to the potential impact on team morale.
I have worked with both- and I will take the passionate, driven, energetic extrovert over the quiet, un-sociable and univolved introvert almost every time. But these things, like all things, must be considered on a case by case basis. Unless you would rather corporate powers just assign everyone a number...
And in response to Kevin Wright's comments, I don't think you are right to say that someone that has had an interesting life necessarily has a gregarious nature. Many great artists and scientists are reclusive, introspective types of folks. I believe it is a fallacy to suggest that introverts generally don't have many real world experiences. In fact, it is their breadth of life experiences that may them more reticent. For some people, the more they know , they less they want to talk about inconsequential day-to-day stuff.
Personally I'm rather introverted at work -- I like just focusing on my job. But outside of work , I love getting into adventures and going out and partying it up. People come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes. We shouldn't make too many assumptions about introverted or extroverted natures I'd say. Obviously if someone is incapable of communication that's a flaw of character...but don't be too rough on those who seem introverted :) .
if a lot of the employees at the studio love to talk about football,
would you rather hire the guy who also loves football and can shoot the shit with others about it, or would you rather hire the guy who doesn't care and rather just do his work?
(all else equal)
Introversion in MBTI, as far as I am aware, isn't a direct measure of how social someone is. I'm very introverted by that measure, but you'll never be able to shut me up if you start me on a topic I'm engaged in. It's instead a measure of where you gain energy and where you lose it. An introvert derives their energy internally and spends it when dealing with other people, while an extrovert is the opposite. From personal experience, I like interacting with people in small numbers, but too much becomes draining and I need to retreat.
It seems to me that the mentality of an introvert and their tendency to reflect on things would be quite useful in positions like design and programming, and I'm inclined to think that most people who are interested in such positions are already introverted by nature. I remember reading that an entire room full of game designers tested via Myers-Briggs as INTP. Positions like producer, however, would seem more suited to extroverted personalities.
It might also have some bearing on team sizes. A company of 400 people is going to be tougher for an introvert to deal with, but a small indie team might be a perfect fit.
"You can be an introvert or extrovert and still be a class act professional and just as easily be a non-productive dead weight on the team. The main thing you want from a team member is the ability to communicate. If he's naturally quiet or gregarious is irrelevant as long as he communicates whatever needs to be shared."
Having done hiring, the most important element to me -- along with having the required technical skills -- was how I felt that new person would "fit" into my existing group. In particular I've found that balance is important. If the existing group is composed mostly of extroverts, and extroversion isn't a job requirement, I'd be inclined to want to bring in some introverts for balance.
This, IMO, is the real "diversity" that we ought to be striving for in hiring. Having a group composed of people who look at the world in different ways means having a group that has the internal tools to be able to respond effectively to any challenge thrown at them. That's a real business advantage over the group that self-destructs because it can't adapt when some aspect of the work environment changes... which it always does.
So I'd say the question of whether to hire an Introvert or an Extrovert -- all other things being equal -- is context-sensitive: it depends on the nature of the group that person would be joining.
If any entertainment company takes the tack of "head down; nose to the wheel" (this sounds more like a 'job' than a career, btw) then the ultimate result is they will not keep the happy people. And happy people are productive people. Fact.
To Kevin Reese's comments: I was not claiming that extroverts have more interesting lives- I am claiming they are more likely to have experienced more (even mundania) and therefore carry a breadth of experience, as they are unafraid (and again, more likely) to move to new places, try new things, meet new people (networking), are more likely to be leaders, etc. There will always be a case here and there that refute my claims, but the odds are in the favor of a gregarious nature.
Here is my case in point- I have colleagues who fit the introverted nature we are discussing- same company, 12+ years. Myself, 7 company's in house, more as consult, same 12+ years. He is still a Senior, I have been that, a Lead and Director, and have even branched out in the development areas beyond my core discipline. I have been exposed to more people, technology, venues and technique, and responsibilities than my counterpart. I am not only a more productive and effective developer for it, but I have a breadth that my colleague cannot compete with, and a level of relevance and context he/she does not as I have been abroad. Is this clearer?
Again, I am not quatifying at a 100% ratio- I am giving my opinion based on my experiences; I know some extreme introverts who are invaluable and effective; and I know extroverts who need to be escorted out. But by and large, in the industry of entertainment, and in the disciplines of "creative"/artistry, an outgoing nature is usually 'boon', not 'bane'.
I think your misunderstanding the basic principle behind what an introvert and extrovert are. They actually have little to do with personal experience, in any given case an introverted person is liable to have experience the same things that an extroverted person has (insofar as people experience the same things), the only difference is the way in which they pursued those experiences. Both will go to parties, the extrovert though is likely to act wild and impulsively or fly solo, while the introvert will go with a group of friends, and only be wild and impulsive only at their prompting. Both will travel, The introvert with a close friend or partner, while the extrovert is more likely to take a contiki tour by themselves.
Also introversion has NOTHING to do with fear. Now your talking shyness, which is a completely different concept. It is, in fact, possible for an extroverted person to be shy as well, a good example is an actor who loves being in stage plays in front of thousands, and yet will prove nervous and shy in an interview or around a loved one. You also talk of artists and the like as having gregarious natures, do you realise that artists, writers and engineers are most commonly found to be introverted, as each of those activities are very solitary in nature.
Both make friends easily (one is just far more picky with who they make friends with) and can act as well as one another in social situations, but introverts are more reserved in their dealings with others, less likely to prompt everyone to go for drinks after work, but just as likely to go with everyone when it's suggested. In your business example that is usually far more to do with personal choice. Ambition and drive are completely separate from introversion and extroversion. Introverted people can be some of the most ambitious people around, capable of doing surprising things to obtain their goals. Although that said, some job types are unpleasant for introverted personalities, and thus they chose not to do them (as opposed to being incapable of doing them). As such your less likely to find an introverted person as a salesman, even though that person (in theory) is just as capable of performing well if they were thrust into it.
Back on topic, this entire discourse has been mislead from the start;
"He asserts an introverted employee works more and socializes less and is less of an HR risk"
This is a fallacy, the difference is not that an introverted employee socialises less, it's merely a question of who he'll socialise with. He's less likely to socialise with large groups of people, he won't be the guy walking around the entire office saying hello to everyone (and we all have one of those guys), he will instead sit around and take coffee breaks with 2 or 3 close friends within the workplace. Either one can be just as disruptive as the other, it's merely the manner in which they'll do so that is the question.
Ultimately extroversion/introversion/ambiversion shouldn't come into your hiring practices, in general either personality type is unlikely to apply for a job that doesn't fit their personality as long as you've described the role and duties clearly prior to their application. Instead it should be most important when rearranging employees internally. The more ambiverted are likely to do well as team leads, while introverted folk are likely to prefer their niche teams, and are unlikely to enjoy being moved from the friends they've made. That's not to say they won't make friends, nor that they cannot deal with team leadership, but if not careful it may make for an unhappy employee, and this dissatisfaction in ones job role is far more disruptive than any personality type.
I have been an analytical chemist for 10 years now, and while it is "very solitary in nature" I always seem to be called gregarious and people see me as an extrovert. I have also led rock bands since i was 17...and am very shy with strangers. So what does that mean? When my colleuges meet as a team to share data, the people who can make real-world analogies and convey very difficult concepts in a simple way are invaluable. In my experience these are few and far between but they really do move things forward and help the team all be on the same page. Sometimes we need to just break it down with plain English instead of trying to be so GD eloquent and aloof. "i know more scientific lingo than you" yay....but you just lost the whole team....when was the last time you got out with some "non-chemists" and tried to talk to them? Did they understand you? The extrovert will be better at pulling references that most people can understand and the introvert always has to repeat himself over and over again (or the extrovert helps him out and draws out of him what he was really trying to say) Basically, even in my nerdy chemistry world there are extroverts, and they are better communicators of data that can move a project forward; however, the introverts are almost always the ones who come up with the best raw data in the first place.
Actually, I find that extroverts tend to be more agile speakers, while introverts tend to communicate more effectively through writing.
In a business environment, both forms are important.
This is the same problem with Freudian concepts that have since leaked into popular culture. People throw around "repression" and "projection" as if they actually know what the concepts mean as defined by the how's and why's of how they fit into the psychoanalytic framework.
Being a good *communicator* as a skill, a.k.a. the ability to convey a message in a clear manner such that the listener can understand your intended message, is not defined by introversion or extroversion--there is no scientific correlation for this as far as I know. Conflating the ability to communicate with the disposition of gaining or losing energy from being around *large* groups of people or *occasionally* seeking solitude , which is the very definition of introversion/extroversion, is a grave error that many people in this ability are making. Assuming that the root of the introverted/extroverted nature is *social anxiety* or lack thereof is also a huge error that people are making. Anecdotal evidence is pretty faulty, esp. in this discuission where people are obviously trying to push their world view...and cast their own traits in a positive light.
That does not mean such a person is a hybrid/ambiversion. All types have the potential to function reasonably well in most any situation, if they are aware of developing the weaker areas of their personality.
People who only know me from tradeshows take me for a raging extrovert. If only they knew...
When a company is that out of touch to make team changes based on such artificial personality metrics rather than quality of work and drive to make the best god damned floor hockey simulator ever, you know it's time to get out. It's hard enough to get different perspectives in the sciences as it is. The last thing you need is stay with a band of isolationists.
Of course then again if you misinterpreted extrovert to mean interesting, I encourage you to rewrite this article as such so I can agree with you 100%.
@Robert
I'm confused, you ignored my post yet responded to it. I'm fairly certain I explained how shyness is a completely different concept from introversion and extroversion, and how and extrovert can still be shy, and how introversion extroversion has nothing to do with actual skills and activities merely the method that they are undertaken and the level of satisfaction gained from them. Basically what your saying is the good communicator gets his ideas across while the poor communicator struggles, it has nothing to do with introversion.
Some people are extroverted and annoying, others are extroverted and charismatic. Some people are introverted but inspiring while others are introverted, withdrawn and bitter.
@ chris...youre right i read half of your post and responded to that half. i fell asleep by the end of it was just so long...
And where's the data to support your assertion that extroverts have more practice communicating?
You're missing your own bias and the points Wragg and I made entirely. You're making an "a priori" argument. Iow, IF you define "extrovert" as someone who gets more practice in communicating than an "introvert", then obviously they will obviously they will be better at communicating. The entire point of my post was to to point out this is a false assumption that's leading to a VERY circular line of reasoning.
In a nusthell, you're saying that "extroverts" are better at communicating because they get more practice and they get more practice...BECUASE they're "extroverts". That's neither a valid or convincing argument. Again, you'e assigning characteristics to "extroverts" and "introverts" that reveakl your biases in the discussion and actually has little to do with what extroverts and introverts actually are and what characteristics *acrually* define them.
Bah, well that's like going off half-cocked, what's that old Mark Twain quote.... (admittedly I do waffle on with examples and whatnot, expect more in the future)
Either way, the thing your missing is that;
"All I was saying is that extroverts are more practiced at communicating and therefore better at it. Introverts dont have AS MUCH practice and therefore are (by any degree) worse at it."
, is a fallacy.
What your arguments premise contains is a fallacy of accident (or converse fallacy of accident). Here let me make another example similar to the way you phrase your arguments;
All Extroverts are Talkative
ADHD-H sufferers are Talkative
Therefore all Extroverts are ADHD-H sufferers
Converse:
All Extroverts I've met enjoy sport
Therefore all Extroverts enjoy sport
Both of which ignore the fact that there are exceptions, Extroverts aren't necessarily ADHD suffers though they share a trait, and some extroverts hate sport, but like other social activities like parties, or group outings.
Your previous argument is a converse fallacy of accident;
Every Introvert I've met is a poor communicator
Therefore all Introverts are poor communicators
Again ignoring that your personal experience is a subset and that this structure of argument is in no way proof of anything. You are also Begging the Question in this latest post;
"Extroverts are good communicators because they've had a lot of practice." (paraphrased)
The hidden assumption is cyclical in nature (as Vincent points out), in addition the first statement assumes that a lot of practice equates to good communication skills, an extrovert may get a lot of practice at communicating, but they may have been a good communicator from the very beginning.
Either way your arguments are bad ones, you're attributing traits of one thing to another without any direct causal link, rather than treating them as standalone personality and skill descriptors.