Hire Neurotics Instead of Extroverts Think Again!

Hire Neurotics Instead of Extroverts Think Again Are neurotics really better team players than extroverts? If so, should they really, as has recently been widely claimed, be given preference in hiring for team-based jobs? According to a very eye-catching UCLA Today report, Extroverts Promise, but Neurotics Deliver as Team Players and a Forbes article that agreed with the conclusions of a study conducted by associate professor Corinne Bendersky, UCLA Anderson School of Management study, they are and they should. That 2012 study, The Downfall of Extraverts and Rise of Neurotics The Dynamic Process of Status Allocation in Task Groups, compared changes in perceived status of project participants scoring high for extraversion ( a.k.a. extroversion) with changes for those with high neuroticism scores. The research discovered that, over time, the outgoing, center-of-attention, take-charge extroverts expe rienced a decline in status in the eyes of their co-participants, while the neurotics enjoyed higher performance-status ratings.Forbes picked up on the study and ran an equally eye-catching article titled Leadership Tip Hire the Quiet Neurotic, Not the Impressive Extrovert. On the assumption that the organizational and project bottom line is work-performance results, Forbes seemed to conclude that, as a minimum, neuroticsor more precisely, those with high neuroticism Big-5 Factor personality ratings, are elend only more suitable for team projects, but also should be preferred in hiring. (But, we have to be careful, because a high neuroticism score can co-exist with a high extroversion score. More on this below.)Why are the quiet neurotics trumpeted as the better choice? Because despite their tendency (as implicitly defined and reported, in the UCLA Today article) to- often feel tense and guilty- be more cautious and risk-averse- sometimes (display) a lot of worrying and grumbling t hat can irritate everyone involvedthey are, Professor Bendersky said, plagued by an anxiety of not wanting to disappoint peers and colleagues, adding, Because of that, neurotics are motivated to work really hard, especially in group contexts. Of course, apart from the crucial question of where this specific anxiety about disappointing colleagues fits into the Big-5 definition of neuroticism, this raises the additional question of why neurotics, as opposed to everyone else or especially, would not want to disappoint peers and colleagues. Or is anyone who doesnt want to disappoint colleagues a neurotic?My workplace experience suggests quite the opposite, that neurotic obstruction, neurotic hostility, neurotic passive-aggressiveness and neurotic detachment are quite common. The same experience suggests that while some neurotics are quiet, many, e.g., the neurotically demanding ones, are anything but that. (So, is Forbes recommending hiring neurotics, period, or just the quiet ones?)Not e my judgment is based on (a) some commonsense notion of neurotic that coworkers would employ in describing other coworkers as such (b) my own understanding of the term, with an emphasis on a definition of neuroticism as the tendency to engage in self-defeating or conflicted behavior motivated by both (unconscious) fear and desire to reveal ones fears and desires and to achieve contradictory ends or using employing means incompatible with ones ends. (As I see it, a neurosis is like a broken, worn broom used to sweep up bits of itself, thereby generating more broken, frayed bits to be swept up. Otherwise, its like a broom you are expected to use but never get dirty.)Not so Fast Without even characterizing the corresponding pluses and minuses of extroverts, it is important to hit the pause button and stop to think a bit more deeply about all of this before jumping on the pro-neurotic hiring bandwagon. Even the most basic reflection suggests wed better be cautiousfor a number of reason s1. 1. Within the Big 5-Factor personality model, the opposite of an extrovert is NOT a neurotic. Introvert isat the opposite end of an extraversion (a.k.a. extroversion) continuum. On one common Big-5 characterization of extraversion it designates a trait that includes characteristics such as excitability, sociability, talkativeness, assertiveness and high amounts of emotional expressiveness. On the other hand, Big-5 neuroticism designates the propensity for individuals to experience negative emotions in response to adverse conditions such as frustrations, losses, or the prospect of frustrations or losses. The negative emotional responses associated with neuroticism include anger, depression, anxiety, envy, guilt, and shame. (Clinical Psychiatry News) Notice, theres no Forbes-ish mention of quiet here.Read unterstellung two characterizations again, very closely. They are not incompatible so, a candidate could score high in both of the extroversion and neuroticism personality dim ensions. So, why on Earth cant a talkative, highly sociable, assertive and emotionally expressive extrovert/extravert also tend to experience a lot of negative emotions?This negativity characteristic is the cardinal neurotic trait in the DSM manual, the American Psychiatric Associations (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which, in DSM-5, will replace neuroticism with negative affectivityin effect, making all negative feelings prima facie neurotic. This shift will make the Big-5 neuroticism dimension somewhat anachronistic, if not problematic or at least confusing, while still remaining silent about any notion that neurotics are quiet. So, the HR manager who imagines (s)he has to choose between an extrovert and a neurotic, or that the neurotic is a quiet or nervous introvert, is mistaken. In fact, because extraversion and neuroticism are defined as personality dimensions that are independent of each other, a candidate could easily score high on both the extr aversion and neuroticism scales, i.e., could be BOTH very extraverted and neurotic. Above all, being neurotic is not synonymous or necessarily strongly correlated with being as quiet, withdrawn, shy, self-effacing, nervous, guilt-ridden, cautious or risk averse as the popular reports extolling the neurotic candidate have suggested. They seem to have confused neuroticism with introversion or a nervous temperament.2. 2. There are competing Big-5 concepts of neuroticism. Association of neuroticism with introversion may be somewhat forgivable, since it also appears that even with respect to how neuroticism is used in the Big 5-Factor model, definitions of it vary from one Big-5 study to another. To the extent that such variability can create confusion, it is not surprising that the concept gets spun in ways it shouldnt. In particularand I repeat, strictly speaking, neuroticism should not be confused with introversion in any Big-5 Factor-based study, since these are, on ANY interpretati on of each, defined as two completely different dimensions of personality. Likewise, tension, which is indeed closely allied with nervousness, is not obviously uniquely correlated with only neuroticism.Worse, at least one allegedly Big-5 questionnaire, the BBC Big 5-based test had no neuroticism dimension at all, having replaced it with confidence3. There are other interpretations, including psychoanalytic, which define neuroticism quite divergently, as- a tendency to experience emotional instability, anxiety, moodiness, irritability, and sadness (Big-5, Wikipedia)- a tendency toward a mental or personality disturbance not attributable to any known neurological or organic dysfunction(Princeton University)-an unstable compromise formation between fears, desires, instincts and/or conscience, that is emotionally, sexually, psychosomatically, socially or professionally handicapping without psychosis and disconnection from reality (Freudian)- a tendency toward psychological suffering inv olving unconscious inner conflicts partiallydetermined by cultural factors (psychoanalyst Karen Horney)Notice that not one of the Big-5 or other definitions mentions risk aversion as a trait associated with neuroticism, even though the UCLA report and some of the available Big-5 questionnaires I looked at did, either explicitly or implicitly. (However, to the extent that one subplatzset of neuroses, the irrational phobias, comprises neurotic and irrational risk-aversions, they can serve as illustrations of neurotic risk aversiveness, without any presumption that ALL neuroticism involves pronounced risk aversion.)Vigilance vs. Risk AversionMoreover, even when risk aversion is mentioned in connection with neuroticism and the Big-5, as it was in a The Atlantic article that reported that high neuroticism scores combined with high conscientiousness scores correlate with better health, an important distinction between risk aversion and vigilance gets blurred, if not ignored. The importanc e of not confusing vigilance and risk aversion can be established this way The case of a high-risk equities day trader who will be very vigilant once (s)he boldly buys a volatile stock illustrates how these differ. He (s)he displays vigilance perfectly, but distinctly blended with a high risk tolerance. At a high-flying Wall Street brokerage, a young turk broker may be considered for a position on the basis of his vigilance, but passed over if too risk averse. So, if you are hiring, which matters to you more risk aversion or vigilance? Or both? If you think you are hiring a neurotic, which of these two very different traits will you expect to see displayed on the job, if either? 3. 4. The studies, or at least the reports about them, dont seem to distinguish perceived status of neurotics from deserved status. Every employer should be concerned about both the perceived and deserved status of every employee on a team. High perceived status, i.e., the rank of an employee in the eyes of coworkers (and maybe the employer himself), is important for morale however, deserved status is a critical correlate of actual productivity and performance.It is quite possible that a neurotic may have a high(er) perceived status at the end of a project only because expectations of his or her performance were set too low at the outset, whereas an extrovert is more likely to be initially overrated and therefore disappointeven if his objective level of performance is the same as the neurotics.Hypothetically speaking, it is possible for there to be zero objective difference in performance between a given extrovert and a neurotic (however one chooses to define either of these) over the course of a project, yet for there also to be a dramatic improvement in the status rankings of the neurotic and decline for the extrovert. However, although that improvement is only relative to expectation and measurable only in terms of perceived status, it might be a hiring plus if morale counts more th an actual job productivity. On the other hand, if deserved status is what needs to be gauged, the illusions of biased expectation should be ignored. The Real Big-5As for the apparent superiority of neurotics to extroverts, The UCLA Today report closed with this In terms of the studys practical takeaway, In no way does this suggest that we should not be staffing teams with extroverted people or only with neurotic people, Bendersky said. That is correct, but probably mostly because 1. Extroversion and neuroticism are not mutually exclusive personality dimensions or types.2. Definitions and characterizations of neuroticism are not consistent enough from one study or researcher to another to support any uniform prediction, explanation or employment application of the conclusions reported in the media. 3. The alleged assets neurotics allegedly bring to a job, e.g., anxiety about disappointing colleagues, do not seem as clearly related to the official Big-5 definitions of neuroticism as t hey should be to warrant any specific hiring bias, priority or decision based on the concept. In the mass media, the concept of neuroticism has been embellished and distorted in order to sensationalize it or as a result of misunderstanding it.4. The reports fail to distinguish productivity benefits of hiring a neurotic, i.e., deserved status, from morale benefits (albeit with some productivity implications) of perceived status. 5. Any definition of neuroticism that makes neurotics look like a better bet is quite divergent from most mainstream and traditional definitions, e.g., psychoanalytic. Even if the Big-5 concept of neuroticism in any way favored the hiring of neurotics, it is, in fact, being abandoned as a personality dimension and disorder by the AMA and recast as negative affectivity (bad feelings).Bottom line If you insist on making hiring decisions about extroverts and neurotics based on the Big 5make it the preceding five big warnings.