“Boss A”. He is a typical “E” who is energised
by interaction. He loves to celebrate small successes and enjoys nothing better
than holding impromptu little parties – sometimes something as simple as a 15
minute cake cutting and chatting session, to celebrate someone’s birthday for
example. Working for a boss like A is fun. There’re lots of opportunities for
camaraderie-building and to let off steam. However, there’s also a flip side.
Surprisingly – to the introverts at least I guess, there’s such a thing as too
much fun and games! There will invariably be times when people cannot join in
the parties because they are rushing to meet looming deadlines or have pressing
issues to attend to. On the one hand, missing the party makes them feel bad.
But on the other hand, they are also unhappy about the “insensitivity” of the
boss who wants to party when there’s deadlines to be met.
“Boss B”. She is a typical “I” who is more
private and contained, preferring smaller gatherings to boisterous big-group
get-togethers. However, she will always gamely attending all the little parties
because she feels that leaders should try to support each other. Actually, she
also enjoys the camaraderie but she will be the first to tell someone who
whispers to her that “do you think it’s alright if I can’t go for the party
because I’ve got to rush this assignment” that it’s perfectly alright. She
understands because she sometimes also can’t wait to get back to the work at
hand! Hmmm.. come to think about it, this may be her “F” at work!
Guess which one I am! But anyway, after
thinking this through, my take is that it’s really not that important whether
the leader is an “E” or an “I”. As the Prof had reiterated in class, at the end
of the day, leadership is about managing self and managing relationships. So a
good leader must know when to become more “E” and when to become more “I” in
order to get the most out of his team, depending on individual personalities of
the team, the dynamics within the team, the circumstances and contexts of
situations and the team’s operating environment. Like the Wharton study
mentioned in the reading “Analysing effective leaders: Why Extraverts are not
always the most successful bosses” has found, to manage a group of passive
personalities, leaders must be more demonstrative and set clear directions.
Wheras if you are leading a proactive team, you should be more receptive. Well,
exercising our natural tendencies is easy. The tough part is when we have to
adopt the leadership style which is not that natural to us; and having to do it
“naturally”. I guess this is what makes a good leader great!
Gillian, you are right, nobody is a clear-cut introvert or extrovert, there are often elements of both where one will take precedence over the other depending on situations. However, I think another gauge of who is better as a leader is then very much dependent on the dominant characteristics of his/her immediate co-workers.
ReplyDeleteIntrovert and extrovert each has his/her strengths as a leader, but in very different ways. As a journalist, I have had the interesting experience of working under both introvert supervisor and extrovert supervisor at the same time. My news editor then was a task-oriented quiet thinker while my deputy news editor was a people-oriented individual with a wide network. While I fully admired my news editor for her meticulous, systematic and analytical capabilities especially in dissecting complex topics, I was often amazed by my deputy news editor’s ability to generate all kinds of interesting news ideas through her wide news sources and creative approaches in presenting news stories. In my opinion, this introvert-extrovert pairing was a great match as both complemented each other, and successfully led the news team into producing stories that are both solid in content and refreshing in idea and presentation.
Therefore, although introvert and extrovert seem like conflicting characteristics, they are in fact complementary. If the leader is surrounded by extroverts who are predominantly outgoing, bold and talkative, an introverted character would likely be more effective as this helps ensures the group stays focused and organised. Conversely, it may be more suitable for an extroverted leader to lead a group of introverts whereby his/her big picture outlook and people-oriented nature can complement the team of workers who are generally more focused on details, and rally the team together. In the event that the leader happens to be of the same characteristic as the group, having a deputy with the opposite trait may help neutralise the composition.
As the video shown in our first lecture illustrates “it is the follower that transforms the lone nut into a leader”, hence it is the people working with the leader that determines the latter’s effectiveness. There is thus no clear cut answer to whether introvert or extrovert makes better leader because the characteristics of the people under the leader is the deciding factor; whatever that is lacking in the group, and is able to be fulfilled by the leader will naturally make the leader an effective one.
Hi, Gillian – thanks for the very interesting illustrations of the 'I'-type and 'E'-type bosses.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I am of the view that it is not critical whether the leader is an “E” or an “I” and; that both introverted and extraverted individuals have the potential to make good leaders. In my opinion, the issue is really not so much about whether introverts or extraverts make better leaders; but rather that introverts and extraverts fare better as leaders under different sets of circumstances.
From my perspective, what determines which type of leaders (i.e. introverted or extraverted) would thrive better is a function of 3 important compatibility factors, namely:
1. The ‘Leader-Context’ compatibility factor (i.e. fit between leadership style to job nature and context) - extroverted leaders are more suited to lead organizations or groups where the nature of the job entails a high degree of social contact with others (e.g. marketing, advertising or public relations where overtly-displayed energy, enthusiasm and social skills are essential components of successful leadership); whereas introverted leaders are likely to (naturally) thrive better in highly technical or administrative fields such as engineering, legal services, etc.
2. The ‘Leader-Staff’ compatibility factor (i.e. leader and staff fit) - Studies undertaken by the Wharton Institute (2010) have found that ‘pairing extraverted leaders with proactive employees (i.e. individuals who take initiative and speak out) can lead to friction, while pairing the same group of proactive employees with an introverted leader can be a pathway to success[4].’ In brief, the compatibility or fit between leaders and staff (or members of groups they are leading) can have a significant bearing on which type of leaders are more successful;
3. The ‘Leader-Culture’ compatibility factor (i.e. fit between leadership style and culture) - lastly, I think culture also plays a part in determining which types of leaders (i.e. whether introverted or extraverted leaders) tend to fare better. My personal sensing is that in most Asian cultures, introverted leaders, who typically project a greater sense of seriousness, dependability and calm astute tend to be favoured. In such cultures, extraverted leaders who usually exude a more flamboyant, bolder and outgoing style of leadership may come across as being overbearing, rude, insensitive and even oppressive – all of which are conditions that can potentially give rise to misunderstanding and conflict that can undermine their leadership. Contrastingly, extraverted leaders are likely to fare better in western cultures where being outgoing, open and direct are traits that are widely accepted socially and; where not conducting oneself in that manner may in fact invite others to take offence. Under such circumstances (in western cultures), introverted leaders may sometimes be viewed as being of ‘weak character’ and hence be less effective in leadership appointments.
Nevertheless, even if there is a poor ‘compatibility fit’ in any of the 3 aspects, a individual (whether introverted or extraverted) can continue to be an effective leader so long as he/she recognizes the ‘ill-fit’ (i.e. is self-aware of possible contradictions) and takes deliberate measures to implement behaviours (e.g. extravert leading a proactive team making effort to be more receptive; introvert in an open culture deliberately being more assertive, etc) that can help narrow the gap between the compatibility fit.
Just sharing my thoughts on the matter. Thanks.