When confronted with the press of time and events, the balanced leader will tend to mobilize their activism, creating proposals to meet these challenges. They will deploy their own pragmatism (or the pragmatism of others in their team) when expediency would save the day and would gain the organization some time and money to regroup and redirect its efforts. While the temptation is to become quite extraverted and Ruby Red under these conditions, it is critical that someone remains active inside the tent taking in feedback from the environment in its response to the pragmatic initiative of those leading in front of the tent. Those inside the tent (often introverted Golden Yellows getting a nudge from introverted Ruby Reds) will then devise alternative actions, based on the feedback, and hand these suggestions to the extraverted leaders who are in command. Contemporary models of organizational agility often require an active staff located inside the tent. Disastrous agility (“flailing about”) is found in organizations where the tent is empty.
The balanced Rainbow person is someone who will adapt to changing conditions by moving through all three domains and consulting often-introverted folks residing inside the tent. By contrast, the extreme extraverted realist will attempt to collect information even when the environment is unchanging or will rely on those working inside the tent who are fully embedded in Golden Yellow analyses. In this way, extreme realists will contribute to the resistance of this environment to change.
Similarly, the extreme idealist will daydream not only under conditions of relative stability, where a shake-up would be beneficial, but also under conditions of rapid change and instability. The idealist under stress retreats to an alternative, safer world when he or she should be confronting the current situation. When operating with an extraverted attitude, the extreme idealist will often rely too much on the perspective and practices of introverted Azure Blues who are “dreaming up” new projects inside the tent while attending very little to what is occurring outside the tent or to the analyses provided by their introverted Golden Yellow colleagues inside the tent. In being indifferent to reality, the extreme idealist will add to the instability of the environment and to its unpredictability.
The extreme activist will respond with hasty actions even when there is no pressing time or events. She or he (more frequently) will even create multiple crises where there are none in order to justify precipitous action. All introverted (and extraverted) messages delivered from inside the tent are ignored. Extraversion reigns supreme. The failure inherent in the activist’s haste may, in turn, produce a real crisis that makes activism appear to be appropriate. An extraverted-enhanced self-reinforcing crisis-management mentality is produced. Under such conditions, the introverts of all three preferences often remain silent even if they are invited to send messages through the tent flap. They are inclined to sit back, waiting for the defeat or disaster, and waiting for the moment to say, “I knew this was going to happen!” They might declare, “I told you so,” even if the only conversation they had occurred inside their own introverted brain and heart.
Put quite simply, all four of the extreme preferences tend to be ineffective in some settings and to create more problems than they solve. They often involve miscommunication or a lack of communication between those with an extraverted and introverted attitude. Extraversion must be balanced against introversion. Reflection must be balanced against action. The period of reflection must provide opportunities for both the collection of new information and the clarification of intentions. An effective balancing and integration of reflection and action requires that action produce and be based on information, that action informs and clarifies intentions, and that reflection leads to decision and action.
