Why I Love Being an Introvert

{Note: I am now blogging at my brand-spanking-new site, SteveWoodruff.com. Just click here to subscribe to the new feed. Bonus – you can also sign up at the same time for my astonishingly brief  yet brilliant e-newsletter, Clarity Blend (see sample), and when you sign up, you’ll get a free download of my helpful new e-book, Make Yourself Clear: Six Steps to De-fogging Your Direction and Your Message.}

I didn’t always enjoy the fact that my wiring is definitely on the introvert side of the fence. Since our culture tends to value extrovert tendencies and behaviors, we who are quieter, who are more inclined to think before speaking, and who are energized more by alone time than by crowds can often feel marginalized or inferior.

Over time, I’ve shaken free of that perspective. I was born with this wiring, and though I’ve become much more outgoing and confident with people (some people now mistake me for an extrovert), I remain a thorough-going introvert.

And I love it. Yeah, I said it. I love being an introvert.

In a world filled with chatty and superficial crowds exchanging pleasantries and (often) little else of substance, I can sit down with people one-on-one or in intimate groups and really dive deep. To that place where minds and lives are changed. I love that.

While others desperately seek their inner fuel by surrounding themselves with others in social settings, I can enjoy alone time to think. In fact, I crave it – I’m energized by a combination of solitude and people time. And in those quieter times of reflection, insights arrive. I love that.

My inward-focused mind is always seeking to analyze and make sense of the world; and often, can be harnessed to help others make sense of their world. I love that.

I may not be the most glib person in a crowd – certainly not the life of the party – but I can write, and make presentations, and reach many more people that way, than pretending to be chatty Charlie. I love that, too.

In a world that often feels a compulsion to consume and consume and consume, introverts take time to digest. Life, for us, is not an endless carousel of coming-from-the-outside sensory stimulation. We regularly gain our strength from within – we’re more self-contained. And I love that.

No, the opposite of being extroverted is not being neurotic, as this poorly-conceived article implies. Extroverts have gifts and abilities and strengths. Introverts have gifts and abilities and strengths. And introverts have a lot to contribute to the world.

I love being an introvert. If you share that wiring, there’s no cause for shame or a sense of inferiority – we have our fit in this world, too; and it’s a rich place. Embrace who you are. Manage it. And make waves in your own way!

Daniel Pink and the “Ambivert Advantage”

I’ve been reading Daniel Pink‘s latest book, To Sell is Human (Amazon affiliate link), and I like a lot of what he has to say.

I found his thesis intriguing that extroverts don’t necessarily have an inherent advantage over introverts in sales success – you can see a summary of his thinking in this Washington Post article (if you don’t have the book).

But, a couple of things set off some alarms bells in my head.

First, I think his use of the terms “introvert” and “extrovert” are somewhat imprecise. Pink reinforces some of the more behavioral notions of the two orientations (sociable/lively/assertive vs. soft-spoken) – you know those stereotypes about the gregarious extrovert and the retiring introvert. In fact, the essence of introversion is finding one’s energy source from within, while extroverts generally find their energy from other people. While it is usually true that extroverts may tend to favor being more often in larger groups of people, and introverts typically need more (quiet) alone time, to look at stereotypical extremes and label only those as introverts or extroverts is to miss the point (in fact, there are many introverts who can quite effectively project outgoing behaviors). The ” ___vert” wiring has to do with replenishment of energy; behaviors are somewhat elastic across the spectrum. One of the best treatments of this topic is Susan Cain‘s excellent book Quiet.

My sense is that most people lean toward one orientation or the other – there are degrees of introversion and extroversion, but I am ambivalent about the notion of ambiversion as presented by Pink. He depicts “ambiverts” as the majority of people on a bell curve, with introverts and extroverts as extremes. I’d argue that there may be very few (if any) true ambiverts – people who draw energy equally from within and without. If you think of introversion/extroversion as a linear scale, I theorize that we all natively lean in one direction or the other (according to our internal wiring), even if we have learned and adopted behaviors that are more outgoing or contemplative. See this blog post for a fuller muse on this point.

The other point of contention I have with Pink’s methodology is his over-reliance on a single study (by Adam Grant) correlating sales effectiveness with self-reported measures of extroversion. In this study, people at (either) extreme end of the introvert-extrovert scale did not sell as successfully as those in the middle (whom Pink labels as the ambiverts). This result is used to argue against the prevailing notion that extroverted people are (of course!) the most productive sales people. Instead, people who could be somewhat chameleon-ish in the middle were the most successful.

It’s an intriguing and suggestive result, but there is a serious limitation to keep in mind – this is a single study (300 people), and it involved only call center representatives. Generalizing from that sample is tenuous – this is, after all, only one type of selling, and it is via phone, not in person. We can safely conclude that extremely extroverted and extremely introverted people were less effective in this particular type of non-face-to-face selling than people who were less introverted/extroverted – but that’s about it. I’m not convinced that the data and extrapolated conclusions are as convincing as they at first appear.

To then call a large swath of the population “ambiverts” and imply that they’re going to be just fine at whatever-kind-of-selling may be a bit of a stretch.

I’m an introvert, and I have done a lot of selling. I don’t schmooze as naturally as my extroverted brethren, but I practice many outgoing behaviors (that doesn’t make me an ambivert; I’m just an outgoing introvert!). And I’m actually in sympathy with a lot of Pink’s message in this book, especially the notion that, in one form or another, we’re just about all in sales (of some type). I just think that the evidence for some of the conclusions being drawn seems a bit thin on this point.

If you’ve been reading To Sell is Human – what’s your take?