Why the introverted leader gets a bad press

This is the first of three blogs from Dr Helen Nolan, University of Warwick.

A common first question on leadership programmes is to ask participants to think of an inspirational leader. Got one? Great. Now, how would you describe them? Write down the first three adjectives that you would instinctively use.

Did you have on your list: “reflective”, “reserved”, “analytical”, and “independent” ?  You would be a rare person if so.

For many of us these descriptions won’t be the ones that immediately spring to mind. Rather popular constructs of leadership typically feature someone known for their action, assertiveness and dominance. A great leader is usually thought of as exuding charisma, drawing followers in and securing engagement.

And why not! We like to be inspired and enraptured by inspirational figures. We can probably all bring at least one to mind. Someone who can make us stop in our tracks, ignite a spark within us and take us on a journey towards a shared mission.

By definition, a leader is usually thought of as an extrovert who thrives in the limelight.

What, though, if a leader, or someone aspiring to leadership, has other qualities and does not fit this quintessential leadership type?  What if they are more reflexive, reserved and self-reliant?  If so, they may be seen as falling on the side of introversion rather than extroversion.  And we then hit a problem because introversion is not commonly seen as an ideal type for leadership.

If you are an introvert, this is bad enough.  Now when we add the common traits found in women we find things are even more stacked against us.  Established expectations for women leaders are that we should be affable, warm, nurturing and, ultimately, benign. That is we are low threat. 

Success likability research tells us that women and men who are perceived as equally competent receive differential likability scores. In order to be perceived positively, women need to adhere to engrained gender stereotypes and strike a delicate balance between competence and compassion. This dilemma is known as “tightrope bias”.

This means women leaders with introvert tendencies face a “double whammy”.  In walking the tightrope of likeability, their introversion qualities make it all too easy for them to be seen as “aloof”, “hostile”, “unsociable”. Moreover, their own reflexive behaviour can lead to them being seen as complacent, indecisive, and apathetic – all features incompatible with progression to leadership roles and responsibilities.

What a loss this is.  Reflexive, self-possessed and self-motivated colleagues have much to offer organisations and communities.  To overlook this diversity and the value it adds risks stifling creativity.  Sadly though images and labels of introversion are often seen as “lesser than” even though it is estimated that in excess of 50% of the population are introverts.

So why is this the case? Why is there a tendency for introversion to be overlooked, dismissed, or maligned?  Could it stem from how introversion has been conceptualised, researched, and portrayed? 

In their systematic review of studies of introversion and extroversion (and specifically how these have been conceptualised and studied) Blevins et al. note that introversion was the much lesser studied of the two constructs. Over time introversion has somehow become collapsed into extroversion, as opposed to being an entity in its own right, with associated attributes and strengths.

Blevins et al looked at 10 scales measuring extraversion/ introversion and noted that potentially-beneficial introvert qualities like introspection and self-reflection, independence and solitude remain under-explored and undervalued.  These assumptions – and dubious methodologies - over-simplify the situation.  In consequence:

·       three of these scales contained no introvert characteristics at all. 

·       Where they were included, introvert characteristics were often negatively valanced, with features including shyness, low confidence and low self-worth used to represent introversion.

·       Other, more constructive, and positive introvert tendencies e.g., reflectiveness, were overlooked.

This clear signal that introversion is less valued and less appealing may well help to explain why introverts comprise only 4% of senior leadership teams in organisations.

Blevins et al. quote Carl Jung in surmising that; ‘The introvert is far more subject to misunderstanding than the extravert’. The cumulative effects of these approaches are that the ideal colleague and leader becomes portrayed as a highly extraverted one. Potentially-beneficial introvert qualities like introspection and self-reflection, independence and solitude remain under-explored and undervalued.

There is, however, hope on the horizon!  Although the exemplary and aspirational leader is regularly portrayed as an extroverted one, from Blevins’ review of 10 years’ worth of literature a more balanced picture begins to emerge.  For example:

·       Extroverted individuals and groups may be less well-suited to tasks requiring close attention to detail.

·       Senior leadership extroversion was also found to be negatively associated with organisational commitment. 

·       Six of 11 reviewed studies didn’t support the assumption of widespread benefits associated with extravert leaders.

Research in the retail sector by Grant et al adds further contextual evidence in respect of how the relationship between extroverts and introverts impacts organisational performance:

·       where employees were proactive or extraverted and leaders were introverted, profits were high.

·       where leaders were extraverted, and employees introverted or passive, high profits were also noted.

·       profits were noted to be lower where extraverted leaders led proactive employees and introverted leaders led passive employees.

In a separate arm of this study, Grant et al also demonstrated that it is possible to change both attitudes about leadership and leadership behaviour, enabling behaviours to be more introverted or extraverted in particular situations.

So what can we introverts conclude regarding our leadership capabilities and ambitions? Where does this leave us, as potential leaders? Well, actually in a rather good – but frequently overlooked – position.  Our internally derived energy makes us self-starters and self-sustainers.  We bring a host of hitherto neglected qualities to leadership that are beginning to be recognised as I set out in Part 2 of this blog series.

Read on!

In her second blog, Twelve Strengths of the Introverted Leader, Helen challenges negative stereotyping by setting out the myriad ways in which introversion traits support success in leadership roles.

In the third, and final blog in this series, How to embrace your stellar qualities as an introvert, Helen provides advice and wisdom for women who experience introversion to enable them to embrace and celebrate their qualities, capabilities and traits that contribute to successful leadership.

Dr Helen Nolan is an Associate Professor at the University of Warwick Medical School. She has recently won an Education Innovation Award by the ASME’s Educator Development Committee (EDC)who support and promote the personal and professional development of healthcare educators of all disciplines and to disseminate good practice in medical education.