Recognizing Others Through Business Chemistry “Tells”

In poker, the best players learn to look for clues that provide reliable information about their opponent's hand. These “tells,” as they're called, are helpful because they are consistently linked to a specific meaning. Players can deduce something about their opponent's game by observing their tells. Perhaps one person has an eye twitch whenever she's bluffing, or another person licks his lips when he has a strong hand. They may not always be right (people have been known to fake a tell to throw their opponent off), but overall a player's probability of being right is increased when he or she looks for, and acts upon, these indicators.

When it comes to working styles, similar principles apply. Certain observable behaviors are consistently linked to particular styles, and thus serve as useful clues as to a person's Business Chemistry type. In Chapters 3 through 6 we shared observable traits for each of the types; these can be key tells. Maybe you already feel confident you can spot a strong Pioneer by their spontaneous risk-taking, while an extreme Guardian will give themselves away with their meticulous and methodical approach.

We see this in action when we facilitate sessions with executives. Often we ask people to work with others of the same type to create a simple list of things they love at work and things that bug them. Over and over, the same themes emerge. Pioneers adore big ideas and abhor rules, while Guardians put structure on the good list and chaos on the bad. Drivers love winning and hate small talk, while Integrators embrace teaming and avoid conflict.

Yet the most interesting thing about this “Loves and Bugs” exercise is not the lists the groups create, but the behaviors they demonstrate while creating them. Over thousands of sessions, the patterns are predictable. The Pioneers will be raucous, with many people talking and even writing at the same time, often using an assortment of colors or sketching pictures. The Guardians will be slow to start, often asking for clarification on the instructions and then writing a neatly ordered list in two straight columns. The Integrators will consult one another extensively, often struggling to come up with things in the bugs category, and they will frequently decorate their set of traits with emoticons. And the Drivers will start before the instructions have even been fully given, write down a short list of things (often captured, without discussion, by the first one to pick up the pen), and then stand around waiting impatiently for the others to finish. As a fly on the wall (or a facilitator), it's immediately clear that you can learn a lot about an individual's working style simply by observing them.

Of course this scenario is contrived, with people grouped according to type. That setup (by design) naturally amplifies certain behaviors, particularly if the group starts bonding over their commonalities. When you see a group of senior executives high-fiving about their mutual love of whiteboards, for instance, it's obvious what we mean. But even in a more natural setting you will see these patterns emerge.

So based on what you've learned so far about each of the types, it seems you should be good to go, right? To a point, yes. Looking for these obvious tells that hint at someone's type is a great place to begin, but you need a little bit more to be a Business Chemistry ninja.

The reality is that things are rarely so simple. To start, recall that people are a combination of all four types, so when you're looking at someone's behavior, you're seeing a mélange of traits, which you'll need to tease apart. Sometimes people are so aligned with one type that it jumps out at you, but other people's traits are less extreme, making their type more challenging to pinpoint. And primary–secondary type combinations can mean two people of the same primary type behave somewhat differently. So for instance a Pioneer with a good dose of Integrator might jump around between options, while a Pioneer with a concentration of Driver might be very decisive. And some of the most telling traits (pun intended) are actually shared between types instead of unique to a particular type. Add to this that Business Chemistry is relative rather than absolute, and you'll want to avoid jumping to conclusions.

So yes, things are a bit more complicated than they might initially seem, but this chapter will serve as your guide for how to quickly make sense of the information surrounding you.

When we look for clues about someone's Business Chemistry type, we call the process creating “a hunch.” We call it that because a hunch is not a conclusion, but a starting point; it is an informed hypothesis about someone's type. The process is pretty straightforward.

Figure depicts the key components for developing a hunch. It includes 1. look for unique traits, 2. look for shared traits, 3. put these together into a hunch, 4. do not jump to conclusions, and 5. rinse and repeat.

You start by looking for traits that are unique to a type and traits that are shared between types. Then you put these together into a hunch. In doing so you should consider primary– secondary type combinations and relativity, and then test and refine your hunch based on actual interactions with the person. This chapter will cover how to do all of that. In the next chapter we'll cover the remaining two steps, providing guidance for how to avoid jumping to conclusions and addressing why developing hunches should be an ongoing, rather than one-time, process.

So let's get into it!

Look for Traits Unique to a Type

We've spent a lot of time in previous chapters talking about the unique characteristics of the four types. And sometimes a person's Business Chemistry type is so obvious that you can be reasonably confident about creating a hunch in absence of any further information. When someone is an extreme Integrator, for example, their strong focus on relationships, and their careful, diplomatic way of speaking can give them away pretty quickly. To start developing a hunch, it might be easiest to take a look at the following four lists and determine which one best fits the person whose working style you're trying to suss out.

Pioneer	Guardian	Driver	Integrator
Outgoing	Methodical	Quantitative	Diplomatic
Detail-averse	Reserved	Logical	Empathic
Spontaneous	Detail-oriented	Focused	Traditional
Risk-seeking	Practical	Competitive	Relationship-oriented
Adaptable	Structured	Experimental	Intrinsically motived
Imaginative	Loyal	Deeply curious	Non-confrontational

Look for Traits Shared Between Types

If you're not very confident about your hunch after the first step (or even if you are), we'd recommend you try this second step. In addition to the traits that are unique to each type, there are also key traits that are shared between types. Sometimes these shared traits are even easier to observe than those that are unique to a specific type, and thus can be helpful in developing a hunch.

To get what we mean by shared traits, it's helpful to think of the universe of traits as exactly that—a universe. Picture a vast space filled with characteristics like adaptable, empathic, practical, and competitive, represented as individual stars. These stars are attracted to, or repelled from, other stars, creating little clusters, or constellations, of associated traits. In the Business Chemistry universe there are four major trait constellations. These are the four primary types. (This metaphor is a more poetic representation of the Eigen analysis we'll describe in the appendix.)

In this universe, while the constellations are discernible, they're not completely isolated from one another. There are stars (traits) at their edges that overlap with neighboring constellations. For simplicity's sake, we've flattened this universe into two dimensions in the diagram below, to indicate the connection points between the types.

Looking at this flattened chart, you'll see that the extreme ends of the diagonals represent opposite terminals on a spectrum. One diagonal is anchored by Pioneer traits at one end and Guardian traits at the other. The other diagonal has Driver on one end and Integrator on the other. These types at either end of the diagonals are diametrically opposed to one another and thus do not share traits between them. (We'll have more to say on that dynamic in later chapters.) But each type also has two adjacent types or “neighboring constellations” located to either side. If you split the chart into hemispheres—top:bottom and left:right—you'll see that the types within each hemisphere have traits in common that can be useful in refining your hunch.

Shared Traits: Pioneers & Drivers, Guardians & Integrators

When you split the universe graph horizontally, you can see that Pioneers and Drivers share several traits on the top of the circle, and Guardians and Integrators share several on the bottom. Being in opposite hemispheres, the Pioneer-Driver shared traits are the inverse of the Guardian-Integrator shared traits, as one might expect. The main distinguishing traits between these pairings relate to: 1) speed, 2) risk, 3) confrontation, 4) novelty and 5) leadership style. When you're trying to get a sense of what someone's working style might be, start by looking for where people fall in terms these five things to home in on a hemisphere. Are they more like the Pioneer and Driver pairing or are they more like the Guardian and Integrator one?

Speed. Pioneers and Drivers both make decisions quickly, though how they get there looks different. Pioneers tend to go with their gut and take a leap (sometimes literally not just figuratively), whereas Drivers are more likely to evaluate options, but rapidly, by eliminating extraneous data. (Or anything else they consider extraneous.)

Guardians and Integrators, in contrast, are both slower to make decisions, but likely for different reasons. Guardians because they're checking all the details, ensuring all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. Integrators because they're thinking through all the possible scenarios and long-term implications, or because they're connecting with a network of stakeholders, seeking input and alignment.

Pioneers and Drivers also tend to speak more rapidly than Guardians and Integrators, and they're quick to jump in with the “gift” of filling the silence if they perceive there's too much of a pause in discussion.

Risk. Pioneers and Drivers are both more likely to seek out risk than Guardians and Integrators. Pioneers are often acting intuitively. The opportunity just feels like it's worth the risk. (Woohoo, I've always wanted to jump out of a plane! ) Whereas Drivers have likely calculated that it's worth it. (The probability is extremely low that my chute won't open and I'll plummet to my death. )

For Guardians, risk is somewhat alarming by its very nature, as it threatens stability. (Is the plane crashing? No? Then why would I throw myself out of a perfectly functioning aircraft? ) Integrators, too, sometimes feel apprehensive about risk, but their aversion may stem more from a fear of unintended consequences and negative impacts to individuals. (I know Paul doesn't really want to jump and I don't want to make him feel bad by leaving him behind. )

Confrontation. Pioneers and Drivers are more comfortable with confrontation than Guardians and Integrators. For Pioneers this is likely because they don't internalize incidents or people's reactions to them, and they're able to move on quickly from a tense moment. They're also used to butting up against resistance in their quest to move beyond the status quo. For Drivers, confrontation can actually be fun, playing into their love of challenge and a good argument. You got a problem with that?

In contrast, Guardians dislike rocking the boat, and can be particularly sensitive to negative interactions as they tend to mull things over well after the interaction is in the past. Integrators dislike confrontation as they don't want to risk damaging relationships, and they hate to hurt other people's feelings. They're also prone to taking things to heart themselves. Both of these types are more likely to follow a path of subtler resistance—dragging their feet or gradually chipping away at an undesirable position—rather than addressing it head on.

Novelty. Both Pioneers and Drivers gravitate toward what's original or novel, while Guardians and Integrators are more oriented toward what's existing or traditional. This manifests in interesting ways according to type.

With ideas for instance, Pioneers love fresh, blue-sky thinking, whereas Drivers like to define new realms of thought through experimentation. Both tend to be faster to adopt new technology and innovations.

On the other side, Guardians like ideas that are proven, tried and true, while Integrators often take tried and true concepts and combine them in imaginative ways, making an effort to recognize and promote other people's contributions to the idea.

With tradition, Pioneers and Drivers will be quicker to dismiss established practice, Pioneers typically because they're thirsty for something new, and Drivers often because they don't consider traditions necessary or worth the effort to maintain. (And if they're rejecting traditions like the rock-hard fruitcake of a dear auntie, we don't blame them.)

Guardians and Integrators on the other hand value tradition more highly. Guardians perhaps because traditions are integral to the way society is structured and operates, and Integrators likely out of respect and appreciation for culture, and an understanding that traditions help people get along better. (And it sure does make Auntie happy when we eat her cake.)

These differences are consistent with the shared tendency of Guardians and Integrators overall to value loyalty more than the Pioneers and Drivers sitting on the other side of the universe.

Leadership style. Pioneers and Drivers (particularly Commanders) describe themselves as being more likely to “take charge” than Guardians and Integrators. This corresponds to the classic, somewhat stereotypical model of a leader who steps up, seizes control, and makes sure the right things are happening.

Guardians and Integrators arguably tend to practice a more nuanced approach to leadership. For instance, Guardians might take leadership based on some specific expertise versus universally grabbing the reins. And Integrators might lead through influence, or by composing and orchestrating a team of contributors. Or, either might prefer to contribute by playing a more behind the scenes, individual contributor, or supporting role.

By considering their approach to speed, risk, confrontation, novelty, and leadership, we hope you can determine whether a person's style is more similar to the Pioneer and Driver hemisphere, or the Guardian and Integrator one. Once you've done that, you can refine your hypothesis by splitting the sphere in the other direction.

Shared Traits: Pioneers & Integrators, Drivers & Guardians

Now we dive into the other view of shared traits, splitting the universe graph vertically. In this orientation you see that Pioneers and Integrators share several traits on the left side of the circle, and Drivers and Guardians share the inverse traits on the right. The distinguishing traits between these pairings relate to: 1) information, 2) flexibility, 3) attitude, and 4) people. Again, the point is to figure out which side better characterizes a person's style—the Pioneer and Integrator side, or the Driver and Guardian side.

Information. The two vertical sides of the circle are different both in terms of what kinds of information their associated types like, as well as how they process information.

Pioneers and Integrators tend to be very visual and don't necessarily seek numbers or stats. Pioneers, often described as “big picture thinkers,” tend to like actual pictures, and bigger and bolder is often better. Integrators, with their interest in relationships and people, are particularly drawn to stories, and they love rich descriptions that help them imagine the situation or circumstance.

Drivers and Guardians, in contrast, are more quantitatively oriented, and love facts and figures. For them, data is essential. But Drivers, likely motivated by their urge to quickly achieve their objectives, will usually seek just enough information to feel confident in their conclusions. Guardians are much more likely to immerse themselves in a comprehensive level of detail to ensure that everything is just right and nothing has been overlooked.

When it comes to processing information, Pioneers and Integrators are non-linear thinkers, highly contextual and guided by intuition. Drivers and Guardians are logical and disciplined, tending to take a more linear approach and looking for data to back them up.

Flexibility. Pioneers and Integrators tend to be very comfortable with ambiguity and nuance, and they typically follow a fluid thought process. Whereas Drivers and Guardians like clarity and precision, and are more methodical.

Pioneers and Integrators tend to change their minds more frequently than Drivers and Guardians. For Pioneers, that might be simply because something more interesting comes along. For Integrators, it could be because they're open to options and can often see the pros and cons of various perspectives.

Drivers are more likely to make rational decisions based on facts, and are therefore unlikely to change their minds unless there are new facts available or their logic is proven faulty (a possibility they would claim is highly unlikely, though they'd welcome a well-prepared dispute). Similarly, Guardians have likely done the math (literally) to arrive at their decision, not to mention probably having triple checked their work, so there would have to be a pretty big change in the underlying variables to change their mind.

Attitude. Pioneers and Integrators are, in general, more optimistic and trusting than the other types. This correlation makes sense given that Pioneers would arguably be less eager to venture into unknown territory if they thought it wasn't likely to end well. And Integrators' strong relationship orientation likely requires a faith in others.

In contrast, Drivers and Guardians are more skeptical and exacting. Drivers likely because they need a verifiable reason to believe in something, and they have little tolerance for excuses when people can't meet the high standards they set. Guardians probably because if they haven't personally checked and confirmed something, there's a risk that it might not be correct.

Pioneers and Integrators also tend to be expressive, sharing their emotions freely. For Pioneers, this is probably more of an expression of their own emotions (often joie de vivre ), without really tuning into other people's, whereas Integrators might genuinely reveal their own full spectrum of emotions, but might also encourage others to express their emotions as a means to form a bond with them.

Both Drivers and Guardians tend to keep their feelings in check. Some might say for Drivers that's because they don't have any, although we'd argue that it's more likely because they believe emotions are irrelevant and/or a distraction to the work at hand. And you can see where a Guardian might avoid unfettered emotions—after all, how can you have things under control if your own emotions aren't?

People. Pioneers and Integrators are both relationship oriented. They're collaborative, and value teamwork and diverse perspectives. Integrators tend to be perceptive, paying attention to and understanding human dynamics, whereas Pioneers tend to play to people—as an audience or as potential compadres in the pursuit of fun. Both are also generous, though perhaps in different ways. An Integrator is likely to be found spending time coaching junior members of the team, while the Pioneer might be spontaneously buying a round of drinks at the bar.

Drivers and Guardians are more inclined to work independently, or at least to enjoy it more when the opportunity arises. They're not as motivated to maintain large networks and don't prioritize extensive social connections. But both are happy to have the Pioneer buy drinks.

By combining the previous view of shared traits with this one—focused on a person's approach to information, flexibility, attitude, and people—you should be able to narrow your hunch even more.

Put Together a Hunch

Developing a hunch about someone's type is a bit like being teleported to an unfamiliar area in space and trying to figure out where you are based on the few stars you see around you. You try to get a general sense of your location first, by looking for both unique and shared traits. When you see them, you ask yourself, “In which hemisphere are these traits located?” Then you investigate further to confirm or adjust your assessment.

To see how this works in practice, let's imagine that you have a new boss. You've interacted a few times but you don't know her very well. You've maybe tried to get a sense of her style by considering the unique traits associated with each type, but you're not feeling confident about your hunch so you look around some more. Let's say that you've noticed two really visible tells: Your boss makes fast decisions and she seems to embrace risk. When you check your universe map, you can see that puts her in the top hemisphere—the Pioneer-Driver zone. But is she more of a Pioneer or a Driver?

Now you look around some more. Let's say there are another two traits: Your boss is not very expressive and she insists on having data to inform a decision. That puts her in the right hemisphere—the Driver-Guardian zone of your universe map. In both cuts of the universe diagram, she has traits aligned with the Driver type, so your educated guess would be that she's a Driver. So far, so good. Even if you stopped at this point, you'd have a solid start for connecting with her more effectively.

But to be really confident about this hunch there are a few more things to consider: 1) People don't have only primary types, but also secondary types and these can be important. 2) Business Chemistry is relative, which matters as well. 3) Since situations impact people's behavior, it's best to observe them over time in a variety of situations to see their most consistent behaviors.

Secondary Types Matter

Let's start with secondary types. People's working styles aren't characterized purely by one type, so let's continue with the example of your new boss to see if we can glean even more information about her. Since her primary type seems to be Driver, her secondary type would have to be either Pioneer or Guardian. Wait, how would you know that? Because Business Chemistry runs along dimensions, and unlike comic books or quantum physics, where things can be in opposing positions at the same time, when it comes to Business Chemistry people can be at one end of a dimension or the other, or anywhere in between, but they can't be at both ends at once. Those two dimensions are the diagonals in the model: Pioneer to Guardian, and Driver to Integrator. So if your boss is a strong Driver, by definition she can't also be a strong Integrator.

You've narrowed down the options to Driver-Pioneer or Driver-Guardian. This is worth trying to get a bead on, because these combinations have different ways of thinking and interacting. To do so, it's perhaps easiest to go back to the unique traits: Does your boss love details or abhor them? Is she outgoing or reserved? If you consistently answer yes to the traits associated with one or the other, chances are she has a strong secondary type. If not, or if she has traits of both, then perhaps she's mostly defined by Driver and she has a less extreme secondary type.

It's all Relative

As you start looking for tells in the people around you, it's helpful to remember that Business Chemistry is relative. While people's working styles and preferences tend to be more or less consistent across most situations (a bit more on that in the coming pages), the way they come across can depend on the company in which they find themselves.

Have you ever had the dubious pleasure of painting your house? You know how it works then. You walk into the store and look at row upon row of little squares with tiny variations in color. They have names that are meant to be evocative, but aren't really that helpful—like Misty Mountain or Chilled Sangria. You pick a few and bring them home.

In Kim's house the process goes something like this: Kim says, “What do you think of this one, honey?” Her husband replies, “It looks white to me.”

And then Kim proceeds to run around the house holding the swatch up to different colors to see how it looks a little green against the light wall, but more blue when she holds it in the corner. (It never looks white, by the way, despite her husband's claims.) The color of the swatch does not in fact change, but it seems more green or more blue, depending on the backdrop.

The same thing happens with working styles. A person might seem like a Pioneer in a typical business setting, but how does he appear beside a CEO who launches a new venture by rappelling from the top of an airplane hangar? Does he still seem like a Pioneer in comparison? Or what if he's in a meeting with a traditional company in Asia, where the culture itself emphasizes many Guardian-like traits?

Another thing to consider is that people sometimes change their behavior deliberately, based on who they're interacting with. Suppose a person who is generally quite empathic, diplomatic, and relationship oriented finds herself on a team full of very strong Integrators. She might embrace more of a direct, goal-focused approach on purpose, to balance out the majority type in the group. Alternatively, she might double-down on her Integrator tendencies to fit in.

We all have a natural hue, but the way we come across depends on our context, so it's important to consider that when you're trying to get a sense of someone's type. If you'd like more details about how Business Chemistry takes relativity into account, see the appendix.

The Exception or the Norm?

Once you've considered unique traits, shared traits, secondary type, and relativity, you should have a pretty reasonable hunch about someone's type. But your next mission is to test that hypothesis through actual interactions with the person. Because it's clear that the situation someone is in has great potential to influence how they think, feel, and behave. It's quite likely, for example, that a person who usually speaks loudly will speak more softly in a quiet office if they notice that everyone else is whispering.

While you shouldn't expect anyone to act exactly the same in every situation, Business Chemistry is about how someone prefers to work, and how they think, feel, and behave in professional settings most of the time . The instructions for our online Business Chemistry assessment (which we'll tell you more about in the appendix) ask people how they'd describe themselves generally in a business context. Likewise, when you attempt to develop a hunch about someone's type you should do so within this same context, looking for how someone behaves most often.

Ideally you'd observe someone across a variety of situations and interactions. And as you work with them further, you'll take your understanding of their working style from a general zone on the universe map to a particular collection of stars that are uniquely their own.

E: None of the Above

Most of the time, you will have enough clues to develop a reasonable hunch about someone's primary and/or secondary types. But some people aren't extreme on any of the dimensions, so you will likely pick up tells from each of the patterns. Or perhaps you will identify one trait, but you won't find the other things with which that trait is normally correlated. These people can be valuable team players because of their flexibility, but they can also be difficult to get a read on. That's OK, it just means you might need to base your hypotheses more on situations (she is very Pioneer when we're in a situation where idea generation is needed, but very Guardian when it's time to execute) or context (he is comfortable taking risks within his own team, but uncomfortable when he's with a new group). And whether you're dealing with someone who defies all hunching attempts, or someone who epitomizes the extreme of a type, it's essential that you try hard to avoid jumping to conclusions. That's just what we'll address in the next chapter.