What's in a Label?

To start, it seems to make sense to back up a bit and define what we mean by introversion and extroversion. While most of us likely have some sense of what is meant by these terms, there is no universally agreed upon definition of Introvert or Extrovert. Among the most highly researched definitions is one associated with the five-factor model of personality, which characterizes Extroverts as outgoing and energetic, and Introverts as solitary and reserved.^{2 3} Other definitions highlight physiological differences in the sensitivity of Introverts' and Extroverts' neurological systems, particularly in relation to dopamine⁴ and to base rates of arousal.⁵ Extroverts are less sensitive to dopamine and naturally have lower levels of arousal, leading them to seek out stimulation in order to achieve optimal levels of both. Introverts are more sensitive to dopamine and have generally higher levels of arousal, leading them to avoid stimulation so as not to become overwhelmed. In line with that distinction, Cain describes Introverts as having a preference for quieter, less stimulating environments and Extroverts as preferring more stimulation.⁶ Still other definitions highlight common distinctions between the primary focus of one's attention: a person's inner world versus the world around them; or their primary source of energy, time alone or with others.⁷ And some definitions get even more specific, identifying multiple subtypes of Introverts or Extroverts.^{8 9}

We're not going to tackle the challenge of arguing which of these definitions is superior. In fact we considered several of these lenses when we initially set out to understand how the Business Chemistry types relate to introversion and extroversion. And what we saw right away was that the distinction was clear for Pioneers, who seemed more extroverted, and Guardians, who seemed more introverted, but that wasn't the case for Drivers and Integrators. That is, it wasn't clear until we looked closely at the subtypes. When we did that, we noticed that both Dreamers and Scientists seemed to have more of the Introvert characteristics, while Teamers and Commanders had more of the Extrovert. So to develop our own working definitions of Introversion and Extroversion as they play out in the workplace, we analyzed all the Business Chemistry traits and identified those showing a statistically significant difference between the three more introverted Business Chemistry types and the three more extroverted types. Our resulting definitions are as follows:

Extroverts are outgoing and energetic. They talk fast, make impulsive decisions, and adapt easily. They prioritize having lots of people in their networks and take charge in groups.

Introverts are reserved and unhurried. Their contributions to discussions are measured, and they deliberate before making decisions and adapt at a gradual pace. They maintain smaller networks and add value in supporting roles.

Trait differences between extroverted and introverted Business Chemistry types

Not Lunatics

Of course if you want to be really accurate about things, you should add “on average” to those descriptions, because these are of course generalizations. While we're at it, we should also note that people aren't wholly introverted or extroverted. In fact Carl Jung, who popularized these labels, once stated “There is no such thing as a pure Introvert or Extrovert. Such a person would be in the lunatic asylum.”

In Chapter 7 we mentioned that people typically have both a primary Business Chemistry type and a secondary type, and these pairings are relevant here are well, because a person might have an introverted primary type and an introverted secondary type, extroverted primary and secondary types, or one of each. And these type combinations are a clue to just how introverted or extroverted a person is. Someone with introverted primary and secondary types may not be purely introverted, but they're likely to be more so than someone with mixed primary and secondary types. Likewise, someone with extroverted primary and secondary types is probably more extroverted than others.

We'll use ourselves as an illustration. Suzanne, as a Guardian-Dreamer, is quite firmly introverted, and may be even sneaking up on lunacy. But Kim, as a Pioneer-Scientist, is extroverted with a side dish of introversion. With this kind of mixed-type combination, she might also be thought of as an Ambivert.

Like Introverts and Extroverts, there is no universally agreed-upon definition of an Ambivert. We use the term to describe a person who quite easily moves back and forth between these Introvert and Extrovert orientations, similar to how an ambidextrous individual can fluidly switch between using their right or left hand. Chances are it's easier for someone with a mixed primary–secondary combination to move back and forth, but it's possible for anyone, particularly if their type is more moderate than extreme (we'll talk a bit more about that in the appendix).

While we do recognize this complexity, for the sake of our analyses throughout this book, we consider one's primary type to determine whether they're in the Introvert or Extrovert category—so Suzanne is considered an Introvert and Kim is considered an Extrovert, even though she has a mixed-type combination. And again, we'll acknowledge here that when we label people we're generalizing a bit for the sake of simplicity. Of course, all that you are cannot be captured in a single word. Not you and not anyone else.

More Fraternal Than Identical

So generally we refer to all primary Guardians, Dreamers, and Scientists as Introverts, and to all primary Pioneers, Commanders, and Teamers as Extroverts. And yet, we're not suggesting that all Introverts are the same (nor are all Extroverts). Indeed, we see real differences between the Business Chemistry types within these Introvert/Extrovert categories. For example, Guardians, Dreamers, and Scientists all tend to be more reserved and deliberate than the extroverted types. However, Guardians are much more methodical and meticulous than the other two introverted types, while Dreamers are more empathic and relationship oriented than the others, and Scientists are more cerebral and technical.

Traits of introverted types

© 2018. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

Similarly, Pioneers, Commanders, and Teamers are all more adaptable and energetic than the introverted types, but there are differences between them. Pioneers have a more fluid, less structured working style and they are more spontaneous than the other two extroverted types. Commanders, meanwhile, are more logical and disciplined than the others, and Teamers are more traditional and place more importance on reaching consensus.

Traits of extroverted types

© 2018. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

Despite these differences within the Introvert and Extrovert categories, as you'll soon see, we sometimes find the Introvert/Extrovert distinction to be clear and important in relation to our research findings. So as we move on to the next chapter we'll share with you when that division seems more useful and when it seems less so.

Who's Better? Who's Best?

Given that little bit of foreshadowing we bet you can't wait to get to the next chapter, but first, we want to address one more question. Is it better to be an Introvert or an Extrovert?

Well you probably know us well enough already to assume we're not going to argue that one is better than the other—they both make valuable contributions in most any situation. But we've already hinted that in today's business environment there are some ways in which being an Extrovert might be a bit easier or more rewarding than being an Introvert.

If that's a surprise to you, then you are probably an Extrovert and you probably haven't read Susan Cain's book Quiet, which we mentioned earlier.¹⁰ We'll return to Cain's work here because it has direct relevance to creating work environments where all types thrive. She argues that society in general, and the typical workplace specifically, undervalues Introverts and all their strengths, leading to “a colossal waste of talent, energy, and happiness.” She outlines how Western culture has transformed over time from a culture of character to a culture of personality in which an “extrovert ideal” dominates, and introversion is viewed as inferior. She goes on to highlight the ways in which institutions today are built for Extroverts and how that often contributes to the Introverts' talents remaining largely untapped. You can read Cain's book for yourself, so we won't belabor the point here, but we will mention that our research findings, which we'll outline in the next chapter, support Cain's perspective in multiple ways.

We'll close this chapter with a little thought experiment. Imagine an organization made up exclusively of strong Introverts. What would that be like? Is everyone waiting for everyone else to say what they think? Do opportunities expire because decisions take too long? Can teams keep up with the pace of change or do they lag behind? And who the heck is in charge around here?

Now what about an organization made up exclusively of extreme Extroverts? Are people fighting for control? Who will do the work that doesn't place them in the spotlight? If everyone adapts effortlessly to the latest trend, might teams lose track of their North Star, change course too often, and end up going in circles? And if everyone is talking at once, who is listening?

The point is obvious but we'll state it none the less. Great teams and organizations need Introverts and Extroverts to excel. The challenge is in creating an environment that supports their different needs, takes advantage of their unique strengths, and promotes their working effectively together. The next section of the book—Business Chemistry Applications—is all about that. But as a next step in this Business Chemistry Electives section, we'll spend some time considering the similarities and differences between the Business Chemistry types and factoring in this lens of introversion and extroversion.

References

1. 1. Cain, Susan. Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. New York: Broadway Books, 2013.
2. 2. Peabody, Dean and Lewis R. Goldberg. “Some Determinants of Factor Structures from Personality-Trait Descriptors.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (3) (1989): 552–567. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.552. PMID 2778639.
3. 3. McCrae, Robert R. and Paul T. Costa. “Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (1) (1987) 81–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81. PMID 3820081.
4. 4. Laney, Marti Olsen. The Introvert Advantage: How Quiet People Can Thrive in an Extrovert World. New York: Workman Publishing, 2002.
5. 5. Eysenck, Hans Jürgen. The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1967.
6. 6. See Note 1.
7. 7. Jung, C. G. Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types. Originally Translated by H.G. Baynes. Revised by R.F.C. Hull. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014.
8. 8. Cheek, Jonathan M., Jennifer Grimes and Courtney Brown. Personality Scales for Four Domains of Introversion: Social, Thinking, Anxious, and Restrained Introversion (preliminary research manual). Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Department of Psychology, September 2014.
9. 9. See Note 7.
10. 10. See Note 1.