Posts Tagged ‘Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking’

The Quintessential Leader Perspective On the Art – and Beauty – of Silence

Posted: January 16, 2015 in General Things about Quintessential Leadership, Quintessential Leadership, Quintessential Leadership is an Art
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5

still waters run deep the art of silenceThere is an expression that “still waters run deep” that is often applied to people who tend to be mostly silent and low-key in their exterior lives that belies much complexity, thoughtfulness, and depth in their interior lives.

In other words, these people are masters at the art – and revel in the beauty of – silence. They enjoy the sound of silence. They crave more silence than not. And they are completely comfortable – in fact, they are most comfortable – in and with silence.

Before we discuss the art and beauty of silence, we must clear up some common misconceptions.

First, the art of silence doesn’t mean never talking (or writing), nor does it mean a lack of passion when talking (or writing). It’s not an either/or trait, unlike the way a lot of this-or-that, all-or-nothing generalists tend to portray the art of silence.

Second, the art of silence doesn’t indicate weakness, shyness, fear, or being intimidated. Too often the art of silence is portrayed as an inferior trait. Nothing could be further than the truth!

Third, the art of silence doesn’t mean not listening and not hearing. In fact, it means just the the opposite. Unlike talkative people who have great difficulty (and many times are completely tone-deaf) listening to and hearing anybody else because they’re so busy talking themselves, people who are masters at the art of silence hear and see everything that is said or done.

The difference is the art of silence, which includes self-control and self-discipline, knows when and/or if to respond to things that are said and done, which is why the art of silence is a quintessential leadership trait.

While the art of silence comes naturally to some people (introverts, for example, as described in Susan Cain’s Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking), it is something that can be learned by everybody.

How do quintessential leaders use the art of silence? And why do quintessential leaders use the art of silence? Those are the two aspects of the art of silence that we will look at today.

One of the ways that quintessential leaders use the art of silence is to filter out distractions. Distractions come in many forms, but one of the most prevalent and hardest to avoid and/or ignore is incessant talking.

Some people who talk incessantly just need to talk all the time. And if they can find someone who will engage with them interactively, then they have even more to talk about.

Some of these people can’t abide any kind of silence, so in the absence of external noise, they talk to fill the void. Everything that comes into their minds comes out of their mouths.

There is no editing and there is no evaluation of timing, appropriateness, or audience. The words are simply there and they must be uttered immediately out loud.

Because there is no content control for people who need to talk, there is often inciting and offensive content in what they talk about as well.

The other kinds of people who talk incessantly are people who think out loud to process their ideas. These people are also looking for engagement because they want external feedback as they work through the process.

the art of silence and the beautiful of silence quintessential leadershipThe same lack of content control, timing, and appropriateness may accompany this.

More likely, though, the biggest distraction in this kind of incessant talking is the drawn-out, rambling, unorganized, and sometimes incoherent process of formulating ideas out loud (people who are masters of the art of silence go through the same idea-formulating process, but they do it internally, not externally).

Quintessential leaders use the art of silence to stop the distraction of incessant talking by refusing to engage in the moment (incessant talkers need engagement, so if someone won’t engage, they’ll move and find others who will).

Quintessential leaders also use the art of silence in this situation because if their flow of productivity in working/thinking/life, which requires complete focus and attention, gets interrupted, they will lose a lot of time in the future to get back into that flow, if, in fact, they are able to. In other words, the total cost of not using the art of silence far outweighs any benefit of immediate engagement. 

However, for some idea formulations (either in terms of importance, experience, and/or coaching), quintessential leaders are very willing to participate, but the timing and the scope must be negotiated and agreed upon in advance.

And there are two crucial reasons why.

The first reason is because quintessential leaders will have the time to come fully prepared for discussions like these. The second reason is so that quintessential leaders can carve out a piece of time to give the person and the process their undivided attention.

Another area where quintessential leaders use the art of silence is the area of dealing with challenging people. No matter what teams we lead in life, there will always be a challenging cast of characters among them.

Challenging people may be uninformed and biased-by-spinning loudmouths. They may be instigators. They may be argumentative. They may be talebearers (includes gossiping). They may be extremely needy. They may be drama queens or kings. They may be attention-seekers. They may be manipulators.

In whatever form challenging people appear (and I’ve listed some of the major areas above), quintessential leaders must be adept in using the art of silence in the right way at precisely the right times to effectively neutralize and/or eliminate the area of challenge.

There are two things that all challenging people are looking for in terms of satisfaction with these kinds of behaviors. One is total engagement. The other is total agreement (or a really good knock-down-drag-out argument).

Quintessential leaders give them neither with the art of silence.

Silence has several positive results.

First, quintessential leaders are modeling the right behavior – in effect, coaching them in “this-is-what-it-looks-like” – for their teams to learn as they encounter challenging people along the way.

Second, the art of silence immediately shuts down the challenging person. It also removes them and their influence from the team, because if there is no satisfaction in one place, challenging people will quickly go looking somewhere else for it, since that’s the driving need behind these behaviors.

noisy discordant screeching A third way that quintessential leaders use the art of silence is to create enough space between them and everything and everyone else to create a place in their lives where they can retreat to as often and as long as they need to. This place is a place of assured peace, safety, comfort, and….wait for it…silence where quintessential leaders go to recharge and regroup.

Quintessential leaders don’t disconnect from life when they go to this place. They are fully engaged in everything that is important in life in necessary, productive, and practical ways.

However, they are completely distanced from all the unnecessary, all the impractical, all the frivolous, and all the jingly-jangly-clanging noise that comes at us from every direction and makes up our modern existences.

This is a personal and internal requirement for quintessential leaders, because this place must exist for quintessential leaders to be quintessential leaders. How often and how long the stays are will vary from situation to situation and individual to individual. But they must occur regularly.

If they don’t, then quintessential leaders become unquintessential leaders because they will lose sight of the big-picture, the vision, the focus, and the effective use of the art – and beauty of – silence.

And they will end up simply being another discordant note in the ever-increasingly-screeching and ear-splitting symphony of noise that has become the never-ending soundtrack of our lives.

Are we effectively using the the art of silence or have we forgotten and are on our way to becoming an insignificant off-key note that is lost in a maze of unpalatable noise?

I can answer that for myself alone.

What is your answer? 

 

When Temperament Gets in the Way of Quintessential Leadership – Introverts, Listen Up!

Posted: December 5, 2012 in Examples and Analyses of Quintessential Leadership, General Things about Quintessential Leadership, Myths and Misconceptions About Management, Qualities of a Quintessential Leader, Quintessential Leadership, Quintessential Leadership is an Art, Team Building & Development
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

I’ve been observing for the last four years an emerging and accurate identification of an obstacle that exists that has contributed to the ever-present gridlock between the current president of the United States, President Barack Obama, and the United States Congress (the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives). However, one of the things that is missing from the conversation is the real what and why behind the obstacle and the solution to removing it. The people who’ve identified the symptom talk and write about it without understanding the cause and how to address that in an effective way.

Let me say up front that this is not a post about politics. Politics is a game of lies and spin and I have no time or use for all that, nor will I waste my time talking about it. This post, instead, is about how temperament can affect quintessential leadership negatively and this post also drills down to how an introverted leader needs to modify his or her behavior to ensure that teamwork is in play and goals are successfully achieved.

Joe Scarborough, of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” seems to consistently and accurately define the obstacle (i.e., the symptom of the problem) that stands between President Barack Obama and the United States Congress. Ironically, when Scarborough points to the symptom of the solution, without realizing it, he is talking about two extremes in temperament: strong introversion and strong extroversion.

The solution, realistically, lies somewhere in the middle, but the solution can be found in the comparison and contrast between the strongly-introverted person that President Obama is and the strongly-extroverted person that Scarborough points to again and again as the model for teamwork and getting things done.

Joe Scarborough describes the obstacle to getting things done legislatively as an unwillingness by President Obama to reach out to anybody in Congress, including members of his own Democrat party, and an unwillingness to sit down and talk face-to-face, either one-on-one or in a group, to either members of his own party or members of the Republican party. And every time Scarborough describes this obstacle, he brings up former President Bill Clinton to show the contrast of how someone, probably more successfully than any other American president, countered and removed all gridlock by doing just the opposite of what President Obama is doing.

And what Scarborough is pointing to when he contrasts these two men is temperament and how President Clinton used his strong extroversion to ensure that the country’s goals were achieved and how President Obama’s strong introversion is inhibiting his ability to do the same. An analysis of how temperament can get in the way of quintessential leadership, then, and what can be done to moderate and counter that is, therefore, the sole topic of discussion in this post.

Before addressing the temperaments of these two men and the things that separate them temperamentally in their leadership styles, a short discussion of temperaments and how they play into how each of us sees and relates to the world around us is critical. An invaluable – I personally think this book ought to be a “must read” for everyone who is a leadership position – resource for quintessential leaders to understand both extroversion and introversion and leadership is Susan Cain‘s “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking.”

Commonly-accepted proportions, based on extensive research, of extroverts to introverts in the human population show a 75%-extrovert to 25%-introvert ratio (one in every four people is an introvert).  Cain’s book, while showing that general temperament dominance can also be a function of culture, shows that all of us are genetically and neurologically predisposed to either extroversion or introversion. She also shows how extroversion as “normal” and preferred and introversion as “abnormal” and undesirable – as well as needing to be “fixed” or “changed” – developed into the mindset and culture of the Western world.

Another important part of this conversation is that, because of temperament, it is very difficult – and impossible for people with strong and extreme tendencies in this temperament – for extroverts to ever really understand introverts, while introverts – even though it makes no sense to them – have a quite good understanding of extroverts. Extroverts can’t understand any temperament that is not like theirs, so much of the “abnormal” kinds of labeling – loner, weird, unsociable, etc. – that is typically applied to introverts – who, by the way, are none of these – we see in general cultural views expressed by extroverts.

Please take some time to read Jonathan Rauch’s article, “Caring for Your Introvert,” published in The Atlantic in March 2003 because it does a good job of dispelling some of these incorrect ideas and shows why the labels don’t match up with the reality.

Introversion and extroversion can be measured by scientific instruments such as the Myers-Briggs test, which is often a prerequisite to acceptance into post-graduate programs at many U. S. universities and colleges, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator which identifies 16 temperament types.

And even though all people can be typed within these 16 temperament types, where each person falls on the spectrum of the various components that make up the temperament is what makes no two same-temperament people exactly alike. In other words, each of us is unique. An additional note, which Susan Cain makes sure to point out, is that even though a person is characterized by a temperament type, even strongly, not all the attributes of that type may actually apply or be present. Again, each of us is unique. And that’s the most important thing to remember when discussing generalities, which the topic of temperament types is.

Since I’m taking this topic on – and to show the truth embedded in the cautions in my last paragraph – I will share my temperament type (which, no matter how many times I’ve been tested and how much experience and time is accrued between the tests, the type and proportions remain the same) with you and tell you a little bit about why I am  in a position to bring temperament as the source of the obstacle that Joe Scarborough has identified. If you click on the graph below, you’ll see it in its original size, which will make it easier to read.

quintessentialldr Myers-Briggs Temperament Indicator Graph

As you can see, I’m an INTJ, so I’ve got an introvert temperament. You’ll also noticed that I fall into the strong/extreme range of introversion. This is important, because this is a temperament characteristic that President Obama and I share. While I don’t know the exact temperament type of President Obama, I suspect that he is also an INTJ, and his unique temperament type lies in where he falls along each of the measurement scales.

One of the paradoxes that I’ve read and seen noted about President Obama time and again is that of the seemingly two different people he is in front of big crowds versus in front of small groups or one-on-one. It really isn’t a paradox, because since I’ve noticed the same paradox in myself – and this is something I’ve had to learn how to change in the second setting – I know why he is more comfortable in front of a large, mostly anonymous crowd instead of in a small and well-known group and individual setting.

In front of a large, mostly anonymous group, President Obama is doing a presentation about something he believes, is a part of who he is, and he is an expert on. He’s written about, thought about, and is a subject-matter expert, from his perspective, about it. It’s not a conversation, which would require him to process information quickly and U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at the National Defense University in Washingtonverbalize eloquently just as quickly his response – which introverts simply cannot do (look at how poorly he did in the Q & A debates in this year’s election process). Therefore, there’s no pressure on him, and is relaxed and confident, and even almost passionate.

However, in the give-and-take of ad hoc verbal conversation and negotiation in face-to-face meetings with groups and individuals President Obama knows, he is so uncomfortable that he avoids it altogether. I read about what he’s done proposal-wise with the current fiscal cliff negotiations and that he’s incredulous about why it’s not done already. I don’t know the details of the proposal – nor is that important here. However, here’s what I’ve read and seen about what President Obama has done. He’s composed – that’s in writing – a document that says what he wants and sent it to Congress to get passed.

That’s how introverts are most comfortable communicating and he’d be delighted to have Congress put their proposal in writing, send it to him – introverts understand information much more easily when they read it than when they hear it -, give him some solitude to digest it, make written changes, if needed, then send the revised proposal back in writing. He’s probably the best emailing president we’ve ever had. 🙂

And that’s the problem. If we consider the 4:1 ratio of extroverts to introverts, then applied generally, 75% of Congress are extroverts and they are the majority that want a face-to-face sit-down with President Obama to hammer out an agreement (not to mention that, except for President Jimmy Carter, who was probably as strongly introverted as President Obama, this is how Washington has traditionally gotten things done at the end of the day).

And this is why former President Bill Clinton represents the key to the solution. President Clinton is clearly an extrovert on the strong-to-extreme end of the spectrum.  I suspect this “polar opposites” temperament difference between President Obama and him has been why there are constant suggestions that the two men don’t like eachPresident-Bill-Clinton other and their relationship has seemed frosty at best.

The fact is that President Clinton doesn’t understand President Obama, temperamentally, and President Obama, while he understands President Clinton temperamentally, can’t wrap his head around embracing it or doing it.

There’s another possible component that may explain the seeming distance between the presidents. As a strong-to-extreme extrovert, President Clinton most likely (and some of his personal behavior lends credibility to this) has no concept of personal space and physical (not visible, but discernible) boundaries – both of which are important and critical to introverts.

And I guarantee you that President Clinton has unknowingly invaded President Obama’s personal space and ignored his physical boundaries way too many times, and President Obama’s response, which is an introvert response, has been to literally and figuratively back up to create a safe distance – for him – between the two men. That’s the heart of the dynamic you can see going on between these two presidents, who probably don’t really dislike each other, but are in totally different universes temperamentally.

But Joe Scarborough, who is also a strong extrovert, is right in pointing to President Clinton as someone from whom President Obama needs to draw on his playbook to get anything accomplished. This means President Obama, who has been time and again characterized as “leading from behind,” which is what INTJ’s typically do, needs to get out of his comfort zone. The reality is that President Obama doesn’t see a need to do this and doesn’t think it’s going to accomplish anything. He knows that he will be at a disadvantage in the verbalization part of the process.

But, if President Obama doesn’t do these face-to-face small group and individual meetings with members of both parties – understanding that 75% of Congress needs to talk to him and be heard (listening is one of his strengths) and also understanding that it is okay to say “I want to think about what you’ve said and let’s meet again to discuss it” to offset his fear of being put on the spot – then he’s not going to be able to garner the support he needs to meet the country’s goals and objectives legislatively.

And that’s where quintessential leadership comes in. One of the defining characteristics of a quintessential leader is being able to understand what other people need and being able to find ways to accommodate those needs in a way that is win-win for everyone. It doesn’t mean being a chameleon, nor does it mean being insincere. It also doesn’t mean compromising principles, integrity, authenticity, or ethics. But it does mean moving, taking the necessary steps first to meet others halfway, and having the confidence in your understanding, discernment, and experience to ensure that the right and best possible outcome will be achieved.