We often expect corporate executives to conform to certain extroverted CEO stereotypes: C for charismatic, E for effusive, and O for outgoing. To wit: Virgin Group chairman Richard Branson, who very publicly flew around the world in a hot air balloon; former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, a guest player on the sitcom 30 Rock; and Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, the swashbuckling yachtsman.
But then there are the introverted CEOs—calm, eremitic, and observant—who prefer flying below the radar. You've never heard of them because they don't like the spotlight. Take Peter Rouse, who last week was named interim White House chief of staff, replacing the extraverted Rahm Emanuel. Barely known outside of Washington circles, Rouse is a quiet politician who seems to eschew the public eye, preferring instead to hunker down and deal with problems. Within the walls of the West Wing, he is reportedly known as a "fixer."
Both types of leaders, the extraverts and the introverts, can be equally successful or ineffectual, but with different groups of employees.
“Often the leaders end up doing a lot of the talking and not listening to any of the ideas that the followers are trying to provide”
A new study finds that extraverted leaders can actually be a liability for a company's performance, especially if the followers are extraverts, too. In short, new ideas can't blossom into profitable projects if everyone in the room is contributing ideas, and the leader is too busy being outgoing to listen to or act upon them.
An introverted leader, on the other hand, is more likely to listen to and process the ideas of an eager team. But if an introverted leader is managing a bunch of passive followers, then a staff meeting may start to resemble a Quaker meeting: lots of contemplation, but hardly any talk. To that end, a team of passive followers benefits from an extraverted leader.
"Often the leaders end up doing a lot of the talking, and not listening to any of the ideas that the followers are trying to provide," says HBS associate professor Francesca Gino, who conducted the study with professors Adam M. Grant of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and David A. Hofmann of UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School. Their article, "Reversing the Extraverted Leadership Advantage: The Role of Employee Proactivity," will appear in the Academy of Management Journal next year.
The three professors commenced their research with field data from a national pizza delivery chain, mailing out questionnaires and successfully surveying fifty-seven pizza store managers and 374 employees about their personality traits and their coworkers' behaviors. Using a five-point scale, the respondents rated themselves on adjectives such as "reserved," "introverted," "talkative," and "bold." The employees rated their teams' general work behaviors on items such as "Try to correct a faulty procedure or practice" and "Communicate opinions about work issues to others even if their opinions differ or others disagree."
The researchers then compared the survey results against each pizzeria's overall profitability over a seven-week period. Sure enough, they observed high profits in stores where the employees were relatively passive but the managers were extraverted. On the other hand, when employees were proactive, the stores led by introverted managers earned high profits. Meanwhile, profits were lower in stores where extraverted managers led proactive employees and introverted managers led passive employees.
“There are ways to influence the likelihood that leaders will act introverted or extraverted”
The research conducted by Grant, Gino and Hofmann shows that there's a definite need for introverted leaders. Here's the problem: research shows that introverts, not prone to self-promotion, typically have more trouble than their extraverted colleagues rising through the corporate ranks in order to take a leadership role. This is especially true if they are surrounded by extraverted coworkers, who are likelier to receive promotions because they actively draw attention to themselves—fitting the stereotypes of great leaders.
"Many people associate extraversion with action, assertiveness and dominance—characteristics that people believe to be necessary to be effective leaders," Gino says. "The features that define extraversion are commonly the features people associate with leadership."
Changing A Leopard's Spots
Unfortunately, companies that promote only extraverts are natural breeding grounds for the aforementioned ineffectual situations in which extraverts report to extraverts. Fortunately, the research also shows that it's possible not only to change prevailing attitudes about leadership, but to influence leadership behavior as well-that is, to encourage introverted and extraverted behavior in any given situation.
"We showed that there are ways to influence the likelihood that leaders will act introverted or extraverted," Gino says.
For the second study in their paper, the researchers devised a scenario in which 163 college students participated in a T-shirt folding contest. The students were divided into fifty-six groups, all tasked with folding as many T-shirts as possible in ten minutes. (They were encouraged to try their hardest-the most productive groups would win iPods.) Each group consisted of one assigned leader and three followers, plus two research assistants—"confederates"—who pretended to be followers. Some of the confederates were told to approach their team leader, after a minute and a half into the folding session, and say, "I have a friend from Japan who has a faster way. It might take a minute or two to teach it, but do we want to try it?" (The Japanese method is featured on YouTube.) The goal was to see how introverted and extraverted leaders would react to the proactive suggestion.
In an effort to control whether the student leaders would manage their teams in an introverted or extraverted manner, the researchers asked them to read a brief statement before the T-shirt folding commenced. Half of the leaders received this statement, along with a list of supporting academic studies:
“By creating a work environment where people feel free to speak up and be proactive, the organization is creating the right place for introverted leaders to be successful”
"Scientific research now shows that behaving in an extraverted manner is the key to success as a leader. Like John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jack Welch, great leaders are extraverted: their behavior is bold, talkative, energetic, active, assertive, and adventurous. This enables them to communicate a strong, dominant vision that inspires followers to deliver results."
The other half received this antithetical statement, also followed by a list of academic studies that supported it:
"Scientific research now shows that behaving in an introverted manner is the key to success as a leader. Like Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and Socrates, great leaders are introverted: their behavior is quiet, shy, reserved, and unadventurous. This enables them to empower their people to deliver results."
"We had them think about their role as a leader and consider how the certain style would help them go about the task," Gino says.
Sure enough, the students' leadership style during the T-shirt folding exercise corresponded with the statement they had been asked to consider. Those who had read about the virtues of introverts were far more likely to signal that they were receptive to the novel Japanese folding method. And as with the pizzeria study, when the followers were proactive, the groups with introverted leaders were more productive than those with extraverted leaders.
"It worked," Gino says. (The research team believes that the results may have been more dramatic had the groups been given more time to fold; the sessions were only ten minutes long, and the whiz-bang Japanese folding method took some practice.)
Gino says her future research plans may involve the topic of authenticity, the degree to which introverts can genuinely adopt extraverted behavior before landing a leadership role. Ideally, though, she hopes to see more corporations adopt policies that reward good listeners as much as they reward good talkers.
"By fostering a work environment where people feel free to speak up and be proactive, the organization is creating the right place for introverted leaders to be successful."
But after I had a better look at content -- yes, makes sense. EQ would give us a better measure of probability of success in leadership. No method lends itself to "measurement".
Mañana there will be another theory ?
In my opinion, the greatest leaders are those who are able to leverage the talents of the people around them and raise each person to function closer to or at their full potential. Other essential attributes to leadership - authenticity, self-awareness and emotional intelligence - also have nothing to do with introversion or extroversion.
As an extrovert myself, I have no shortage of energy, enthusiasm and passion - but I really envy those introverts who have the ability to focus and contemplate. I try, but it doesn't come easily!
The message for me from this article is that if you aspire to leadership it is more important to be your authentic self and focus on your own strengths rather than to aspire to some stereotypical idea of who and how you should be.
In the past I thought that my silence during board meetings demonstrated that I was dismissing the extravert's idiocy (assuming others would too). Unfortunately I learned that the CEOs were impressed by outspokenness regardless of the intellectual depth - or lack thereof. The company today is run by the same lout who "knows everything" and listens to no one.
I believe my experience is the norm rather than the exception. Of course the CEOs and presidents won't recognize it because they're cut from the same cloth.
So, is the success outlined herein an outcome of introverts as leaders...or is it indicative of a more authentic, self-actualized individual? Based on my personal and professional experience, it is far less common to find an authentic extrovert. When you do, snatch them up...they're one of the best leaders money can buy!
Considering a virtuoso team, where everyone is the master of their own domains, a deadlock ensues. Reason: every idea seems feasible; result: stagnation.
For a team to succeed, the short-comings of members should be insured with the flagships of others ( for greatest good of the body).
Leaders have the added responsibility to bring such harmonization. Being mindful of the team-members intellectual coupled with emotional horizons is a must including oneself!
Promotion issues aside, has there been any research around success at blending these styles for groups that contain both extroverts and introverts? My observation would be that many teams contain both and so both styles may be required.
Why only extrovert or introvert?
I don't believe extrovert should not able to listen. Nor introvert should be more open to new ideas either...
I would say it depends...
I wrote a short entry on my blog. Hope you don't mind my sharing, http://mimosasolutions.com/extrovert-vs-introvert-is-this-all-that-matters
Do you think it might be useful to also foster a sense of to apply the apply extraverted or introverted leadership style depending on type of group one is dealing with?
Yeah, and there might be yet another theory.
as they play a very silent role. Mostly they fit into what Jim Collins call as "The Level 5 Leaders" Hence there is a strong need for Introverted leaders to develop Extroversion skills and the organizations to identify and promote introverted leaders and their approaches for a wider organizational learning and application. This may not be difficult as H J Eysenck (who has done lot of work on extroversion-Introversion) theory state that every introvert is an extrovert inside and every extrovert is an introvert inside'
obedient to their direction because their personal brand is irresistible. I greatly applaud the leadership examples of the Virgin Group chairman Richard Branson, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, Peter Rouse the White House Chief of Staff, Mahatma Gandhi, Socrates, Martin Luther King and to me these great individuals have a personal brand which does coincide in great respects with their type of behavior attributable and observable.
I have to conclude that an extrovert leader may be the first choice to fire up demotivated / passive followers. But then the extrovert needs to be replaced with an introvert to obtain that double and tripple digit growth.
Thank you for helping shatter the stereotypes of introverts as leaders. Your article and the research you present underscore the importance of "leaders adapt[ing] their style depending on the type of group they are leading," as you say in your executive summary. Indeed, whether you're leading a team, presenting your ideas to an audience, or selling your services to clients, adapting your style to your stakeholders makes common sense--and now with this new research to substantiate it.
According to psychologist Hans Eysenck, extraverts are born with low cortical stimulation, and seek to compensate by generating neural activity (including talking). In contrast, intraverts are born with excessive cortical stimulation and hence seek to block out the noise of extraverts.
So it would be interesting to know if the subordinates/followers were mainly intraverted or extraverted.
It is axiomatic, that a 'leader' is someone who has followers. So it is the followers who determine who they choose to be led by.
The article conflates the concept of 'manager' or 'CEO' with the concept of 'leader', where, in fact, these concepts are orthogonal. Some managers may be 'leaders', many would not. Employee compliance is considerably different from a follower's commitment.
Research that I conducted into innovation within country towns found that towns that were dying report the highest number of leaders and a substantial proportion of passive citizenry. The most vibrant and progressive towns report the fewest leaders and the highest proportion of proactive citizens.
So it would be interesting to know if your published research could separate out the contribution to profitability by source of ideas - employees alone or by managers alone. Where is the main effect? Is it the manager, the followers, or the interaction of the two?
In the T-shirt example, the 'introvert' statement describes introverted leaders as 'unadventurous'. I suspect this description is quite inaccurate. In fact, the reverse is more likely to be the case. Frank Sulloway would suggest that introverts are likely to be more adventurous (as in risk-taking) than extraverts. Think explorers, world travellers and paradigm breakers in science. In contrast, the well-known and high profile 'leaders' are more often conservative.
Like much good research, this article generates more questions than answers.
On the other hand, several franchising researchers have recommended that for the franchiser-franchisee business relationship to be successful there should be iopen-collaborative communication for their mutual competitiveness from the beginning and throughout the franchise contract. I do not think an introvert franchiser can enable the inexperienced independent operator-franchisees to successfully start and run their outlets in a way that leads to the franchiser expanding the chain using the franchisees' resources while these entrepreneurs also benefit from the time-tested management system of the franchiser. This relationship requires alot of extrovert charateristics for the franchisers to teach the franchisees on how to use the branded,proven-to-be-successful operating system. I wonder how an introvert franchiser will enable the mutual business success to the franchisees that comes from the partnership especially at the initial stages when alot of openness is needed.
But also the over extrovert parent/franchiser can scare some introvert franchisees since some entrepreneurs in countries like Uganda fear franchising as a business strategy because of the system discipline that comes from the relationship of equals that is key for mutual competitiveness. What is your take in both cases?
I am an extravert and through my career I have worked for managers of both types - Introvert and Extravert.
I have experienced Introvert managers whose behavior matched that you describe and had great outcomes with their teams, but equally have had Introvert managers who tended to apply the "contemplative brakes" a little too quickly leading to frustration amongst the action-oriented Extraverts and a perception that we had fallen into the "paralysis by analysis" trap and were going nowhere fast.
On the other hand, I have had Extravert managers who recognised the needs and preferences of the Extraverts within their teams and were happy to let them utilize the strengths characteristic of their type - this worked well. Yet other Extravert managers have at times been so focused on themselves that their own agenda and progression that they ended up displaying the negative aspects of Goleman/McLellan's Authoritative and Pacesetting management styles - naturally enough, with less than optimal performances and outcomes.
I can consequently conclude only that irrespective of personality types, it comes down to three key factors - self-awareness, self-management and confidence.
It would be interesting to see these factors brought into the scope of the research as well as some replication of the study amongst higher-level staff within an organization, i.e. managers of managers etc.
Many thanks, Laurence Knell
This article is to highlight the mostly neglected aspect of leadership: Quiet Evaluation
But the fact is that, extroverts are smart enough to create first impression faster than introverts. Introverts usually take longer time or sometimes people do not understand and estimate their capabilities and potentials. But when they reveal their strengths, it exceeds the impression created by extroverts. So, the value created by introverts are usually sustainable, universally accepted and human in nature.
When extroverts are leading introverts, then there is higher possibility of value clash. Extroverts are more change prone and introverts are resist prone. And extroverts sense the environment and accordingly shift the gear of values. This is the key to success for extroverts. Introverts on the other hand, believe that people should understand their beliefs and they try to create culture as per what they believe.
I believe that challenges to deal with extroverts and introverts depend upon nature of jobs. Customer oriented jobs usually require extroverts and research related jobs require introverts.
Had they stuck exclusively to the terms "active" and "passive," then we would have missed the important point that introverts are not necessarily passive. Rather, they excel at welcoming and processing ideas from others. The problem, as you indicate, seems to be that too many organizations assume the introverts to be passive, and thus they don't have a chance to rise through the ranks.
Anyone with reasonable intelligence learns how to utilize both their introversion and extroversion. Some more than others. I test out totally on the introvert side, but had a successful career in the corporate world. I left, like many introverts, because, as post #7 points out, we introverts understand what it takes to function in either realm, while extraverts only understand their own realm. This grows increasingly tiresome as we see "style" frequently win over substance, as #12 points out.
According to Big Five and Palo Alto communication theories, an introverted behavior can be an indicator of strong listening (not necessarily to all idea, thoughts and opinions, there are other behavior polarities that has an impact on this), and ability to introspect. On the flip side it can also portray a person with a lower self image and confidence. It could also be an indicator of someone with lower energy level.
On a concluding note, I opine that a successful leader should be able to juggle the introverted and extroverted behavior judiciously depending on the situation. Being labeled as a purely ' extroverted' or 'introverted' in every situation will hamper success for the individual, team and organization.
re has to be room for both, and I suspect that what a leader should be doing is getting to know and understand both types of persons, potential points of conflict and develop strategies to get the best out both persons. Over the years, I have undertaken various assessments and as my knowledge and exposure to various experiences has changed, there has been continual movement from being on the 'introvert' scale to the 'extrovert' scale. As one person told me, the assessment is only an indicator as to how you prefer to operate.
This theory is interesting because it highlights the fact that there are intriverts who are successful, not mentioned before. An inrovert has to work very hard at being heard and open which develops over time. I grew to be an ambivert more becuase I had leaders and mentors who groomed me to talk more and develop relations at work. I found that over the years I change my behaviour when there are people around me especially at work while at home and at social events I may go back to being an introvert.
Ultimately it is the inner desire in the person to achieve which gets him or her where he/she is. Thus the nPow, nAch and nAff come into play (McClelland's theory of needs).
Culture and tradition do restrain the theory.
Can anyone point me to research on the interplay between the personalities of leaders and followers and how this affects the quality of leadership?
It has been long established that teams that include only extroverts would lead the organisation on a highly risky and precipetious path. Where as an all-introverted team would most likely lead... nowhere.
My advice for anyone putting together a team is to take some time to ask participants to undergo the MB Test... I did it with my team and the results were truly insightful.
Here are the four types needed for a successful team:
Excerpted with permission from the MBTI(r) Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(r)
Favorite world: Do you prefer to focus on the outer world or on your own inner world? This is called Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I).
Information: Do you prefer to focus on the basic information you take in or do you prefer to interpret and add meaning? This is called Sensing (S) or Intuition (N).
Decisions: When making decisions, do you prefer to first look at logic and consistency or first look at the people and special circumstances? This is called Thinking (T) or Feeling (F).
Structure: In dealing with the outside world, do you prefer to get things decided or do you prefer to stay open to new information and options? This is called Judging (J) or Perceiving (P).
however, if you take a tour in Morden man you will notice that all of us have an introvert inside us. this is due to Culture, age, level of education, our life experiences e.t.c. and as such we can only create future managers and leaders by adapting tools and processes that consider all kinds of personality. for example my Accountant is a true and typical Introvert, in our work relationship i have learned that he has skills i dont have, he analyse each activity or event before accepting and as such i make him my companion in decision making. introverts can manage based on circumstance not logic or policy. their analytical skill is a best tool in management especially in this changing environment.
Yet the author tends to equate extrovert with proactivity and introvert with reactivity. Actually an introvert person can be very proactive (say, in finding a smart and subtle way to influence people) whilst an extrovert person can be very reactive (say, being hasty in concluding opinions). Introvert vs. extrovert and proactivity vs. reactivity are different dimensions. I hope the author will conduct research on the mix of these dimensions in leadership effectiveness and further shed lights on this subject. Thank you.
During regular business time leader gains more being an Introvert. " Team Works as a wheal turns. "
When situation tightens, the team needs Extrovert to follow.
Thank you for the wonderful enrichment that your articles offer on a regular basis.
avoided. Coming to corporate situations we need winners as well as thinkers but the latter in isolation would not deliver appropriately. To the reverse, winner would ultimately survive despite a little dearth of deep thinking capability.
The ideal is a fair mix of extraversion and introversion by properly understanding situations and attuning thereto as per demand.
I find the resonant leadership styles( Golemen , et al 2000) that combine E.I. with traditional leadership styles also of value.
Non Verbal communication plays a vital role in the process of leadership and introverts are more successful here. They look any problem from different sides and reach to final decision after analyzing the whole situation which sometimes involves a bit long span of time and whole process is not communicated to outer world while in case of extroverts it is communicated. Here, the difference starts and balance is required between both extraversion and introversion that are present in each individual except in case of extremism. In organizational studies, this was checked either by means of psychological test of MBTI, NERD etc. and conclusion were drafted but situations also play a vital role in leadership and there introverts had edge over extroverts as they give their response not reaction which occurs in case of extroverts(extremes).
Outcome of any situation cannot be predicted completely but its effect can be managed to maximum extent by means of considering all variables and post result effects. Self motivation helps introverts there and that is less prominent in case of extroverts. Effect of referent power and persona is created in case of those introverts having a blend of slight extroversion as they choose different path/solution of situation than existing one and meanwhile they keep in mind the view of other person and external factors and results are mostly positive as they have balance in response and they are not skeptical with their views (except extreme introverts) and listen ideas and view of other person patiently but this does not means that they don't communicate their ideas, yes they do and in a strong manner. So a balance is required between the two depending on the situation and clarity is essential as communication process itself is not as simple as it looks.
In my opinion the effective and smart leadership would mix these two strenghts and find a balance between them according to the atmosphere and types of employees. And I strongly believe that it is easy for introverts to be extroverts at the same time, but difficult for extraverts to be introverts.
The more introverted professions are often mute in front of an extraverted leadership because their best ideas are too often "STOLLEN" by the extroverts who present those same ideas up the corporate ladder as their own. Gaining influence and prestige at the expense of the intoverts. However, this does not mean that the introverts are in any way passive, in fact the professions themselves might require a hight degree of proactive behavior for a successful completion of any project.
The other issue about leadership has no bearing upon extavert/introvert, but upon the way our leadership evolved in corporations. The evolution came from manufacturing requirement of always being "active" and hands on - this has lead to management style that favors action over reflection. Most of all new skill requirements for knowledge management positions are reflective in nature. Management structures have not been adaptive enough to handle this transition.
It seems to me that this study is a replay of the seminal study made about the US Navy during WWII published by HBR in 1956 - intersting, but totally misleading.
For all those who still think they need to be loud to be leads, keep quiet and listen. Observe that when introverts speak, people listen. I'm generalizing but their thoughts are well thought out with objective being to speak something worthwhile rather than just speaking out in a need to appear to be in control.
On the other hand, I have experienced extrovert led teams working comparable tasks with introvert led teams and seen significantly better results from the introvert led teams. The interesting paradox is the extroverts perception is they helped the situation and if they had not been there the team would have done worse.
Each has specific his/her own qualities to apply in day-to-day corporate life.
Neither is superior to each other. Emotional Intelligence in either of them, may have some differences. However, I feel that it all depends on the nature of the job, responsibilities and expertize to determine the 'dynamic' nature of both the type of personalities
With the unique characteristics introverts possess, they can use 5-10% more of what they do currently and can see a significant difference in their career and personal lives. Today, a lot more introverted leaders have become know as "Quiet Leaders". These individuals stay in the background of their employees, get more accomplished than many other corporate leaders, and instead of giving specific instructions/directions to their employees, they give them their assignment and let their employees use their critical thinking skills to solve what they need done.
The interesting thing about this is that 25% of corporate organizations have picked up on this and are using these skills and techniques because organizations with quiet leaders have been getting better results than those who do not. There is about a 15% increase in productivity with organizations using the quiet leader format.
The times are changing, and changing for the better! Leaders who were once shy about appearing before the public are making strides towards stardom.
Introverts and Extroverts alike are working to improve on whatever could be perceived as their weakness.
Herein lies the answer to the success of both intro/extroverts : The BIGGEST room in the world is ....
fernandelsalomon.blogspot.com
The effective leader should always listen to his team members and share with them his passion and vision...
Extrovert or introvert leaders should look beyond their own objectives while promoting and nurturing other talented leaders in the company...
In fact any leader should embrace both leadership styles depending on the situation as long as they create opportunities for talented employees...
The basic employees are 6 introverted person.
The 3 managers of the 6 employees are extroverted person.
And the Leader of the Group is an introverted person.
What will happen? I am curious truly.
A good balance of these two styles, with each one trying to adapt their unnatural other when the situation demands will make a good well-rounded leader.
So I don't think that it matters whether the leader is extraverted or introverted, but whether the leader possesses the necessary skills to know how to adapt his or her own leadership style to the situation at hand.
http://pedeggreview.net
ow to keep that motivation specific to the task at hand and the team dynamic. It should be hard to identify a good leader's preference, and impossible to pin victory on intro- or extraversion, rather his/her superior servant-leadership execution. Here's a leasson learned the hard way, play the cards you're dealt... and never let 'em see you sweat. I look forward to reading future studies on this scenario, thanks for the insight.
But then that talking is appreciated and IT people are called introverts and not fit for promotion. If people in IT just talk, I hope no software would be developed.
According to me, what you have commented is absolutely correct and necessary too... because, in this modern & competitive business world, as openings are also unlimited, if any leader practise extrovert behaviour, he/she finds difficult to retain his/her talented and best employees.. Hence, he/she needs to practise introvert if it is not so far developed.
I think you need to expand your case studies to encompass other organizations.
I'd suggest that an introvert must be action oriented to raise to leadership positions in a world with stereotypes favoring the extrovert. However, the authors differentiate the 'proactive' extrovert from the 'passive' introvert.
My observations indicate that often extroverts value quick decisions and action for the sake of action, while introverts think of second and third order effects and value longer-term, actual results. The extrovert is happy when the deal is complete. The introvert is happy when enough thought and patience is shown to make sure the deal is successful. It is this focus on true results (versus just action) that motivates the introvert to listen to good ideas.
As I read this research, I immediately thought of the Myers-Briggs methodology, which was not referenced but which has been around for decades. In the 1970s I saw papers that advocated mixing types in work groups to achieve better decision-making. In addition to mixing types, it is important that every person be encouraged to contribute and not be dominated by the extraverts.
The video "GroupThink," which I first saw in 1976, supplements the concept about the dangers of having too many people who "think similarly."
Are the researchers familiar with these works?
Thank you, Fawaz Shalan, for mentioning MBTI in Comment #42.
My humble perception.