Your working style describes how you naturally communicate, make decisions, and contribute on teams. It's not about what you're good at, that's what your strengths reveal. Working style is about how you approach problems, share information, and move through your workday. Think of it as your default operating mode.
Pigment identifies four working styles. Most people have a dominant style with elements of others mixed in. Understanding your style helps you recognize your natural patterns and how they interact with the patterns of others.
Table of Contents
The Accelerator
Accelerators naturally drive progress through decisive action and forward momentum. They create movement and keep teams focused on reaching goals.
How Accelerators communicate:
Accelerators tend to be direct and outcome-focused. They get to the point quickly, prefer concise updates over lengthy explanations, and steer conversations toward decisions rather than extended discussion. When they share information, they focus on what matters for moving forward.
In meetings, Accelerators often push for closure. They may ask "What's the decision?" or "What are the next steps?" when conversations feel circular. They value clarity about who owns what and when it will be done.
Their communication style can feel energizing to those who appreciate pace and decisiveness. Others may experience it as rushed or impatient, particularly if they prefer more time to process or discuss.
How Accelerators make decisions:
Accelerators decide quickly and confidently. They trust their ability to adjust course as new information emerges rather than waiting for complete certainty before acting. They're comfortable making calls with imperfect information, reasoning that forward progress reveals more than extended analysis.
When faced with multiple options, Accelerators often choose and move rather than deliberate extensively. They may revisit decisions later if needed, but they prefer iteration to prolonged planning.
This approach works well in fast-moving environments where speed matters and conditions change frequently. It can create friction in contexts that reward thoroughness or where mistakes are costly and hard to reverse.
How Accelerators approach problems:
Accelerators tend to break problems into actionable steps and start executing. They may not have the entire solution mapped out before beginning, they trust that progress will clarify the path. They often prefer to try something and learn from the results rather than theorize about what might work.
When obstacles arise, Accelerators look for ways around them. They're energized by challenges and may see constraints as puzzles to solve rather than reasons to slow down.
How Accelerators contribute to teams:
Accelerators create momentum. When teams get stuck in analysis or debate, they push toward action. They hold people accountable to commitments and timelines. They're often the ones who ask "Why aren't we doing this now?" or "What's stopping us?"
They can help teams overcome hesitation, break through organizational inertia, and maintain urgency on important initiatives. Their bias toward action can be exactly what's needed when perfectionism or excessive caution is slowing progress.
What Accelerators prioritize: Speed, action, results, accountability, forward progress.
Potential blind spots: May move too fast for others to keep up, may undervalue the need for thorough analysis or consensus-building, may create stress for team members who need more processing time.
The Analyst
Analysts naturally dive deep to understand how things work. They create systematic solutions through rigorous, methodical thinking.
How Analysts communicate:
Analysts tend to be precise and evidence-based. They define terms carefully, distinguish between fact and opinion, and support their arguments with data. When they present information, they often lay out their reasoning step by step so others can follow the logic.
In conversations, Analysts may ask clarifying questions that others might consider unnecessary. They want to ensure shared understanding of the problem before jumping to solutions. They're often the ones who say "Let's make sure we're defining this the same way" or "What's the evidence for that assumption?"
Their communication style can feel thorough and trustworthy to those who value rigor. Others may experience it as slow or overly detailed, particularly if they prefer to move quickly or rely more on intuition.
How Analysts make decisions:
Analysts decide thoroughly. They gather information from multiple sources, test assumptions, consider alternative explanations, and weigh trade-offs before committing to a path. They're uncomfortable making significant decisions without adequate evidence.
When faced with a choice, Analysts often want more data. They may delay decisions to conduct additional research or analysis. They're skilled at identifying what's unknown and what questions should be answered before proceeding.
This approach works well in contexts where accuracy matters more than speed, where mistakes are costly, or where the situation is complex enough that intuition alone is unreliable. It can create friction in fast-moving environments or when "good enough" decisions made quickly outperform "optimal" decisions made slowly.
How Analysts approach problems:
Analysts tend to break problems down systematically. They identify the components, examine each one carefully, and look for root causes rather than surface symptoms. They often build mental models or frameworks to organize their understanding.
When something doesn't work as expected, Analysts want to understand why. They're drawn to diagnosis and explanation, not just fixes. They may resist quick patches that address symptoms without resolving underlying issues.
How Analysts contribute to teams:
Analysts bring rigor and critical thinking. They spot flaws in reasoning, identify risks others might miss, and ask the hard questions that need to be asked. They're often the ones who say "Have we considered...?" or "What happens if our assumption is wrong?"
They can help teams avoid costly mistakes, build solutions that hold up under scrutiny, and make decisions grounded in evidence rather than wishful thinking. Their skepticism can be exactly what's needed when enthusiasm is outpacing reality.
What Analysts prioritize: Accuracy, depth, evidence, logic, understanding root causes.
Potential blind spots: May slow teams down with excessive analysis, may undervalue intuition or speed, may miss opportunities that require acting on incomplete information.
The Pragmatist
Pragmatists naturally cut through complexity to find the clearest path forward. They excel at turning ambiguity into action through efficient, grounded thinking.
How Pragmatists communicate:
Pragmatists tend to be plain-spoken and focused on practical implications. They cut through jargon, skip the preamble, and steer conversations toward "so what does this mean for us?" They're less interested in theoretical possibilities than in concrete realities.
In meetings, Pragmatists often redirect abstract discussions toward tangible outcomes. They may ask "What are we actually going to do?" or "What's the simplest way to handle this?" when conversations become too conceptual or circular.
Their communication style can feel refreshingly clear to those who appreciate directness and efficiency. Others may experience it as dismissive or reductive, particularly if they value exploring nuance or considering multiple perspectives.
How Pragmatists make decisions:
Pragmatists decide practically. They look for the solution that works now rather than the optimal solution that might never arrive. They're comfortable with "good enough" when the cost of finding "perfect" exceeds the benefit.
When faced with multiple options, Pragmatists often choose the most straightforward path. They consider constraints time, resources, complexity as primary factors. They're skeptical of elaborate solutions when simpler ones would suffice.
This approach works well in environments with real constraints, where progress matters more than perfection, or where overthinking leads to paralysis. It can create friction when problems genuinely require nuanced solutions or when "good enough" accumulates into technical or organizational debt.
How Pragmatists approach problems:
Pragmatists focus on what can actually be done. They accept constraints as givens rather than obstacles to eliminate, and they look for the path of least resistance to a workable outcome. They're often good at identifying the 20% of effort that produces 80% of results.
When solutions get overcomplicated, Pragmatists push back. They ask whether the complexity is necessary or just habit. They're drawn to straightforward approaches and may challenge assumptions that make things harder than they need to be.
How Pragmatists contribute to teams:
Pragmatists bring grounded efficiency. They keep teams from overcomplicating things, cut through analysis paralysis, and forge clear paths when others get lost in abstraction. They're often the ones who say "Let's just try it and see" or "We're overthinking this."
They can help teams make progress on difficult problems, avoid the trap of endless deliberation, and deliver results within real-world constraints. Their focus on what's achievable keeps ambitious plans from dying in the planning stage.
What Pragmatists prioritize: Efficiency, simplicity, workable solutions, getting things done, realistic constraints.
Potential blind spots: May oversimplify problems that require nuance, may undervalue long-term thinking or ideal solutions, may frustrate colleagues who want to explore options more fully.
The Harmonizer
Harmonizers naturally create connection and foster collaboration. They build environments where people feel heard, valued, and aligned.
How Harmonizers communicate:
Harmonizers tend to be warm, inclusive, and attuned to how messages land. They consider their audience, adapt their approach to different people, and craft communications that bring others along rather than leaving them behind. They often check for understanding and make space for others to contribute.
In conversations, Harmonizers notice interpersonal dynamics. They may intervene when someone is being talked over, reframe contentious points to find common ground, or acknowledge emotions that are affecting the discussion. They're often the ones who say "I want to make sure we're hearing everyone" or "It sounds like there's some tension here, should we address it?"
Their communication style can feel inclusive and trust-building to those who value connection and psychological safety. Others may experience it as slow or conflict-avoidant, particularly if they prefer directness or see relationship maintenance as secondary to task completion.
How Harmonizers make decisions:
Harmonizers decide collaboratively. They seek input from those affected, consider how decisions will impact relationships, and look for approaches that bring people along. They're uncomfortable with decisions that leave stakeholders feeling unheard or excluded.
When faced with a choice, Harmonizers often want to understand different perspectives before committing. They may take more time to build consensus, but the decisions they reach tend to have broader buy-in and smoother implementation.
This approach works well in contexts where alignment matters for execution, where relationships are long-term, or where diverse perspectives genuinely improve outcomes. It can create friction in fast-moving environments or when difficult decisions need to be made over objections.
How Harmonizers approach problems:
Harmonizers consider the human dimensions of problems. They think about who's affected, what concerns people might have, and how to bring stakeholders together around solutions. They're often skilled at navigating political dynamics and building coalitions.
When conflict arises, Harmonizers tend to address it rather than avoid it but they address it by seeking to understand all sides and find paths forward that preserve relationships. They're drawn to win-win outcomes and uncomfortable with zero-sum framings.
How Harmonizers contribute to teams:
Harmonizers build trust and cohesion. They create environments where people feel comfortable contributing, surface concerns that might otherwise go unspoken, and maintain relationships that enable effective collaboration over time. They're often the ones who notice when someone is disengaged or upset and reach out to understand why.
They can help teams navigate interpersonal tensions, build alignment across diverse stakeholders, and create the psychological safety that enables honest communication and risk-taking. Their attunement to people helps teams handle the human dynamics that can make or break any initiative.
What Harmonizers prioritize: Relationships, inclusion, consensus, psychological safety, bringing people along.
Potential blind spots: May avoid necessary conflict or difficult decisions, may slow teams down to build consensus that isn't required, may prioritize harmony over honest feedback.
How Working Styles Interact
Teams typically include people with different working styles, which creates both friction and complementary strengths.
An Accelerator pushing for quick decisions may frustrate an Analyst who wants more data, but together they can balance speed and rigor, the Analyst ensures the team doesn't move recklessly while the Accelerator ensures they don't stall.
A Pragmatist advocating for the simple solution may clash with a Harmonizer who wants to ensure all voices are heard, but together they can find efficient paths that also maintain team cohesion.
Understanding working styles helps explain why certain colleagues feel easy to work with while others feel challenging. The colleague who "asks too many questions" might be an Analyst whose rigor could strengthen your thinking. The one who "rushes decisions" might be an Accelerator whose pace could help you ship faster. The one who "oversimplifies" might be a Pragmatist who could help you cut through noise. The one who "slows things down for consensus" might be a Harmonizer who could help you build the alignment needed for successful execution.
Working Style in Context
Your working style shows up in meetings, emails, and everyday interactions. It influences how you prefer to receive information, how quickly you want to move, how much input you seek before deciding, and how you build trust with colleagues.
Different environments suit different styles. A fast-moving startup might energize Accelerators and Pragmatists while exhausting Analysts. A research institution might suit Analysts well while frustrating Accelerators. A mission-driven nonprofit might be a natural fit for Harmonizers.
Your Pigment assessment reveals which of the four styles comes most naturally to you. This isn't a fixed category or a limitation, it's information about your default patterns that can help you understand yourself and work more effectively with others.
