nature, such as being tasked to lead a newly formed working group to resolve potentially
contentious issues. His introverted personality was mentioned.
I’m a triple-I introvert by nature ... There’s no real room for willful
introversion ... I’m still naturally an introvert, but I can function in those
arenas ... where I can overcome the energy consumption that occurs when you put an introvert into a public arena. And at the end of the day, I might
be deprived, but I can do this now and I can be more than just functional.
I actually can be successful.
A5 recalled meaningful experiences in constructively working through two
iterations of complex negotiations on a sensitive, politically-charged topic. His
scientifically-oriented background revealed culturally challenging considerations in an EI
context:
I have the ideas. I talk about it with some colleagues but I do so in a very
guarded manner because I don’t want the word to get out that I’m thinking about this in this particular way, because somebody else might jump my
effort.
If somebody comes in with an idea, and the first thing you do is your scientist instinct – analyzing the idea – that’s not really (a) you didn’t
perceive why the person came to you with the idea in the first place,
second, you’re not likely to have that person feeling ready to charge and
take on the world.
Being mentored by someone who lacked technical expertise comparable to that of
A5 was a notable recollection.
He became the guy who let’s say took advantages, opportunities,
presented the opportunities to me and ... made it possible for me to take
advantage of the opportunities. It was never “thou shalt”. It was “why
don’t you think about this?” or “this popped across my desk yesterdawhat do you think about it?” kind of thing. y –
Participant A7. Participant A7 is a male working in the scientific community.
He noted the potential for high impact as a positive attribute of working in the Federal