Define ‘Extrovert’

In my previous post I asserted that it was beneficial to understand the different personalities in a team and that one of the easiest ways to do this is via the lens of the introversion-extroversion spectrum. In this post I’m going to look deeper into what it actually means to be an ‘extrovert’.

The Grey Wizard

I recently took part in a 2-day ‘Teamwork Programme’ paid for by my employer. Me and approximately 10 others found ourselves in a hotel meeting room in the presence of an elderly gentlemen who was known under the pseudonym ‘Grey Wizard’. He was a fascinating chap who had many stories to tell from his long and varied career, some of which he’d spent as a sort of international-team-building-consultant-wizard-guy. He was of the appropriate age and demeanour that allowed him the liberty of gazing wistfully off into the distance as he recounted an old tale and people would genuinely be quiet and listen.

Over the 2-days we discussed, power-pointed and team-activity’d our way through a whole bunch of topics including motivation, team dynamics, conflict resolution and personality types. The company was good, the discussion was emphatic and we were regularly lavished with long breaks during which we unashamedly stuffed our faces. It was good times…

By far the most interesting part was the Myers Briggs Type Indicator he had us all take (see my previous post if you’d like to learn more about the MBTI). Here’s my profile:

Extroversion 45,

Intuition 45,

Feeling 15,

Perceiving 3

Each number is a score out of a total of 70.

Now I’m generally a sceptical chap. I’m just as partial to a sardonic rant about astrology or homeopathy as the next angry rationalist. I also don’t like the idea of being told I am this way or that, in fact I’d go so far as to say I have a giant stick up my arse about it, it makes me feel predictable and unoriginal; cheap. Yet despite these reservations I found my group’s profiles quite amazing.

When I began to look around the room, I noticed that people were astonishingly true to their Myers-Briggs profiles; the latter 3 dichotomies are a bit trickier to judge but I think I could’ve guessed the introversion-extroversion scores of my colleagues within 10 points or so.

Now a lot of people knock the MBTI and there are some compelling arguments against its usefulness, but my own experiences lend some modest anecdotal credibility to the Myers-Briggs test. If you can reliably predict the introversion-extroversion score of someone with a reasonable degree of accuracy then results are at least deterministic and reproducible. The MBTI is not like a horoscope, it’s not just making ambiguous statements that can be applied to anything. I don’t expect that you can use the MBTI to make predictions with any great precision, but its results definitely have some basis in reality.

I was quite fascinated by the MBTI in the days after my team building event and I attempted to profile my friends before getting them all to take it themselves. I wish I’d recorded my predictions against the actual results but I remember correctly guessing whether they were each more introverted or extroverted and was accurate enough on the others to be convinced that the MBTI by itself was managing to assert some qualities about my friends that I could verify through personal experience. I encourage you to try it yourself, get your friends to take the MBTI and predict their results beforehand, see how accurate you are (it can also be fun to try and profile your favourite fictional characters).

I’m only defending the Myers-Briggs as a day-to-day tool for thinking about how the different personalities in your team can coexist, something that should be taken with a pinch of salt. Whether or not it stands up to rigorous scientific scrutiny is a different matter. Let’s look at some other ways extroversion can be defined.

Arousal Hypothesis

The Arousal Hypothesis (the scientific theory not the erotic novel) defines extroverts by their relationship to stimulation (Eysenck, 1967). Extroverts have a higher threshold for stimulation so are more likely to try and raise their levels of arousal whereas introverts have a lower threshold for stimulation and try to avoid high levels of arousal (stop sniggering in the back). From a productivity point of the view the concern is how these preferred levels of arousal affect performance.

Some research[1] suggests that the above graph looks different depending on an individual’s levels of introversion and extroversion. More extroverted people experience optimal performance at a higher level of arousal with the opposite being true for more introverted people, according to the hypothesis at least.

I can attest to this anecdotally: my current work environment is incredibly noisy and busy but it doesn’t bother me at all, quite the opposite in fact; I find it stimulating and motivating. However there are often furrowed brows and disgruntled noises from the more introverted members of the team, and if the hypothesis above is correct, that’s completely understandable! To them, that level arousal is undesirable and unpleasant, which makes them cranky. Although I can’t slight their productivity, I get the feeling that it’s in spite of their work environment and they struggle to get in to a flow state with so many distractions around.

Reward Sensitivity

Another more recent study[2] tested the theory that extroverts have higher ‘reward sensitivity’, meaning they find rewards more… well, rewarding. The basis for this argument is that there are many rewards inherent in social situations which is what draws extroverts to them, because getting on with someone feels good, right?

I think you could also argue that you have to be ‘in it to win it’. Social situations present many opportunities for rewards in the form of positive feedback from peers, there’s nothing like that warm feeling of self satisfaction that comes from a comically timed quip which leaves your coworkers in stitches, or a high five from your team mates after scoring a goal. At some points we will all experience a rare moment of glory, but that feeling of satisfaction really comes from the reaction of others, scoring an outrageous goal in an empty stadium would be a little disappointing wouldn’t it?

So… What is an Extrovert Then?

Perhaps the most contemporary definition is found in the Big Five personality traits. It’s a long definition but this part stuck with me:

Extraversion is characterized by breadth of activities (as opposed to depth), surgency from external activity/situations, and energy creation from external means.

Extroverts are looking outwards for their next move. They observe the world around them when looking for inspiration, ideas and motivation. This makes them a natural fit when it comes to working with others to solve a problem and their energy can catalyse that collaboration. Introverts on the other hand do not need external stimuli to ignite their initiative. They can perform well and be happy making their own decisions based on the problem at hand, through their own reflection upon it.

As I continue to post on this blog, I’ll try to indulge my more introverted side and reflect on what extroversion means to me personally in the world of software engineering. I’ll keep these existing theories in mind and decide whether or not my own observations corroborate or contradict them. Question everything.

References

Geen, Russell G (1984) Preferred stimulation levels in introverts and extroverts: Effects on arousal and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6 (6), pp. 1303–1312.

Diener, E.; Lucas, R. E. (2000) What makes an extravert extraverted? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (3).

Originally published at programmingforextroverts.com on April 18, 2016.