"Think Extroverts Win in the Workplace? Think Again" | INFJ Forum

"Think Extroverts Win in the Workplace? Think Again"

Gaze

Donor
Sep 5, 2009
28,265
44,749
1,906
MBTI
INFPishy
What do you think?

Think Extroverts Win in the Workplace? Think Again
July 22, 2017 by FAIRYGODBOSS
4 Shares Fairygodboss.

848046942ac1829f_office_pic.jpg




Imagine, for a moment, an introvert and an extrovert. Now, imagine that both the introvert and extrovert are salespeople for a living. Knowing nothing else about them, who would you guess is the better salesperson?

You're far from alone if you guessed that the extrovert is the more gifted salesperson. However, that's just flat-out wrong. According to research done by University of Pennsylvania Professor Adam Grant, there is no statistically significant relationship between sales income earned and extroverted personality types.

That said, the introverted salespeople Grant studied didn't fare much better. In fact, Grant concludes a third personality type — the ambivert — is best suited to being successful at sales.


What is an ambivert?
Ambiverts are a personality type that is neither very extroverted nor very introverted. If asked, "How do you feel when you're around other people? Drained, or energized?" an ambivert would answer, "It depends."

Ambiverts fall in the middle of a personality continuum. Most extroverts and introverts themselves are not at the far reaches of either side of the continuum. However, ambiverts fall very much in the middle and are defined as people who are "moderately comfortable with groups and social interaction, but also relish time alone, away from a crowd."

But why would an ambivert perform better in a sales environment? Professor Grant hypothesizes:

"Whereas extroverts may seek stimulation and social attention at the expense of listening carefully to customers' concerns, ambiverts are likely to be more flexible in the ways in which they engage with customers, drawing from a wider repertoire of behavioral options to find the appropriate balance between selling and serving."

Under this theory, being an ambivert means you can take a balanced approach to listening to people and conveying your own point of view — both of which may be important to closing a sale, despite the stereotype that salespeople must be aggressive and primarily only interested in accomplishing their agenda.

Do ambiverts do better in the workplace than introverts or extroverts?
Is Grant's research relevant to job roles beyond sales? It stands to reason that it may be.

In the work context, most of have to sell ourselves to someone else, at least some of the time. For example, most of us want a pay raise and promotion every couple of years (if not more frequently). In fact, the commonly dished career advice to "build a brand" is basically premised upon the idea that you are essentially selling yourself to other people all the time.

Whether you're a teacher, research scientist, lawyer or executive, we all have people we need to like us if we're going to get the best assignments at work — or just get paid more next year.

Not an ambivert? Don't despair! Now that you know ambiverts may have a natural advantage at accomplishing their goals, you can work to counteract your natural tendencies. Even if you're not 100 percent comfortable with everything you do, you still have the ability to behave as if you're not as introverted or extroverted as you naturally may be.

https://www.popsugar.com/career/Ambiverts-Workplace-43494692
 
Common misconceptions. E vs I is a spectrum of energy focus, but it's often generalised to mean something specific for each end of the spectrum as if it's two different things. Hence the need to develop a new antonym to indicate a tendency towards mid-spectrum.

You already put this in context of MBTI and functions. The article/excerpt makes no such claim or association.
 
Still learning...
It's good to see though :)

We need to distinguish critiquing from a pov of MBTI while still maintaining an eye for the position the other person takes. We cannot anticipate the range of knowledge they possess. So it remains to work from the pointers they give us.
 
@Ginny, btw though, I wasn't critiquing the post, nor putting down the author's superior range of knowledge they possess, I was just questioning my own understanding(hence I said "I could be wrong"). It's not like I'm just pulling these questions out of thin air - a lot of it is trying to make sense of the post based on what I read from Jung's work. Even Wikipedia quotes "Rather than focusing on interpersonal behavior, however, Jung defined introversion as an "attitude-type characterized by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents", and extroversion as "an attitude-type characterized by concentration of interest on the external object" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion
Hence, the confusion. Never heard of the term "ambivert" before.

And as for equating Extraversion and Introversion with "spectrum of energy focus", I have read some descriptions similar to that (as in "extroverts gain energy from others and introverts expend energy from others"), but what does that mean? Honestly, that is extremely vague to me? Can you or anyone help me understand this better? What is a "spectrum of energy focus"?
Ambivert is a comparatively young term.

It wasn't entirely in reference to you, hence my use of the plural form of the first person pronoun, because I certainly was (but in my case, it's usually a matter of helpfulness to share a point of view, not an attempt to devalue a different point already made, critique or not).

Oh, wikipedia *sigh*. I did tell you before that taking things out of context isn't always the best way to bring across contextual understanding. I read a portion of his definition of extraversion and introversion. The more I read, the more I came to the image that is conveyed through MBTI theory (only everyone keeps seeing it from only one angle, when there are at least two, as far as I can tell).
Let's say a person has a battery of energy, which expends energy and needs recharging every once in a while. Depending on how the energy is spent, and what kind of system the battery powers, the laster or slower the energy is spent. Put very crudely and simple, this system is somewhere on a scale between the extremes of extraversion and introversion. I think the image may be better conveyed in a wave on a scale (like the inverted cosign wave, guessing f(x)=-cos(PI)), adding a second dimension to the values. Introversion is focussed on the inside of the person and expends more energy when focussing energy on external objects. Extraversion draws energy from external objects and conversely expends more energy focussing on the inside. Jung gave both examples with reference to objects. I'm not quite sure, but I understood it as such: he wrote that the association with the objects works in these different directions, introverts giving energy to the objects while extraverts draw it from them. (Unless it was the other way around. It has been half a year since I read that bit :sweatsmile:)
In the practical sense, nobody is either extreme, but somewhere on the scale I mentioned. Even extraverts are eventually drained by socialising, for example, and need alone time to recharge.
I might even be wrong in using this specific mathematical term to describe it. Perhaps in this context every person has a different term that displays their battery life wave.

It is vague in the sense that it is easier to understand when it is delivered in context with the different functions. There is a slight deviation from this perspective when interpreted in that context. But I haven't progressed far enough yet to be certain of the stability and universality of these statements within the confines of "Psychological Types".
 
Hence, the confusion. Never heard of the term "ambivert" before.
Extroversion and introversion aren't categories but a continuous scale, with ambiverts (from Latin, meaning both) in the middle.

I'm sure you've noticed that some introverts are more introverted than others and some extroverts more extroverted than others. So they lie on different places on the scale. The least introverted introverts and the least extroverted extroverts are ambiverts.
That's all, really.
 
Ambiverts don't exist
 
If ambiverts exist, then most people are ambiverts

I know ^^

I was just trying to find a comfortable way of being both INFJ and INFP. :p

(Although technically that is not what ambivert even means lolol)
 
I was just trying to find a comfortable way of being both INFJ and INFP. :p

There is nothing comfortable about that sentence or the attempts thereof :laughing::laughing:
 
There is nothing comfortable about that sentence or the attempts thereof :laughing::laughing:

:tearsofjoy:

You have a point! Unless I am a masochist who enjoys the pain of self-alienation :grinning:
 
I know ^^

Really, my point is that injecting the idea of an ambivert defeats the purpose of the scale.
And also, people like to use ambivert as another way of making themselves feel special.
 
Really, my point is that injecting the idea of an ambivert defeats the purpose of the scale.
And also, people like to use ambivert as another way of making themselves feel special.

There is something to be said here though, about INFJs being typically ambiverted in an overall sense.
If channeled and trained correctly, they could theoretically be some of the best sales people.
But they are incapable of casting wide nets and have no desire to "trick" people, so it's kind of a trade off.
Though real sales is about finding people who don't need to be tricked, they need to be supported about their hesitations as a buyer.

Same principle with selling yourself. The more trust you build with others, the more likely they will buy your kool-aid.
People trust INFJs as a sort of default, generally. It's an untapped power for most.
 
Really, my point is that injecting the idea of an ambivert defeats the purpose of the scale.
And also, people like to use ambivert as another way of making themselves feel special.

Hm, to me it’s the dichotomy between introversion and extroversion that the idea of an ambivert defeats. At the level of the functions this would mean someone who has two dominant functions, which is nonsense.
 
Hm, to me it’s the dichotomy between introversion and extroversion that the idea of an ambivert defeats. At the level of the functions this would mean someone who has two dominant functions, which is nonsense.

Indeed! Exactly and precisely :)
 
It's a slippery slope.

I think probably the spread of INFJs as falling from one side or the other is probably similar to all other types.
You have people who are more introverted/extroverted and then you have a big lump of people in the middle.

Like a new scale (2):
From most introverted up to the point of extroversion
Or most extroverted up the the point of introversion
Most people are in the middle of their scale, leaning towards the center of the two

idk I have no science to back this up, just spitballing
everything is a bell curve so it makes sense
 
Last edited: