Marketing is more important than technology.
Few groups actually reward introverts, who may be doing most of the real work.
Just like not every extrovert is immediately likable, not every introvert is a smart and hard worker. I know you wrote "may", but I've just seen too many colleagues and too many of my employees fall into this trapping mindset, which can result in some really nasty work atmostpheres. The attitude one brings to a job should be appropriate for the work. There is truth that if you don't speak up, it's hard to hear you sometimes, but that doesn't mean the way you sell yourself is most important - you still need substance.
I've watched as social charmers worked their way into my previous places of employment only to get shitcanned months later when it turns out you have to beat them with a stick to do even the simplest of tasks. I've also seen the same types of people and categorized them the same way, only to find out later that they were really doing tons of great things I just never knew about.
This is more the manager/supervisor in me not wanting people to draw lines in the sand unnecessarily, but who you are is how you want to present yourself. I'm a shy guy by nature, and I know that at my last job my coworkers could never understand why I liked lunch alone or rarely went to company events, didn't buy into company pride, etc. But once I dug in and made an impact work-wise, it was made pretty clear that they couldn't imagine not having me around, even if I was quiet.
It's a self-perpetuating observation bias. You don't see the successful introverts, because they don't go on TV talking about their amazing life journey etc.
Ergo, everyone associates success with extroverts. There's actually no natural correlation between being an extrovert and being successful, but people /think/ one exists because of observer bias, and that makes it harder for introverts to succeed because they get passed over for hiring and so forth for not being "outgoing enough to be a leader" or whatever.
The perception creates the reality.
> Ergo, everyone associates success with extroverts.
Larry Page is known to be introvert.
> Marketing is more important than technology.
I assume you meant this as a jab (if not I apologise), however with proliferation of affordable and reproductible technology this is very true. Marketing is not only advertising, it is also knowing what problems your technology should solve and how to do it differently than myriads of your competitors.
In my company there are a lot of extroverts that only do work in group meetings. They are insecure working alone. So six people have to go over a document for two hours which the person that has called the meeting could have written alone and sent to others by email for review. There is no real collaboration going on in those meetings.
> The problem, I think, is that extroverts collaborate more easily
Marketing gets bad rep all of the time, but I think that is because often marketing is done (like you said) after one has something to sell. For me the order should be inverted:
1. Find a real world problem and identify potential customers (marketing) 2. Create an original solution that actually helps solve it (engineering) 3. Loops from marketing to engineering to improve the product
If you are pondering what should you that could actually sell you are doing marketing.
I've come to the same conclusion. I've developed a mode that I switch on when needed. It is typically engaged when charming/schmoozing/selling/persuading is involved.
> But I feel somewhat insincere doing
I don't think you should. You work with humans as well as machines (I'm guessing). Some of these humans crave social activity and respond positively when they get it. That could mean telling someone about your day. It could also mean listening about their day.
> that and it takes a lot of effort emotionally.
I hear you. I burn energy very quickly when my extrovert mode is switched on. What's even harder, for me, is switching back to introvert related work after being in extrovert mode.
I used to think this way, and this line of reasoning misses the point.
You don't ask someone what they had for lunch to find out what they had for lunch. As you said, that piece of information has no bearing whatsoever for you. I may even ask someone what they had for lunch already knowing what they had for lunch.
The reason you ask what they had for lunch is that doing so is an explicitly social behavior, or as you call it, "keeping up appearances". The fact that you're willing to do the song and dance just like everyone else means you are sincere about keeping peace and order within the social group you're interacting with. You understand there are certain expectations, and you fulfill them. That's the behavior of someone that cares.
If you were truly insincere, you wouldn't bother keeping up appearances. You would tell that person "Oh fuck off with your lunch, no one gives a shit".
In a group, I'm usually loud and gregarious. And it's not even an act.
Yet, I don't need social interaction to feel good. Usually, one meeting a month with friends fulfills all my social needs.
Still don't like going out in the weekends :p.
I think this behaviour is necessary because the corporate environment cultivates a culture of insincerity and sometimes downright hypocrisy.
We all want to feel good about ourselves - So we either:
- Lie to ourselves or;
- Accept the reality and only pretend to believe the lies (that's where the public façade comes in handy).