Is Proactive the same as Extraverted?

Thinking Styles and Personality Theories

Thinking styles are assumed to be variable and dependent on the situation. This differs significantly from “personality,” which is traditionally viewed as stable across time and context. Lately, I have begun to wonder whether the concept of personality does more harm than good—a topic I will address elsewhere. For now, I will simply say: give Uncle John four glasses of whiskey and see just how stable his “personality” remains.

Despite these differences, thinking styles share similarities with the types, traits, or factors found in personality theories. When searching for relationships between thinking styles and concepts in mainstream science, we inevitably enter the realm of personality.

Clarification by Contrast

The benefit of describing the similarities and differences between thinking styles and personality or behavioral traits is that it clarifies our definitions through contrast. I have begun this process for a scientific article on MindSonar.

Theory, Concept, and Measurement

Why is this clarification necessary? To communicate with the scientific community, we must explain the origins of our concepts (in this case, thinking styles or meta-programs). The scientific model for psychological measurement typically follows these steps:

  1. Establish a theory.

  2. Derive traits or qualities from that theory.

  3. Measure those traits.

  4. Use statistics to evaluate the measurement’s validity.

For example, if your theory is that high sugar consumption makes people nervous, you derive the concept of “nervousness” and devise an instrument, such as a questionnaire, to measure it. If the statistics show the measurement is ineffective, you return to the theory to refine the approach.

NLP is Not a Theory

Here we encounter an obstacle: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)—the conceptual origin of the thinking styles we measure—is not a theory. NLP is a collection of presuppositions, skills, and techniques derived from observing effective therapists rather than from scientific theorizing. Consequently, when communicating with scientists, we lack a traditional theory to explain why our thinking style concepts are significant.

The origins of our thinking styles have largely been lost to time. In NLP, sequences of sensory experiences (“inner strategies”) were originally referred to as mental “programming.” Occasionally, patterns common to several strategies were noted; these patterns were “meta” to the mental programming, hence the name “meta-programs.” NLP literature offers no explicit definitions, theories on their importance, or explanations of how they relate to other concepts. These distinctions were popular in the California therapy and personal growth culture of the 1980s, representing the “crowd wisdom” of that era. They were assimilated into NLP by Richard Bandler and later formalized by Leslie Cameron-Bandler (1985).

Comparing Thinking Styles to Mainstream Science

Since we cannot rely on a founding theory, we must instead take concepts from mainstream science and explain how our thinking styles compare.

Proactive vs. Reactive

In mainstream science, Bateman and Crant (1999) describe “proactive behavior” as “intentionally and directly changing things in an intended direction.” While they describe the absence of this behavior, they do not provide a specific label for the opposite of proactive.

Similarities and Differences:

  • Initiative: Both Bateman and Crant and our thinking styles highlight taking initiative as a core element.

  • Focus: Bateman and Crant focus on behavior; our thinking styles focus on patterns of cognition and experience.

  • Outcome: Bateman and Crant include the result in their definition (“change things for the better”). Our thinking styles do not assume a positive outcome; proactive behavior can lead to negative results (e.g., someone proactively lighting a fire for warmth but accidentally burning the house down).

  • Categorization: Bateman and Crant include several behaviors under “proactivity” that we categorize as separate thinking styles:

    1. “Scanning for opportunities” is categorized as Options. One can scan for opportunities without ever acting.

    2. “Setting change-oriented goals” is categorized as Towards and Change.

    3. “Doing things differently” is categorized under Change or Development.

  • Neutrality: Bateman and Crant strongly favor proactivity. In our system, the opposite is Reactive (needing more time/information before acting). We assume reactivity has distinct advantages, such as preventing a company from going bankrupt through impulsive spending.

The Big Five

The Five-Factor Model (Big Five) is a trait-oriented personality typology based on common language descriptors (Saucier and Goldberg, 1996). The factors are:

  1. Openness to experience (Inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)

  2. Conscientiousness (Efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless)

  3. Extraversion (Outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)

  4. Agreeableness (Friendly/compassionate vs. challenging/detached)

  5. Neuroticism (Sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident)

Extraversion and Proactivity

The Extraversion/Introversion factor is most closely related to Proactive/Reactive thinking styles. It is defined as the tendency to seek stimulation from others and talkativeness (Lebowitz, 2016a). Extroverts are prone to action, while introverts are more reflective and introspective.

Similarities and Differences:

  • Reflection: Both models define Introverted/Reactive as more introspective and thoughtful.

  • Action: Both see Extraverted/Proactive as being prone to action over contemplation.

  • Energy: Both see Extraverted/Proactive as drawing energy from overt activity.

  • Context: A key difference is that Extraversion is focused on social interaction, whereas Proactive/Reactive thinking applies to any context. For example, opening a door can be done proactively (turning the handle immediately) or reactively (analyzing the lock first).

  • Specificity: Extraversion includes a broad set of traits that we would code as separate thinking styles. “Sociable” is coded as People, “Friendly” as Matching + People, and “Assertive” as Proactive + Towards + Internal Reference. This makes Extraversion a much broader, less specific category than the “Proactive” thinking style.