|
|
|
|
|
|
by dhoulb
3167 days ago
|
|
|
There may be a place for those people — i.e. where a fast confident decision is actually better than a thoroughly discussed ‘correct’ decision. Those people, in my experience, are usually pretty comfortable taking big risks (on their spotty information), which can be useful. But if you’re the second kind of person, working with the first kind would be infuriating. So if long term happiness was your goal you’d probably want to work for organisations that encourage careful collaborative decision making. Basically, if you’ve recognised in yourself that you don’t like these people, avoid them (and places they’d be drawn to). I can’t think of any way you could ‘bring them down to size’, etc, that wouldn’t just bring more pain. |
|
|
That's horrible advice. OP should be encourage to be on the offensive regardless of position. Fighting for what you believe is true is the good fight, and it's ok to even fight it with more subversive/undeground tactics if you're not the extroverted type. And "more pain" can be a good thing regardless who experiences it. Just remember to fight back harder if things turn against you, and keep fighting until something/someone breaks (and if it's you that breaks, that's ok too, it means you needed the breaking and re-building). Pain helps people and organizations grow healthy.
It's the person who's leading the discussion and asking people about their skills who should adequately select for people either 'fast and confident' or 'deep and thorough' or 'collaborative and thorough'".
Also "careful collaborative decision making"... you can have "careful decision making" or "collaborative decision making" as very very separate kinds of doing things. One is the introvert loading up ideas and facts into his/her mind and letting them brew for a while until a solution is ready to be distilled and shared. The other is a group of amiable people thoroughly talking through the possibilities. If you prefer the former process, you might make better team with "fast and confident" people by completing their "lack of depth", than with the "never ending chatter" of a team of amiable group-thinkers.