4 ms·

Even as an introvert, I think that extroverts can sometimes come to the same well-planned decisions through more of a conversational process, deliberating out l

by treyp 17y ago

Even as an introvert, I think that extroverts can sometimes come to the same well-planned decisions through more of a conversational process, deliberating out loud and with the help of others. But the title and point of the article are simply why introverts can make good leaders, not necessarily why extroverts aren't just as good.

j_baker 17y ago
+1 - Extroverts have many strengths that introverts don't have and vice versa.
- derefr 17y ago
  Justify that. All treyp said was that extroverts could make up for their weaknesses, not that they had any given strengths. It's not that I agree or disagree with you—but the "+1" implies that you think this is what treyp meant, when he was establishing a much weaker argument.
  - j_baker 17y ago
    Whatever treyp said, my point is that introverts have strengths that extroverts don't have and vice versa. Thus to say one group is inherently better at managing than another is wrong. If I read his comment wrong, then so be it. EDIT: after reading my initial comment, I realized that it might have sounded a bit "pro-extrovert" which wasn't my intent. I've edited it to be a bit more clear.
    - treyp 17y ago
      Yeah, so the article is very pro-introvert. I just wanted to point out that I don't think it's the case that introverts are better at leadership than extroverts. The article isn't claiming this, but I have a feeling that the HN audience might up-vote this because that's how they interpret it. I was just trying to give a friendly reminder that there are different qualities that make people good leaders. Both of them can excel. But the article still serves its purpose. In the business world, there's a tendency to assume you must be extroverted to be a great leader. There's an assumption that introverts should be doing other things like engineering, that introverts don't have the "people skills" necessary to be great leaders. The article makes a good case that this just isn't so.

by treyp 17y ago

j_baker 17y ago

+1 - Extroverts have many strengths that introverts don't have and vice versa.

derefr 17y ago
Justify that. All treyp said was that extroverts could make up for their weaknesses, not that they had any given strengths. It's not that I agree or disagree with you—but the "+1" implies that you think this is what treyp meant, when he was establishing a much weaker argument.
- j_baker 17y ago
  Whatever treyp said, my point is that introverts have strengths that extroverts don't have and vice versa. Thus to say one group is inherently better at managing than another is wrong. If I read his comment wrong, then so be it. EDIT: after reading my initial comment, I realized that it might have sounded a bit "pro-extrovert" which wasn't my intent. I've edited it to be a bit more clear.
  - treyp 17y ago
    Yeah, so the article is very pro-introvert. I just wanted to point out that I don't think it's the case that introverts are better at leadership than extroverts. The article isn't claiming this, but I have a feeling that the HN audience might up-vote this because that's how they interpret it. I was just trying to give a friendly reminder that there are different qualities that make people good leaders. Both of them can excel. But the article still serves its purpose. In the business world, there's a tendency to assume you must be extroverted to be a great leader. There's an assumption that introverts should be doing other things like engineering, that introverts don't have the "people skills" necessary to be great leaders. The article makes a good case that this just isn't so.