As an introvert repeatedly flummoxed and exhausted by office politics in the earliest stages of my career, I very nearly resigned myself to always being overlooked. I didn't have the emotional energy to be schmoozing, wheeling, and dealing; I'd much rather have invested that same time and energy in learning, growing, and producing great work. Consciously, I realized that I was taking the sucker's bet -- that the schmoozers and bullshitters would always rise to the top, and that I'd be stuck in second gear. And so I came to adopt a mentality of learned helplessness: an overreliance on the hope that, someday, somehow, my ship would come in. I'd be recognized. My great work would produce outsized results, and all of my quiet toiling would be vindicated.
That day never came. What came, instead, was an eye-opening reversal. I had a very candid conversation with my boss about why I wasn't on track for promotion, despite a long string of big wins, and a consistent track record well above the expectations of my pay grade. And he told me that "Nobody outside of our group knows what you're working on." Note that he didn't tell me that I wasn't bullshitting or schmoozing hard enough. Rather, he told me that I was basically invisible to a large portion of the company. Maybe it's just the way I'm wired, but this was a nonobvious and nontrivial revelation to me. I suspect it may be for a lot of introverts.
To overcome this barrier, I adopted the "win a few key allies" strategy, as loosely advocated in the interview. I knew I wasn't going to be a world-class bullshitter. So, rather than try to bullshit clumsily and more frequently, I opted to find people in positions of power who were known to have similarly low tolerances for bullshit. And I volunteered to help these people. I made it my mission to knock it out of the park for them -- and, in so doing, to become known as the "no bullshit" guy who really delivered.
To this day, it's not all blue skies and roses. Even as a known commodity at your firm, you're still going to get lapped by the extroverts. But as an introvert, you really do have to step outside of your comfort zone if you want to advance your career. You don't have to out-BS the BSers, but you have to consciously devote time to getting noticed and staying noticed. Never assume that good work will get noticed on its own. If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around to hear it, it doesn't matter if it makes a sound.
I didn't have the emotional energy to be schmoozing, wheeling, and dealing; I'd much rather have invested that same time and energy in learning, growing, and producing great work.
I can recommend Finland to you, as far as introversion goes. Anyone here who's talking loud, fast, or talking at all gives a suspicious impression, in general. A very energetic and talkative salesman would hardly make any sales in Finland. People appreciate individuals who only talk when they have something important to say. Granted, this sort of aversion has its downsides as well but most foreigners I've talked to say that the thing they love in Finland is the lack of pressure to talk all the time. Or become visible by talking: you can become visible more effectively by not talking. And, of course, it applies to non-work environment as well: you can sit in a train in peace without nobody trying to small-talk you out of your thoughts.
(Reminder: this is a generalization, of course. But not such a ridiculous extrapolation out of a few stereotypes, after all.)
I wouldn't conflate 'bullshitting' with bullshit. The ability to schmooze is largely about communicating personal emotions and resonating with others in obvious ways. You acknowledge their feelings, regardless of how trivial it is, and now you're connected. But I've seen some people use this in very bad ways. Almost in predatory ways.
However, despite how much I hate being forced to schmooze with someone (say on an impromptu conference call) or be able to talk about nonsensical things in a clever funny way when meeting a new girl or being out in social situations, I resigned myself that what I really hate is being UNPREPARED.
So for me Toastmasters, learning simple comedy routines, exercising, dressing nice, knowing current events and some pop culture, recent sports news; all give me confidence to speak smoothly, conversate well etc etc. I'm more referencing dating and meeting people than office situations but it's all the same thing -- getting people to like and notice you.
So prepare and improve yourself how you can. And if you are okay labeling yourself an introvert then learn to play the guitar and take dance classes. No words needed with those but they will tremendously help your social life.
Your boss should be fighting to make you recognized. That's a big part of his job. If he isn't making that effort, and if he isn't helping you find opportunities to be noticed, then you should look for a new boss who will.
If course, if you ARE a manager, then you should bang the drum for your best employees if you want them to be happy and continue to contribute.
"Your boss should be fighting to make you recognized. That's a big part of his job. If he isn't making that effort, and if he isn't helping you find opportunities to be noticed, then you should look for a new boss who will."
Agreed, though I've come to learn that this isn't always going to happen. While you can certainly control what company you work for, you can't always control who you're going to have as a boss. And my old boss's behavior seems, to me, to be more the rule than the exception.
My strategy these days is to focus a considerable amount of effort on foolproofing my boss's ability to champion me. Regular, systemized communication prevents him from ever not knowing what I'm working on. Communication timed in advance of big "alignment" meetings, and other executive functions, ensures that I will be top of mind when he has occasion to discuss employees with other leaders. And so forth.
Ideally, yes, a boss should be fighting for his best employees. And if you're pretty sure you're one of his best employees, you should be giving him the ammunition he needs for the fight.
Could easily be against your boss's best interests, or at least what your boss thinks is their best interests, in a large company, too. That's the hole I'm currently trying to fight out from.
I don't see how it's in a manager's interest to not promote good work that their team members are doing. If your manager says to his/her superiors things like, "look at the talent that's thriving under my leadership", that's a good thing for everyone.
Examples that come to my mind, would be the risk that the employee gets promoted over the boss, or alternately, that the employee is poached and shifted out of the group by a different group boss.
You have a shitty boss. It's his job to recognize your work and reward you. It's his job to justify and defend your promotion to other people in the organization. Your work and contribution not visible to people in other parts of the organization means in the management meeting, he doesn't associate your name with the accomplishments and probably taking credit for himself under the guise of "MY team did it."
For your benefit, you should manage your relationship with his boss, i.e. your boss' boss. Promotion/raise choices usually is the negotiation between your boss and his boss. He needs to justify to him why he should promote you. So if your work and accomplishment are known to your boss' boss, half of the battle has been won.
"The opposite of introvert is extrovert, not "schmoozer/bullshitter".
Yes, but my point was that it took me awhile to figure this out in praxis. When you're as introverted as I am, you so detest the act of self-promotion that you tend to conflate it with schmoozing and bullshitting. That's a mistake I made, and my point is that it's probably a common mistake.
Nice strategy. While I'm sure office politics plague many companies, I think some just aren't able to dig deep into each project and group to find out who deserves recognition. It's often important in larger companies to create visibility for the instances you do a great job, and this can often be construed as office politics.
The issue of extrovert/introvert is an ancient issue:
Cicero, On Moral Duties, cites examples of the power of creating great impressions amongst groups of people:
"14. But while there are two kinds of speech, to one of which conversation belongs, to the other public debate,2 there is no doubt that the latter is most conducive to
the acquisition of fame (for it is that which we dignify by the name of eloquence); yet it is hard to say to what a degree agreeableness and affability of conversation win
favor. There are extant letters of Philip to Alexander, of Antipater to Cassander, and of Antigonus to Philip, — all three, as we learn, men of the greatest practical wisdom,
— in which they advise their sons to allure the minds of the multitude in their favor by kindliness of address, and to charm the soldiers by accosting them in a genial way."
Vivtruvius, one of the greatest engineers of all time, explained the difference between great artists and great well-known artists in his book De Architectura, Book III.
It basically says without being a saleperson or being well-connected your work is of little value.
"1. ...Socrates the wisest of men...observed that it had been well if men's breasts were open, and, as it were, with windows in them, so that every one might be acquainted with their sentiments. Would to God they had been so formed. We might then not only find out the virtues and vices of persons with facility, but being also enabled to obtain ocular knowledge of the science they profess, we might judge of their skill with certainty; whereby those who are really clever and learned would be held in proper esteem. But as
nature has not formed us after this fashion, the talents of many men lie concealed within them, and this renders it so difficult to lay down an accurate theory of any art. However
an artist may promise to exert his talents, if he have not either plenty of money, or a good connexion from his situation in life; or if he be not gifted with a good address or considerable eloquence, his study and application will go but little way to persuade persons that he is a competent artist."
The best modern day summarization is "Showhorses are loved, Workhorses are abused"
Now, enough ancient references, there are surprisingly few books that deal with the introvert/extrovert issue. Please don't think eloquence is a skill that comes naturally. Clint Eastwood, Chris Rock, Emeril Lagasse and Johnny Carson have all been described as introverts. Below I have a few business leaders and some resources they used to become emotionally intelligent - a more accurate term for extroversion. Learning this is like learning anything else, you will be able to critique other
people once you learn.
1. Huey P. Long, governor of Louisiana - grew up selling goods door-to-door
2. Sam Wiley, earlier computer pioneer - IBM training program, Church of Science
examples: Wiley says never reveal ideas in their infancy due to extreme prejudice against new ideas
Book: "A Thousand Dollars and an Idea"
A resource I have used lately is a Teachers Training program. I learned how to control a classroom through establishing expectations.
Maybe someone can compile a list of training, instructional, and leadership programs
Most Holloywood stars attend an interview class before they appear on TV. I learned this when a guest on the Jay Leno show said "Oh Mr.X helped you prepare for interviews, I went
to him too. He's great isn't he?"
Unfortunately, I do not think there has ever been a book written about influence and social intelligence. The Carnegie courses are expensive - your work might pay for it - and I do not know if the focus has changed to a more business-oriented format. Hopefully Ms. Susan Cain's book is helpful in this regard.
Emotional Intelligence is not extroversion. There's plenty of extroverts with poor social skills, you call them "jackasses". And while social anxiety might be associated with introvertedness, not all introverts are shy.
Also, the division between introverts and extroverts is a Jung-era myth which got picked up by Myers-Briggs. Extroversion is a continuous variable (with most people being neither introverts nor extroverts), and is also contextual.
If people think there's a silver bullet for dealing with people (called "EQ" or "extroversion"), they're. EQ is a broad set of skills. They are probably correlated with general intelligence, but not strongly. I doubt they are all correlated with each other - in some context a certain trait (say - assertiveness) is a big advantage, in other contexts it can be a disadvantage. Some people are great in some situations, some people are flexible, and can adjust to many situations, and some people are losers in many situations, but it's not simple.
So I like that you've suggested a lot of different resources.
What Jung meant by extroversion is not what's commonly known as extroversion today.
Today, what most people mean by an "extrovert" is someone who's very outgoing and social, while an "introvert" is typically seen as a shy loner.
But for Jung, who coined these terms, an extroverted person was one interested mostly in the world outside of himself, while an introvert was interested primarily on what was going on inside himself.
Jung would have seen no contradiction in introvert who was very gregarious and outgoing, if he was mostly interested in his inner world (since it would be the latter quality that made him an introvert).
Likewise, Jung would have seen no contradiction in extrovert who was very solitary and shy, if he was mostly interested in the world around him (since it would be the latter quality that made him an extrovert).
Now, as for whether this is a "myth" or not is a matter of opinion and debate. Psychology is far from a settled discipline, where all participants agree on the "great truths" like "the law of gravity" or "the laws of thermodynamics". There aren't any such things in psychology, since there are in fact many different psychologies, with radically different explanatory frameworks. What is a myth to one psychologist might well be established dogma to another.
This is very true. I think of it like marketing: you need to sell yourself. The people that don't want to play politics or just want to code will always be left behind.
That day never came. What came, instead, was an eye-opening reversal. I had a very candid conversation with my boss about why I wasn't on track for promotion, despite a long string of big wins, and a consistent track record well above the expectations of my pay grade. And he told me that "Nobody outside of our group knows what you're working on." Note that he didn't tell me that I wasn't bullshitting or schmoozing hard enough. Rather, he told me that I was basically invisible to a large portion of the company. Maybe it's just the way I'm wired, but this was a nonobvious and nontrivial revelation to me. I suspect it may be for a lot of introverts.
To overcome this barrier, I adopted the "win a few key allies" strategy, as loosely advocated in the interview. I knew I wasn't going to be a world-class bullshitter. So, rather than try to bullshit clumsily and more frequently, I opted to find people in positions of power who were known to have similarly low tolerances for bullshit. And I volunteered to help these people. I made it my mission to knock it out of the park for them -- and, in so doing, to become known as the "no bullshit" guy who really delivered.
To this day, it's not all blue skies and roses. Even as a known commodity at your firm, you're still going to get lapped by the extroverts. But as an introvert, you really do have to step outside of your comfort zone if you want to advance your career. You don't have to out-BS the BSers, but you have to consciously devote time to getting noticed and staying noticed. Never assume that good work will get noticed on its own. If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around to hear it, it doesn't matter if it makes a sound.