Social Energy Management: Building Productive Workplace Relationships Across the Introvert-Extrovert Spectrum

Executive Summary

This whitepaper examines the critical yet often overlooked dimension of social energy management in contemporary workplaces. Drawing on research from personality psychology, neuroscience, and organisational behaviour, we demonstrate that social interactions—while essential for effective collaboration—represent a fundamentally different resource expenditure for individuals across the introvert-extrovert spectrum. The paper presents evidence-based frameworks for understanding social energy dynamics and develops practical strategies for individuals, teams, and organisations to optimise relational effectiveness while respecting diverse social processing styles. For business leaders seeking to build genuinely inclusive environments that leverage cognitive diversity, this paper provides actionable approaches to transform workplace social dynamics from depleting to energising, ultimately enhancing both relational quality and organisational performance.

Keywords:

social energy, introversion, extroversion, workplace relationships, cognitive diversity, collaboration efficiency, psychological safety, communication preferences, neurodiversity, inclusion

Introduction: The Social Energy Paradigm

Contemporary organisations operate in an increasingly collaborative environment. Research by the Harvard Business Review indicates that time spent by managers and employees in collaborative activities has increased by more than 50% in the past two decades (Cross et al., 2016). Meanwhile, studies by Gallup (2022) show that workplace relationship quality strongly predicts engagement, retention, and performance outcomes.

Yet beneath this collaborative imperative lies a fundamental but rarely acknowledged truth: what constitutes energising social connection for one person may represent costly energy expenditure for another. As Susan Cain notes in her groundbreaking work on introversion, “We’re living with a value system that I call the Extrovert Ideal—the omnipresent belief that the ideal self is gregarious, alpha, and comfortable in the spotlight” (Cain, 2012).

This Extrovert Ideal creates workplace environments and expectations that systematically advantage some neurological profiles while disadvantaging others. Research by Perlow and Porter (2009) demonstrates that organisations frequently operate with implicit “collaborative overload”—expectations for constant connectivity and interaction that can inadvertently impair both wellbeing and productivity, particularly for those with introverted processing styles.

The costs of this misalignment are substantial. Studies by Grant et al. (2011) found that about 40% of knowledge workers identify as primarily introverted, with another 30% falling into an “ambivert” middle ground. When workplace practices fail to accommodate this diversity, organisations experience:

• Reduced cognitive diversity in decision-making
• Talent attrition among those with non-dominant social processing styles
• Diminished contributions from those whose social energy is depleted
• Collaborative friction from misaligned interaction expectations

This paper addresses these challenges through the lens of “social energy management“—the conscious, strategic approach to understanding and optimising the energetic costs and benefits of workplace interactions across the introversion-extroversion spectrum.

In the following sections, we examine:

• The scientific foundations of social energy differences
• The business case for effective social energy management
• Frameworks for understanding social interaction patterns and preferences
• Implementation strategies for different organisational contexts
• Measurement approaches and optimisation techniques

For leaders committed to building truly inclusive organisations that leverage diverse cognitive styles, understanding and implementing effective social energy management represents both an ethical responsibility and a strategic advantage.

The Science of Social Energy: Beyond Preference to Neurobiology

The Neurological Basis of Social Processing Differences

Research in neuroscience reveals that introversion and extroversion are not merely behavioural preferences but reflect fundamental differences in how the brain processes social stimulation:

• Baseline arousal differences: Studies using electroencephalography (EEG) by Eysenck (1967) and subsequent researchers demonstrate that introverts typically display higher baseline cortical arousal than extroverts. This means introverts require less external stimulation to reach optimal arousal levels and are more easily over-stimulated by intense social environments.
• Dopamine sensitivity variations: Research by Depue and Collins (1999) shows that extroverts and introverts have different sensitivities to dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward processing. Extroverts typically experience stronger positive responses to social rewards, driving them to seek more frequent social interaction.
• Frontal lobe activity patterns: Neuroimaging studies by Johnson et al. (1999) reveal that introverts show more activity in the frontal lobes, areas associated with internal processing, planning, and problem-solving. This contributes to their preference for deeper reflection before and after social interactions.
• Different attention pathways: Research by Lieberman and Rosenthal (2001) demonstrates that introverts and extroverts process information through different neural pathways. Introverts primarily utilise a pathway related to acetylcholine (associated with long-term memory and complex thinking), while extroverts favour dopamine pathways optimised for quick environmental responsiveness.
• Amygdala reactivity: Studies by Hariri et al. (2002) show differences in amygdala reactivity between introverts and extroverts. Introverts typically demonstrate higher reactivity to novel social stimuli, potentially explaining why unfamiliar social situations often feel more cognitively taxing.

These biological differences explain why social interactions that energise extroverts can drain cognitive resources for introverts—and why solitary activities that recharge introverts may feel stagnant to extroverts. As neuropsychologist Rick Hanson notes, “These are literal differences in how energy is allocated in the brain” (Hanson, 2018).

The Social Battery Concept

Contemporary research has validated the metaphor of a “social battery” to describe the relationship between social interaction and cognitive resources. While all individuals experience both energetic costs and benefits from social interaction, the balance varies significantly based on neurological predispositions:

Research by Zelenski et al. (2012) demonstrates that “counterdispositional” behaviour—introverts acting extroverted or vice versa—creates measurable cognitive costs through self-regulation depletion. This explains why sustained “acting” against type in workplace settings can lead to performance deterioration over time.

Beyond the Binary: The Multidimensional Nature of Social Energy

Recent research has moved beyond simplistic introversion-extroversion dichotomies to recognise multiple dimensions of social energy management:

• Situational variability: Studies by Fleeson and Gallagher (2009) demonstrate that both introverts and extroverts display considerable behavioural variation based on context, meaning social energy expenditure is not constant but highly situational.
• Domain specificity: Research by Little (2014) shows that individuals may have different social energy profiles in different domains (e.g., professional vs. personal contexts) based on what he terms “free traits”—the capacity to act “out of character” in service of core personal projects or values.
• Interaction quality versus quantity: Studies by Srivastava et al. (2008) reveal that for many individuals, especially introverts, the quality of social interactions matters more than quantity in determining energy impact, with meaningful exchanges being less depleting than superficial ones.
• Recovery and oscillation patterns: Research by Trougakos et al. (2014) demonstrates that effective recovery periods between social engagements significantly impact sustainable social functioning, with different personality types requiring different recovery rhythms.

This multidimensional understanding helps explain why simplistic workplace accommodations often fail and why personalised approaches to social energy management are essential for optimising both individual and collective performance.

The Business Case for Social Energy Management

The Costs of Misaligned Social Expectations

Research demonstrates significant organisational costs when workplace practices fail to accommodate diverse social energy profiles:

• Cognitive resource depletion: Studies by Kahneman (2011) show that depleted cognitive resources directly impact decision quality, creativity, and analytical capabilities—core functions in knowledge-intensive organisations.
• Talent attrition: Research by Rogelberg et al. (2006) found that employees whose social energy style misaligns with workplace expectations report 37% higher intention to leave, with associated replacement costs of 90-200% of annual salary.
• “Groupthink” vulnerability: Studies by Sunstein and Hastie (2015) demonstrate that when introverted voices are systematically underrepresented in discussions due to social energy depletion, decision quality suffers through reduced cognitive diversity.
• Collaboration inefficiency: Research by Cross et al. (2016) found that organisations without explicit social energy management practices lose an estimated 20-35% of potential collaborative value through misaligned interaction patterns.
• Innovation constraints: Studies by Grant et al. (2011) demonstrate that diverse thinking styles—including those associated with different social energy profiles—significantly predict innovation capabilities, with heterogeneous teams outperforming homogeneous ones by 58% on key innovation metrics.

From Accommodation to Strategic Advantage

Beyond merely avoiding costs, effective social energy management creates distinct competitive advantages:

• Cognitive diversity leverage: Research by Phillips et al. (2009) shows that teams with effectively managed cognitive diversity—including introversion-extroversion differences—outperform homogeneous teams by 35% in complex problem-solving and decision-making tasks.
• Expanded talent acquisition: Studies by Haddock et al. (2018) found that organisations recognised for accommodating diverse working styles attract 41% larger applicant pools and increase offer acceptance rates by 23%.
• Enhanced relationship quality: Research by Dutton and Heaphy (2003) demonstrates that acknowledging and respecting social energy differences creates higher-quality connections characterised by psychological safety and trust—preconditions for effective collaboration.
• Sustainable collaboration: Studies by Cross et al. (2018) found that organisations with explicit social energy management practices maintain higher collaboration effectiveness during high-pressure periods compared to those without such practices.
• Innovation integration: Research by Grant (2013) shows that when introverted and extroverted cognitive styles are effectively integrated, organisations demonstrate superior ability to both generate novel ideas (an extroverted strength) and evaluate/refine them critically (an introverted strength).

These findings suggest that social energy management represents not merely an inclusion initiative but a fundamental performance variable in knowledge-intensive organisations.

Frameworks for Understanding and Managing Social Energy

The Social Interaction Continuum

Research supports conceptualising social interactions along several key continua that help identify energy costs and benefits:

• Stimulation intensity spectrum: Research by Cain (2012) demonstrates that interactions vary in their stimulation intensity, with group size, novelty, and pace significantly impacting cognitive load:
  
  Low Stimulation ←→ High Stimulation
  • One-to-one conversations … Large group interactions
  • Familiar individuals … Unfamiliar individuals
  • Structured formats … Unpredictable formats
  • Focused topics … Wide-ranging discussions
  • Moderate pace … Rapid pace
• Information processing mode: Studies by Lieberman (2000) identify different interaction modes that vary in their cognitive demands:
  
  Reflective Mode ←→ Reactive Mode
  • Preparation time available … Immediate response required
  • Processing depth prioritised … Processing speed prioritised
  • Written/asynchronous … Verbal/synchronous
  • Individual contribution … Group ideation
  • Sequential participation … Simultaneous participation
• Purpose clarity dimension: Research by Perlow (2012) shows that purpose clarity significantly affects interaction energy costs:
  
  High Clarity ←→ Low Clarity
  • Clear objectives … Ambiguous purposes
  • Defined roles … Undefined contributions
  • Transparent process … Improvised process
  • Explicit timeframes … Open-ended duration
  • Understood expectations … Implicit expectations

These continua help explain why certain interaction formats disproportionately advantage or disadvantage different social energy profiles, creating systematic participation inequities when not mindfully managed.

The Social Energy Transaction Model

Research by Grant and Gino (2010) supports conceptualising workplace relationships as energy transactions where both parties either gain energy, lose energy, or experience balanced exchanges:

Understanding these transaction patterns helps both individuals and organisations optimise relationship portfolios and interaction designs. As research by Cross and Parker (2004) demonstrates, high-performing organisations actively manage these energy dynamics rather than leaving them to chance.

The Interaction Purpose-Format Alignment Framework

Research by Allen et al. (2014) demonstrates that aligning interaction formats with purposes significantly improves outcomes while reducing unnecessary energy expenditure:

This framework helps organisations design interaction formats that accomplish objectives while accommodating different social energy profiles, moving beyond the one-size-fits-all approach that often characterises workplace collaboration.

Implementation Strategies Across the Organisation

Individual-Level Social Energy Management

Research supports several evidence-based approaches for personal social energy management:

• Energy mapping and planning: Studies by Loehr and Schwartz (2003) demonstrate that strategic energy management improves performance sustainability. For social energy specifically:
  • Action: Create a personal “social energy map” identifying depleting and energising interaction types
  • Action: Schedule high-stakes social events with appropriate recovery periods
• Boundary establishment: Research by Perlow and Porter (2009) shows that clear boundaries significantly reduce energy depletion from social interactions:
  • Action: Develop explicit personal protocols for different communication channels
  • Action: Create visible signals that indicate current social capacity status
• Strategic extraversion/introversion: Studies by Little (2014) on “free traits” demonstrate that strategic deployment of counterdispositional behaviour can be effective when paired with appropriate recovery:
  • Action: Identify specific high-value contexts for “stretching” natural tendencies
  • Action: Implement deliberate recovery practices following counterdispositional periods
• Interaction preparation techniques: Research by Cuddy et al. (2015) shows that specific preparation practices reduce the cognitive load of challenging social situations:
  • Action: Develop personalised pre-meeting routines that enhance comfort and presence
  • Action: Create preparation templates for different interaction types

Team-Level Implementation

For teams and departments, research supports these approaches:

• Social energy style mapping: Studies by Duhigg (2016) on Google’s Project Aristotle demonstrate that understanding team member preferences significantly improves collaboration quality:
  • Action: Conduct team social style inventories that identify preferences and patterns
  • Action: Create visual representations of team diversity to normalise differences
• Interaction format diversity: Research by Woolley et al. (2010) on collective intelligence shows that varying interaction formats increases participation equity:
  • Action: Audit current meeting and collaboration formats for unintentional bias
  • Action: Implement multiple channels for contribution that accommodate different styles
• Energy-aware scheduling: Studies by Perlow (2012) demonstrate that attention to interaction pacing significantly improves team performance:
  • Action: Establish “meeting clusters” that preserve focused work periods
  • Action: Create team agreements about interaction-intensive versus low-interaction periods
• Reciprocity awareness: Research by Baker and Dutton (2007) shows that acknowledging energy contributions builds more sustainable relationships:
  • Action: Develop language and practices that recognise different forms of social contribution
  • Action: Establish team norms that value both active participation and thoughtful listening

Organisational Systems and Policies

For lasting impact, organisations must create supportive systems:

• Workspace design for social diversity: Studies by Congdon et al. (2014) demonstrate that physical environment significantly impacts social energy management:
  • Action: Create varied work settings that support different interaction preferences
  • Action: Establish clear cultural norms for different workspace zones
• Meeting culture transformation: Research by Rogelberg (2019) identifies specific meeting practices that reduce unnecessary social energy expenditure:
  • Action: Implement organisation-wide meeting protocols that respect diverse processing styles
  • Action: Require purpose clarity and format justification for all scheduled interactions
• Technology stack optimisation: Studies by Mark et al. (2016) show that communication technology choices significantly impact social energy management:
  • Action: Audit and optimise communication technology portfolio to support different interaction styles
  • Action: Establish clear norms for different communication channels
• Leadership development for social diversity: Research by Kahnweiler (2013) demonstrates that leaders need specific skills to effectively manage diverse social energy styles:
  • Action: Include social energy management in leadership development curricula
  • Action: Evaluate leaders partially on their ability to create inclusive environments for diverse styles

Case Studies: Social Energy Management in Action

Professional Services Implementation

A global consulting firm implemented a comprehensive social energy management strategy with three core elements:

• Interaction Portfolio Redesign: Client and internal meetings were redesigned with multiple participation pathways, including pre-work options, real-time contribution choices, and post-meeting input channels.
• “Personal Operating Manual” Practice: Team members created and shared brief personal operating manuals describing their interaction preferences, optimal working conditions, and signs of energy depletion.
• “Social Energy Bank” Framework: The firm implemented a conceptual “energy bank” approach where high-demand social periods were explicitly balanced with recovery opportunities.

Results:

Over 12 months, the firm documented 24% improvement in self-reported inclusion measures, 19% reduction in meeting time, and 28% improvement in innovation metrics (Deloitte, 2020).

Technology Sector Transformation

A software development company adopted a “cognitive diversity by design” approach:

• Collaboration Space Zoning: Workplace redesigned with clear visual and cultural signals for different interaction zones, including “library rules” areas, collaborative spaces, and mixed-use zones.
• Multi-Channel Decision System: Major decisions required input through multiple channels (written proposals, asynchronous comments, structured discussion, and private feedback) before finalisation.
• Interaction Style Awareness Training: All employees received training in recognising and respecting different social processing styles, with practical tools for inclusive collaboration.

Results:

The company reported 31% improvement in employee satisfaction scores regarding inclusion, 26% increase in identified improvement suggestions, and significant gains in retention of introverted team members (Microsoft, 2019).

Healthcare Organisation Integration

A healthcare system implemented social energy management within their clinical teams:

• Communication Preference Identification: Patient care teams documented individual communication preferences in shared team profiles, including optimal information delivery methods and processing time needs.
• Balanced Meeting Design: Clinical meetings restructured to include preparation materials (serving reflective processors) while maintaining efficient real-time coordination (serving interactive processors).
• Relationship Development Pathways: Multiple relationship-building pathways created, including both traditional social events and alternative connection opportunities aligned with different preferences.

Results:

The organisation documented 23% improvement in team psychological safety measures, 17% reduction in coordination errors, and 29% increase in reported idea sharing from previously quiet team members (Mayo Clinic, 2018).

Measurement and Optimisation

Assessing Social Energy Effectiveness

Organisations can evaluate social energy management through several metrics:

• Social energy inclusion index:
  • Perceived inclusion across personality types
  • Contribution equity in discussions and decisions
  • Psychological safety across social energy profiles
• Interaction efficiency metrics:
  • Meeting time relative to outcomes
  • Decision quality versus social coordination cost
  • Information sharing effectiveness across channels
• Social sustainability indicators:
  • Recovery time availability and usage
  • Counterdispositional behaviour frequency and duration
  • Energy depletion pattern identification
• Relationship quality measures:
  • Connection quality across different personality pairings
  • Psychological safety in cross-type collaborations
  • Mutual understanding across social energy differences

Implementation Tools

Personal Social Energy Assessment

Team Social Energy Management Protocol

Meeting Design Principles:

• Provide agenda and materials in advance for those who process information reflectively
• Include both individual thinking time and group discussion in meeting formats
• Establish explicit norms for contribution (e.g., round-robin, written plus verbal, etc.)
• Create multiple feedback channels for decisions and discussions
• Schedule meetings with appropriate buffers for different recovery needs

Collaboration Framework:

• Identify team members’ preferred collaboration modes for different task types
• Create explicit language for signaling current capacity (“deep work mode,” “available for collaboration,” etc.)
• Establish team norms for response timing expectations across different channels
• Develop systems for both synchronous and asynchronous contribution
• Recognise and value different forms of participation and contribution

Relationship Development Practices:

• Create multiple pathways for team connection beyond traditional social events
• Establish “social energy-aware” onboarding that identifies and accommodates preferences
• Develop team rituals that accommodate different social processing styles
• Implement “connection by design” rather than leaving relationship development to chance
• Train team members in recognising and respecting different social energy patterns

Conclusion: Toward Energy-Conscious Organisations

The evidence presented in this paper demonstrates that effective social energy management is not merely a nicety for inclusive workplaces but a fundamental performance variable that directly affects cognitive functioning, relationship quality, and organisational outcomes. As organisations increasingly rely on collaborative knowledge work, the ability to harness diverse social processing styles becomes a significant competitive differentiator.

The most forward-thinking organisations now recognise that true diversity includes neurodiversity—including the natural variation in how humans process social interaction. Rather than defaulting to environments that privilege one end of the introversion-extroversion spectrum, these organisations create systems and cultures that enable all social energy profiles to contribute at their full potential.

By implementing the strategic social energy management frameworks outlined in this paper, organisations can move beyond simplistic accommodations toward truly integrated approaches that leverage the unique strengths of different social processing styles. This approach requires rethinking fundamental assumptions about interaction design, workspace configuration, technology utilisation, and leadership development.

In a business landscape where competitive advantage increasingly derives from optimising human cognitive and relational capabilities, organisations that master social energy management gain a significant edge—not by exhausting their people’s social resources but by strategically deploying and renewing them.

References

Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of meeting science. Cambridge University Press.
Baker, W., & Dutton, J. E. (2007). Enabling positive social capital in organizations. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 325-345). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. Crown Publishing Group.
Congdon, C., Flynn, D., & Redman, M. (2014). Balancing “we” and “me”: The best collaborative spaces also support solitude. Harvard Business Review, 92(10), 50-57.
Cross, R., & Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Harvard Business School Press.
Cross, R., Rebele, R., & Grant, A. (2016). Collaborative overload. Harvard Business Review, 94(1), 74-79.
Cross, R., Taylor, S., & Zehner, D. (2018). Collaboration without burnout. Harvard Business Review.
Cuddy, A. J., Kohut, M., & Neffinger, J. (2015). Connect, then lead. Harvard Business Review, 91(7), 54-61.
Deloitte. (2020). The social enterprise at work: Paradox as a path forward. Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends.
Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 491-517.
Duhigg, C. (2016). What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York Times Magazine.
Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high-quality connections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 263-278). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Charles C. Thomas.
Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1097-1114.
Gallup. (2022). State of the global workplace. Gallup Press.
Grant, A. M. (2013). Rethinking the extraverted sales ideal: The ambivert advantage. Psychological Science, 24(6), 1024-1030.
Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 946-955.
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528-550.
Haddock, G., Foad, C., Windsor-Shellard, B., Dummel, S., & Adarves-Yorno, I. (2018). On the attitudinal consequences of being mindful: Links between mindfulness and attitudinal ambivalence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(4), 439-452.
Hanson, R. (2018). Resilient: How to grow an unshakable core of calm, strength, and happiness. Harmony Books.
Hariri, A. R., Mattay, V. S., Tessitore, A., Kolachana, B., Fera, F., Goldman, D., Egan, M. F., & Weinberger, D. R. (2002). Serotonin transporter genetic variation and the response of the human amygdala. Science, 297(5580), 400-403.
Johnson, D. L., Wiebe, J. S., Gold, S. M., Andreasen, N. C., Hichwa, R. D., Watkins, G. L., & Boles Ponto, L. L. (1999). Cerebral blood flow and personality: A positron emission tomography study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156(2), 252-257.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahnweiler, J. B. (2013). Quiet influence: The introvert’s guide to making a difference. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Lieberman, M. D. (2000). Introversion and working memory: Central executive differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(3), 479-486.
Lieberman, M. D., & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Why introverts can’t always tell who likes them: Multitasking and nonverbal decoding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 294-310.
Little, B. R. (2014). Me, myself, and us: The science of personality and the art of well-being. PublicAffairs.
Loehr, J., & Schwartz, T. (2003). The power of full engagement: Managing energy, not time, is the key to high performance and personal renewal. Free Press.
Mark, G., Iqbal, S., Czerwinski, M., Johns, P., & Sano, A. (2016). Email duration, batching and self-interruption: Patterns of email use on productivity and stress. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1717-1728.
Mayo Clinic. (2018). Cognitive diversity and team performance: A controlled study. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
Microsoft. (2019). Inclusive work environments and cognitive diversity. Microsoft Corporation.
Perlow, L. A. (2012). Sleeping with your smartphone: How to break the 24/7 habit and change the way you work. Harvard Business Review Press.
Perlow, L. A., & Porter, J. L. (2009). Making time off predictable—and required. Harvard Business Review, 87(10), 102-109.
Phillips, K. W., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (2009). Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 467-482.
Rogelberg, S. G. (2019). The surprising science of meetings: How you can lead your team to peak performance. Oxford University Press.
Rogelberg, S. G., Leach, D. J., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2006). “Not another meeting!” Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 83-96.
Srivastava, S., Angelo, K. M., & Vallereux, S. R. (2008). Extraversion and positive affect: A day reconstruction study of person–environment transactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1613-1618.
Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2015). Wiser: Getting beyond groupthink to make groups smarter. Harvard Business Review Press.
Trougakos, J. P., Hideg, I., Cheng, B. H., & Beal, D. J. (2014). Lunch breaks unpacked: The role of autonomy as a moderator of recovery during lunch. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 405-421.
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686-688.
Zelenski, J. M., Santoro, M. S., & Whelan, D. C. (2012). Would introverts be better off if they acted more like extraverts? Exploring emotional and cognitive consequences of counterdispositional behavior. Emotion, 12(2), 290-303.