I guess my attempt to stall while thinking deeply about the first question puts me in the caricature bin. I'll remember to lead with "yes" or "no" next time to seem more genuine...
> The other example is actually our CEO – I think that there is a certain caricature required for public appearances & earnings calls, but he sometimes seems to speak genuinely at company all-hands meetings
Dear Engineer. If you're not pattern matching him, he's pattern matching you.
I like this essay! I'll pull an arrow from my moderately large experience bag and note that the attempt to categorize people at work or elsewhere goes back a long time, at least pre-Machiavelli.
To my mind, the good thing about these categorizations is that there are so many of them, and when they're helpful, they are really helpful. Like when you can say: well they're an ENFJ, but an Enneagram 6 and high D, high I, and also they are resistant to follow-through, you've got lots of information, (useful or not is a second q)
I personally liked the "conduit" thoughts, I have worked with people like that many times, and mostly they REALLY annoy me. I tend to spend my energy teasing out micro-clues about what they really think, but I think you probably hit the nail on the head - the best way to engage is to use them to get a read on the lay of the land without expending the direct effort, and then if you can hold your nose and build up their rep in your org, you could use them to tell everyone else what's up.
As you go up in management ranks, it can actually be extraordinarily difficult to get real information about your organization, so they can be valuable there as well.
Anyway, great thoughts!
>Be fun. Come on.
I think this statement should be tacked onto many more articles / blog posts. While I don't know if the implications for this blog post makes sense with it, I can appreciate the sentiment and think more people would do well to drive it home.
Perhaps all these people are reluctant to share their actual personality and insights with people who “cleverly lob” tricky questions, “filter for potential friends” based on binary answers to binary questions, and think they’re being magnanimous when they avoid debate “kill-shots”.