7 lessons for managing groups in the exponential economy learned from the elections

[Crossposted at SpreadingScience]

by Jeff Rowley Big Wave Surfer

How Team Obama’s tech efficiency left Romney IT in dust
[Via Ars Technica]

Despite running a campaign with about twice the money and twice the staff of Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, President Barack Obama’s campaign under-spent Romney’s on IT products and services by $14.5 million, putting the money instead into building an internal tech team. Based on an Ars analysis of Federal Election Commission filings, the Obama campaign, all-inclusive, spent $9.3 million on technology services and consulting and under $2 million on internal technology-related payroll.

The bottom line is that the Obama campaign’s emphasis on people over capital and use of open-source tools to develop and operate its sophisticated cloud-based infrastructure ended up actually saving the campaign money. As Scott VanDenPlas, lead DevOps for Obama for America put it in an e-mail interview with Ars, “A lesson which we took to heart from 2008 [was that] operational efficiency is an enormous strategic advantage.”

The Romney campaign spent $23.6 million on outside technology services—most of it on outside “digital media” consulting and data management. It outsourced most of its basic IT operations, while the Obama campaign did the opposite—buying hardware and software licenses, and hiring its own IT department. Just how much emphasis the Obama campaign put on IT is demonstrated by the fact that the campaign’s most highly paid staff member was its CIO, Michael Slaby, with an annualized salary of about $130,000.

[More]

Failures can be as important as successes in an exponential economy. A useful failure can inform more than some successes. The lower barriers that an exponential economy produces means that failure only presents short term costs that can be rapidly dealt with by longer term successes.

That is, a failure does not necessarily doom an effort, if that failure can be rapidly leveraged to get to success. If you wipe out, but learn from it, then when the next wave comes along, you’ll stay on top of it.

In an exponential economy, there is always another wave to successfully surf.

If, that is, the organization can understand how to manage and utilize the advantages that an exponential economy produces. Here are 7 points to consider.

Interestingly, the Obama campaign hired its IT people internally and used external infrastructure. The Romney campaign hired its IT people externally but created internal infrastructure. That seems to have made a big difference.

The Obama group attracted people interested in  a start-up environment that was also a short-term commitment – it would all be over the day after the election. Romney contracted with data consultants and such in organizations that would live on afterwards.

To one, the election was a one-shot attempt at success while for the others it was just one more notch in their consulting gun.

The former really seemed to attract a disrupter mentality much more, one who really liked finding ways around the limitations that were placed in their way, rather than a type that could just find billable hours.

“Campaigns are serious tests of your creativity and foresight,” VanDenPlas explained. “They are unpredictable, agile, and short—an 18 month, $1 billion, essentially disposable organization. Hackers can thrive in an environment like that, to a point where I’m not sure anyone else really can. Everything is over far too quickly to get boring.”

1) Hire the right type of employees. Do not hire doers when disruptors are needed. And vice versa.

Using Amazon Web Services, instead of building their own servers, allowed the Obama for America group to pay for just the amount of server space they needed, when they needed it. They could expand into servers in different regions of the US in order to reduce loads and latency. Romney had everything route to one location, which crashed.

2) Leverage the exponential economy for services and infrastructure. Better to be smart rather than perfect. Better to seek adaptability over control.

Obama for America put their money into people, not into hardware. They spent twice as much money as Romney but also had twice the staff. They actually underspent Romney on IT services and hardware.

This is what the exponential economy does  – the cost for things becomes cheaper. A smart organization puts the savings into people, which cannot be easily replaced by digital processes.

By finding the right people and paying them for being the right people, Obama for America produced over 200 apps in an 18 month period, using just about every Open Source approach that is around.

3) Use the savings from the exponential economy to pay for the best people, not for the cheapest. 

And they used their community for help:

The human factor in monitoring is huge. There are countless incidents where (OFA User Support Director) Brady Kriss notified us of pending problems derived from community help tickets.”

Romney’s group kept ORCA a secret  – such a secret that no one wants to claim they even worked on it – and did only small amounts of testing  before it was needed. They completely lost the advantage of having crowds to help perfect the apps.

Crowd feedback is important. Lots of testing and resilience is needed to create large numbers of solid apps. The fundraising segment, for example,  was “a multi-region, geolocated, three facility processor capable of a per second transaction count sufficiently high enough that we failed to be able to reach it in load testing. It could also operate if every other dependent service had failed, including its own database and every vendor.”

This complexity can only be reached after actual testing by users.

4) Get your products into the actual hands of actual people as soon as possible. They are best able to find problems.

Redundancy and adaptability go hand in hand. For example, the Obama crew created an app whose only job was to take ‘snaphots’ of the Obama for America website. If a server failed, and the site could no longer dynamically create web pages, the static ‘pictures’ could be used in the interim.

Or, more amazingly, they dealt with Hurricane Sandy, which had severe impacts with people using East Coast server farms, by replicating a complete and functional copy of their whole infrastructure on West Coast servers in 24 hours!

5) Use the benefits of the exponential economy to create resilient and redundant systems. If the price has dropped 5-fold, then you can build two systems and still save money.

The Obama campaign spent over $1 million hosting the website  that was accessible to the world. It gave a quarter of that to Amazon for hosting its own internally developed IT.

Romney’s campaign gave a single IT consulting company over $17 million  and another $16.6 million to another,  Obama for America spent $3.6 million on IT consulting to 36 different  companies.

The Innovator’s Dilemma describes how a $50,000 contract to a small group can produce much more focussed work and innovative solutions than even a $500,000 contract to a large group. They care about it more because it matters more to their bottom line.

6) Spread the work around. It is more likely to produce successful solutions than one big contract. It certainly can cost less.

And finally, 

“This is the difference,” VanDenPlas said, “between a well run professional machine and a gaggle of amateurs, posing in true Rumsfeldian fashion, who ‘don’t know what they don’t know.’ I would be shocked if such a chasm exists next cycle between the parties—these aren’t mistakes to be repeated if you want to do things like win elections.”

Because of the lower barriers to entry, and the rapidity by which successful processes can disseminate throughout society, everyone catches up quickly. You cannot expect that coming up with something first will provide much of a long term advantage.

The way to stay ahead is to have the right mixture of people cranking the DIKW cycle as fast as possible. As long as your organization can move that cycle faster and smarter than others, you will stay on top of the wave.

7)  Continuing rapid cycle development is crucial. Any advantage to accrues to disruptive innovators rapidly disappears, as others follow the path to success.

It is impossible to successfully ride every wave of change. But, creating and managing for the exponential economy can produce an organization scores well when the monster waves arrive.

How Google is hurting small businesses

by Alan Cleaver

The Fast Unravelling Web: Here’s Why Google Is Killing The Hyperlink
[Via Xeni @ Blogging.la]

There is something extraordinary taking place. Google’s war on spam sites is tipping the online world upside down and now threatens that most fundamental element of the world wide web: the hyperlink. There is a massive erasure underway of millions of links and it will only accelerate.

The communications lines are the spider’s silk but it’s the links that make the structure of the web. But because of Google’s battle with spammers, the hyperlink could disappear in its current form, and become a commercial product that’s bought and sold, instead of earned fair and square.

Let me explain:

[More]

Google has been trying to deal with spam sites that game their system using an algorithm called Panda. But their attempts may actually work the other way, allowing companies to hurt their competitors rather than help themselves.

So now it becomes dangerous for a company site to use ANY hyperlinks.

There’s now very little incentive for anyone to link to other sites, and all types of risks if you do. Consider this: If Google determines that the site you’ve linked to is spam-like in any way, you might be tainted as selling paid-for links — which is forbidden by Google.

Or, if you enjoy a high rank from Google because other sites have linked to you for pure reasons, but now those sites are measured by Panda to be low quality, you could be in trouble.

If Google ranks your site a low quality site, you could possibly extort  cash from other sites by threatening to lnk to them. Being liked to by a low quality iste can lower your site’s ranking, possible destroying th business.

“Say, you’ve got a nice web site here. Be a shame if some poor quality site linked to it. I can make sure that does not happen if you pay for it.”

This can be horrendous for small businesses that are more susceptible to the tactics of its competitors. Plus, Google gives preferential treatment to large, name brand companies, putting them up at the top of searches.

Google seems to be placing large brands on a greater footing than smaller companies and actually making it harder for small companies to break into the top. Increasing the barriers to entry is not something we would expect from Google but it seems like it might be a possibility.

Some people are not as supportive as Sally Ride’s family

Hard to watch someone deal with the grief of a loved one. A year later it lead to this video. Within a month it was a Kickstarter project for a documentary.

When the funding drive ended, more money had been raised for the film than for any other movie project on Kickstarter.

Maybe tit will lead to fewer people like Tom’s parents.

New science publishing model

New front in “open access” science publishing row
[Via Reuters: Science News]

LONDON (Reuters) – The genteel but lucrative world of academic publishing is being stirred up by a dispute over who pays for and who profits from scientific research funded largely by taxpayers.

[More]

The name of the journal is PeerJ and the people behind it are pretty good.

The only ones who pay are the authors and the amount varies from a lifetime membership of $99 for one paper a year (for grad students) to $259 for unlimited publications (for lab heads). Every author has to be a member and you can wait until acceptance before buying the membership (although at a slightly higher price).

It allows the lab head to create group plans so they can make sure all their personnel are covered.

But once they have had one paper accepted and published, they never have to pay again. Ever. All they have to do is help the community of researchers by doing one review a year – the review could be peer review or simply commenting on another paper. In this way, they are providing incentives for everyone to maintain connections with the whole group they are creating.

And once you have paid a lifetime membership, you have an incentive to publish more here rather than pay to publish elsewhere.

In one swoop they are providing open access, cheaper publication costs and capture of a huge community. Once someone publishes here, it will be cheaper to continue publishing. And one joins a community of other authors who have reasons for continuing contact.

The incentives are all there if they can create the most important thing – a high impact journal.

I’ve signed up as a reader which is free and plan on supporting this effort as much as possible. Researchers want people to see their work. They also want to have it published in a journal which will help their career. If PeerJ can do both, it will conquer all.

What happens when a free market libertarian meets the real world?

by twak

Four signs America’s broadband policy is failing
[Via Ars Technica]

In 2008, I wrote a paper for the Cato Institute questioning the need for network neutrality regulations; I argued that the Internet’s decentralized architecture made it inherently resistant to mischief by broadband incumbents. While I’m still skeptical about the wisdom of network neutrality regulations, I’ve become more concerned about the state of the broadband market in the four years since writing that paper. In a March article for National Affairs, I made a case for regulatory action to prevent further consolidation of the largest broadband firms.

What changed my thinking was less the theoretical arguments set out in that piece than it was a sequence of developments in the telecom marketplace. It forced me to reexamine my own assumptions about the state of the broadband market. Here are the four most important.

The Berkman broadband report

Telecom policy wonks have held a long-running debate about how the United States stacks up against other nations when it comes to Internet access. In 2009, a team led by Yochai Benkler at Harvard’s Berkman Center produced a voluminous report on the subject which found that broadband service in the United States was distinctly mediocre.

[More]

Nice to see him change his mind when he moves out of the white tower of the Cato Institute and white papers into what is actually happening. Funny how the real market so seldom operates in the  hypothetical manner espoused by most libertarians.

Many libertarians retreat further into the Cargo Cult world they have created rather than admit a mistake and recognize the real world operates quite differently that their imagined one.

The US is falling further and further behind other countries in its networks. Because there are really very little market forces to make this happen here. Pursuing this course has not helped us compared to the rest of the world.

Cable and telecomes are perfectly willing to cede large swaths of America to the other. That way they can save money by not having to build out their network and actually compete. They can keep the prices high in the areas they serve, control data in ways to get around net neutrality and make a bundle. Why expand into competitive markets?

And there does not seem to be a competing technology on the way that can compete with both cable or the telecoms. Until there is, each will be happy with its fiefdom of customers to gut.

With pragmatic, both sides win

by dwhartwig

Right versus pragmatic
[Via Marco.org]

At a previous job, the shared men’s bathroom for the floor was laid out like this:

(Please excuse my drawing skills.)

When we were done doing our business, this is the path we’d take:

Many people don’t like touching bathroom doorknobs after washing their hands. (Understandable.) But some of them dislike it so much that they’ll take their paper towel over to the door, turn the knob with it, and throw it on the floor while exiting.

By the end of the day, there would be paper towels all over the floor by the door.

[More]

Telling people the right thing to do is to use the trash can does not solve the problem. Putting up notes telling them to do the right thing does not solve the problem.

The users believe they have their own ‘right’ reasons for doing what they do. This sets up the classic zero-sum game – for one side to be right and to win, the other side has to be shown to be wrong and to lose.

While, if they just moved the waste bin over by the door, everyone wins – a non-zero, positive sum solution.

One thing people need to do is to look at whether the situation is best resolved by making one group a winner and one group a loser, or whether both groups winning is better.

Perhaps the media companies might realize that calling their biggest fans pirates and loser may not be a winning strategy. Perhaps a more pragmatic solution would work better.

Unfortunately, these corporations act as pragmatically as Theodoric of York. Bleeding, leaches, boiled sheep’s urine and wormings. That sounds about their level of understanding.

Why do groups care more about workers in China than they do for workers in the US?

by Garments and Alterations

Miserable working conditions in ecommerce packing facilities
[Via Boing Boing]

Mother Jones‘s Mac McClelland goes underground at an unnamed ecommerce packing facility in a rural American town and reports on the terrible, back-breaking working conditions that are compounded by continuous verbal abuse, unsafe working conditions, mandatory overtime, and humiliating disciplinary procedures.

At lunch, the most common question, aside from “Which offensive dick-shaped product did you handle the most of today?” is “Why are you here?” like in prison. A guy in his mid-20s says he’s from Chicago, came to this state for a full-time job in the city an hour away from here because “Chicago’s going down.” His other job doesn’t pay especially well, so he’s here—pulling 10.5-hour shifts and commuting two hours a day—anytime he’s not there. One guy says he’s a writer; he applies for grants in his time off from the warehouse. A middle-aged lady near me used to be a bookkeeper. She’s a peak-season hire, worked here last year during Christmas, too. “What do you do the rest of the year?” I ask. “Collect unemployment!” she says, and laughs the sad laugh you laugh when you’re saying something really unfunny. All around us in the break room, mothers frantically call home. “Hi, baby!” you can hear them say; coos to children echo around the walls the moment lunch begins. It’s brave of these women to keep their phones in the break room, where theft is so high—they can’t keep them in their cars if they want to use them during the day, because we aren’t supposed to leave the premises without permission, and they can’t take them onto the warehouse floor, because “nothing but the clothes on your backs” is allowed on the warehouse floor (anything on your person that Amalgamated sells can be confiscated—”And what does Amalgamated sell?” they asked us in training. “Everything!”). I suppose that if I were responsible for a child, I would have no choice but to risk leaving my phone in here, too. But the mothers make it quick. “How are you doing?” “Is everything okay?” “Did you eat something?” “I love you!” and then they’re off the phone and eating as fast as the rest of us. Lunch is 29 minutes and 59 seconds—we’ve been reminded of this: “Lunch is not 30 minutes and 1 second”—that’s a penalty-point-earning offense—and that includes the time to get through the metal detectors and use the disgustingly overcrowded bathroom—the suggestion board hosts several pleas that someone do something about that smell—and time to stand in line to clock out and back in. So we chew quickly, and are often still chewing as we run back to our stations.

[More]

All sorts of folderol about Foxconn and China but none of them seemed to be a poorly treated as these American workers.

A previous article talked about the inhumane conditions at another warehouse. THey work them as temps and the can them shortly before they can become full time. The workers have to pay for their own (required) badges. They had to work in enclosed spaces without air conditioning in over 90 degree weather. And no talking.

This latest report details even more the things done. Mandatory overtime with two 15  minute breaks. Given goal impossible to meet and then harassed for not meeting them. Desperate 60 year olds trying to hold on their job along with twenty-somethings. Making about $300 a week after taxes.

I bet if this warehouse was in China, there would be all sorts of group working to make things better. We’d be seeing petition drives and TV programs during sweeps.  But here, these modern day sweat shops are simply ignored.

Perhaps if we started to take notice, things might change. Unless we care more about CHinese workers than our own.

We have seen this all before – graphically, if somewhat metaphorically, displayed in Fritz lang’s Classic, Metropolis.

Eighty years later and we are still learning the same lessons. Or, rather, not learning them. We still feed our young to Moloch, even while we complain about how awful China is.

It’s been 10 years

I started this blog 10 years ago. Time sure passes.

More Google evil as they abuse our privacy

by kevin dooley

Google reportedly ignoring Safari users’ privacy settings to better track its ads
[Via AppleInsider]

Google has joined other online advertisers in intentionally circumventing the privacy settings of desktop and iOS Safari users in an effort to better track their web browsing activity.

[More]

Intentionally circumventing the user’s privacy settings is not the work of a company that holds its customers in high regard. This is not something that was a mistake or oversight.

They did this on purpose without wanting anyone to know. Read this article which details how Target knew a teenage girl was pregnant – before her father knew –  and you will learn just how important access to this sort of information is.

Target knows they can make lifetime changes in people’s buying habits if they get to new parents. So knowing when new parents are happening is important. But knowing before al the other companies is even more important.

How much would target pay Google to get analytic data regarding maternity clothes page view? Or basinet? Or Lamaze classes?

You know they are doing it. Because Google’s true customer are the advertisers, not us. So if we get screwed but they get paid, well, that is just the cost of doing business.

WHen Google tells us they have stopped, why are we supposed to believe them? They have incentives – billions in cash – to mislead us.

I try to corrupt their databases – probably won’t work – but doing random types of searches, etc. That is just noise and they have algorithms for that.

But I know that the fact I just bought new gym cloths and a swim suit that Google now knows I am working out more. If I get some ads about gym memberships, I’ll know it was Google.

Kickstarter changing everything

On Kickstarter Two Projects Pass The $1 Million Mark In A Single Day
[Via American Times]

Kickstarter is trailblazing the future of crowdsourcing.

The site makes it possible for investors of all shapes and financial backgrounds to connect with creative types and innovators by allowing users to help fund projects that sound promising, interesting, or worthwhile.

And this has been a really good month for the Kickstarter team, as not one but two projects hit the $1 million mark last week.

In fact, last week the crowdfunding site had a bunch of good news.

[More]

$1 million in sales before a project is even completed. This turns on its head the standard method of making anything.

Instead of lining u all the design ideas, materials, and finance before a single product is made, Kickstarter allows all of that to be by passed in very direct ways. You only build the projects that are funded by your users. No need to worry about venture capital money at all.

After the first hit, the project leaders can think of selling their product to a larger company or keep doing it themselves. Allowing them to work on another project.

Bootstrapping allows people to create a sustainable income. Not everyone needs $1 million in revenue. Maybe only $100,000 would do.

we shall see how this type of app economy creates entire new economies, ones where some of the standard incentives found in capitalism are dispensed with.

Bypassing the media

NYT growing the wrong way
[Via Scripting News]

Henry Blodget and Kamelia Angelova wrote an inspiring piece in Business Insider about the “incredible shrinking New York Times.”

They inspired me to try to connect the dots for the Times management, once again. There is a solution to the puzzle, but it requires some radical redirection of attention.

Here are the dots.

Tumblr is hiring reporters to cover itself.

Reddit is doing a great interview of a NYT reporter who wrote a book about the Obama Administration. Brian Stelter, a reporter for the Times says it’s the best interview of her he’s seen. (She’s done a lot of interviews lately.)

Last weekend at a conference in NYC, Stelter said Sources Go Direct keeps him up at night.

[More]

These represent ways that people are getting news directly in ways they cannot in the news media.

The interview in Reddit for example, The best questions and responses get voted up. So starting from the top gives the best informaiton.

Now go look at a press conference from the ‘professional’ media. Stupid, repetitive questions that do not inform.

One way reveals the humanness of people. The other the banality.

No wonder modern media is crashing and burning.

A bill that could change the face of research publications

New bill would make open access to federal research mandatory
[Via Ars Technica]

For the last several years, research funded by the National Institutes of Health has been subject to its public access policy, which ensures that resulting research publications are made open access within a year of their publication. For almost as long, some members of Congress have been trying to overturn that policy, which some publishers fear will cut into their revenues. The latest attempt, the Research Works Act, was introduced in January, and would allow any publisher to keep papers in its journals from being made open access.

Today, some members of Congress have introduced a bill that would not only support the NIH policy, but expand it. The Federal Research Public Access Act is being introduced in both the House and Senate, with a bipartisan group of sponsors in each body. The act would significantly shorten the waiting period between publication in a subscription journal and the point where a paper is made open access, dropping it from a year to six months. It would also expand the scope of the policy, applying it to any federal agency with a budget of $100 million or more.

[More]

We are about to see a classic struggle between two different world views – one created in a world of information scarcity where acting as the gatekeeper permitted a billion dollar industry to grow and one created in a world of information surplus where the very idea of a paid gatekeeper is anathema.

The corporations and lobbyists will be one one side, trying to hold onto their old models and force research paid for by taxpayers to be hidden behind paywals (Papers I published 25 years ago are cost upwards of $30 to see. Crazy.)

But researchers are better served by the second approach. They want as many people as possible to see their work. They receive acclaim, reputation and tenure based on their work.

In the old days, some journals could survive because the number of pages printed a month by the premiere journals was limited. No more in the day of digital. If PLoS One – an Open Access journal –wants to publishh more papers, it just needs more server space.

Open access journals are where researchers will look to publish anyway. Let’s make it official.

Google continues to be evil, eviler even than Apple

Chutzpah: Google also wants 2.25% of every iPhone sale
[Via Brainstorm Tech: Technology blogs, news and analysis from Fortune Magazine » Apple 2.0]

It’s not enough that Google borrowed the phone’s look and feel to make Android?

From Google’s IEEE letter. Source: FOSS Patents. Click to enlarge.

It took a Techmeme news cycle for the import of Google’s (GOOG) letter to the IEEE — the nonprofit organization that sets technical standards for everything from AC/DC converters to Wi-Fi networks — to sink in.

[More]

I am sure this is a negotiating position. Google asks for 2.5% to get back at Apple’s suits but eventually gets much less.

But I think they overreached here – not only legally but with respect to their brand.

This is a ridiculous amount and goes against the entire idea of FRAND patents. They are supposed to be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Yet here they are being used in sharp discriminatory – and predatory – fashion. The whole point of FRAND patents is to allow standards to coalesce around them. Then companies can pay a lump amount rather than have to negotiate with each patent holder.

If, after companies use these standards they are then sued in such a fashion for using the very patents they were told to use, the entire patent system falls apart. Google is only going after Apple with this rate.

Now, Apple has billions to fight this It now, thanks to Google’s overreach, has an entire industry behind it. Samsung tried the same thing and the EU is now investigating them. The same thing will happen to Google.

But, this really hits Google with its brand. A year ago it famously came out against the use of patents in this predatory way. It was hailed as a leader for this.

Now it is simply just like every other company. In combination with its continuing devolution of search, I think Google has lost its way and could be in real trouble.

Best crowdsourced movie of the summer – Nazis from the Moon

Is Crowdsourcing The Future Of Film?
[Via American Times]

Filmmakers for the indie science fiction film Iron Sky utilized crowdsourcing to create and fund the picture.

Alex Knapp captions the above trailer for the yet-to-be-released film Iron Sky:

What makes Iron Sky particularly cool, in my opinion, is that despite its goofy, B-movie premise, the production values look to be top notch. And tons of the ideas, visuals, and other aspects of the film were all crowdsourced. Internet fans also provided about $1 million of the funding for the movie.

More like this please.

I still think the best Superbowl commercial was the one that Chevy crowdsourced.

[More]

I’ve written about the death of the movie industry because the barriers to entry are now so low. Here is a movie where crowdsourcing brought in a ton of financing.

And not only money but ideas and visuals. The actual creative content. Yeah, it is cheesy – great scriptwriters are worth a ton – but it is not meant to be great art.

Just a nice way to spend some time.

And at least this will be a movie not based on any sort of sequel or pre-sold book.

It does show how technology can now create great production values for much less money. The picture above is the movie poster. You can see how it was put together online also.

I wonder just how disruptive this movie will be. Considering it will get its world premiere in Berlin I expect to hear quite a bit about it. It has already sold out.

Quiet spaces

[Crossposted at SpreadingScience]

by ajari

Five Collaboration Tips from Introverts
[Via Greater Good]

In her new book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, attorney Susan Cain pits two starkly different work styles against each other. On one side, we have the pro-collaboration, open workspace plan camp. On the other, we have the solitude-is-good supporters clamoring to keep their offices. This debate on the best type of work style has important implications for workspace design and office environment. It also delves into fundamental questions about human nature. While we are social animals, drawn instinctively to work and cooperate with others, we are also territorial creatures who enjoy and guard our personal autonomy.

[More]

It is important to realize that extraverts should not dominate collaborative processes and that introverts need their space. Classically, extraverts need to speak in order to think. Introverts need quiet and time in order to think.Either does very poorly if kept fully in the other’s environment.