By: Brandon Long
Assertive, extroverted leaders are generally celebrated as having the best approach to leadership. This review explores the alternative and examines the benefits of leaders who utilize a laissez-faire leadership style and are inclined to lead as introverts. For example, voters in the Republican presidential primary in 2016 are currently faced with choosing from among these two styles as they consider Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. Trump is known for his brashness. In contrast, Bush is known for his more calculated and carefully crafted policy proposals and speeches. Introverted leaders work best with proactive followers because they know how to create an environment that matches raw talent with clear goal-setting to secure success. But, even when leaders who lean toward introversion are faced with followers who are not proactive, they can adapt and manage with techniques characteristic of extraverted leaders to accomplish organizational goals.
Assertive, extroverted leaders are generally celebrated as having the best approach to leadership. This review explores the alternative and examines the benefits of leaders who utilize a laissez-faire leadership style and are inclined to lead as introverts. For example, voters in the Republican presidential primary in 2016 are currently faced with choosing from among these two styles as they consider Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. Trump is known for his brashness. In contrast, Bush is known for his more calculated and carefully crafted policy proposals and speeches. Introverted leaders work best with proactive followers because they know how to create an environment that matches raw talent with clear goal-setting to secure success. But, even when leaders who lean toward introversion are faced with followers who are not proactive, they can adapt and manage with techniques characteristic of extraverted leaders to accomplish organizational goals.
Leading
as an Introvert: The Benefits and
Risks
of Laissez-faire Leadership
Numerous studies have been conducted
examining the personality characteristics of leaders and managers, specifically
evaluating the effectiveness of their work based on their extraversion. Many of
those studies point to the success of extraverted leaders. However, there are
circumstances that allow more favorable outcomes for leaders with a more
introverted approach to management (Flynn, 2015; Grant, Gino, & Hofmann,
2011; McCormack & Mellor, 2002). While there are many examples that
highlight the effectiveness of more assertive leadership styles, a
laissez-faire approach to leadership does not necessarily precede a management
failure and can actually contribute to a thriving work environment, if the
right employees are teamed up with the right manager who utilizes the right
approach (Andersen, 2006; Grant et al., 2011). This paper examines under what
circumstances introverted leaders are able to achieve success maximum results
for their organizations.
Literature Review
Researchers and news publications
have studied and opined about the dynamic between introverted and extraverted
leaders. This review reveals how personality impacts leadership, explains the
range of personalities within the labels of introversion versus extroversion,
offers examples of the introverted laissez-faire leadership style and its
implications, and offers the benefits of having introverted leaders, managers,
and communicators.
How
personality impacts leadership
Personality is a contributing factor
to effectiveness (McCormack & Mellor, 2002). McCormack et al. (2002)
specifically examined how personality impacted leadership in a military culture
by measuring the relationship between personality traits, using what’s known as
the five-factor model of personality, and leadership effectiveness. The
five-factor model of personality characterizes subjects’ Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (McCormack et al.,
2002). In this study, McCormack et al. (2002) determined that effective leaders
were lower on the Extraversion scale and higher on the Conscientiousness scale.
Both measurements point to greater effectiveness of leaders who have more
introverted personalities.
Grant et al. (2011) simulated a
business environment in their study of how extraverted leadership styles
impacted employee proactivity. Their
research (Grant et al., 2011) revealed that leadership style and employee
proactivity need to complement each other to improve group performance. Taking
that idea a step further, they found that leadership is not only an influence
on employee proactivity, but it can also be shaped by employee proactivity
(Grant et al., 2011). This means managers can decide how they interact with
employees based on their observations of the proactivity level of employees.
Andersen (2005) found there is a
relationship between personality, leadership, and organizational effectiveness,
but the relationship is low. This study determined personality does not
guarantee or forecast if someone will be a good leader (Andersen, 2005).
Andersen (2005) concluded there is scientifically no evidence highlighting
personality traits that are universally related to leadership and traits of
leaders cannot predict if an organization will be effective. The findings also
indicated leadership had a minor impact on organizational effectiveness because
the success was not determined by who or what the leader was, but was
determined by what the leaders do and what they are able to accomplish
(Andersen, 2005).
Defining
introversion vs. extraversion
Carl
Jung’s psychology research first introduced the concepts of extraverts and
introverts. (“Extroversion and introversion.,” 2015). Jung observed that extraverts were focused on
the external world and acted out their feelings; introverts were more focused
on the inward self and are normally contemplative individuals (“Extroversion
and introversion.,” 2015). It is
important to note that individuals are not locked into a personality type,
introversion or extraversion, and may change depending on circumstances that
can be learned or practiced, according to data from self-reported surveys
(Stephens-Craig, Kuofie, & Dool, 2015). This review aims to explain how
these concepts integrate into a leadership communication model.
Judge,
Piccolo, & Kosalka (2009) explained that extraverts are considered
assertive, active, talkative, and are perceived to be “leaderlike”, but they
are also prone to over-estimating capabilities and often fail to provide a
clear strategic focus. McCormack et al. (2002) determined introverted leaders
were more independent, reserved, and conscientious; conscientiousness was
generally connected to leaders who were strong willed, determined, and had
academic achievements. One manifestation of introversion is the laissez-faire
leadership style. Flynn (2015) described laissez-faire leaders as uninvolved.
In the laissez-faire leadership model, the leaders trust followers to make the
right decisions; the goal for the leader is to bring in highly trained,
reliable members to the organization, who are able to self-monitor, problem
solve, and produce successful results (Flynn, 2015).
Examples of laissez-faire introvert leadership styles and implications
 |
| Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush |
Examples of laissez-faire introvert leadership styles and implications
 |
| Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump |
Marquet (2015) illustrated the importance of training teams
using a laissez-faire model and the consequences of not doing so. This study explained when teams were not trained
for a crisis and they had to wait on the boss for answers, when a crisis
occurred and the boss was not there, a disaster was more likely (Marquet,
2015). Marquet’s (2015) research
indicated a better solution was to train each member of the team on how to
resolve the situation based on stated goals and have the first responder communicate
with the team to avert a potential crisis. Generally, laissez-faire leadership
is not suitable for environments where members require feedback, direction,
oversight, flexibility, or praise but is best with people who are self-directed
and highly trained (Flynn, 2015).
In a
military setting, officers who were less extraverted and more conscientious
than their peers were more likely to be highly rated by their superiors (McCormack
et al., 2002). The study
showed a connection among the characteristics of low extraversion, high
conscientiousness, and openness; people with those characteristics were
considered effective leaders (McCormack et al., 2002).
Laissez-faire
leadership can have negative effects if the leader fails to provide critical
performance based feedback (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008). Not only can a lack of feedback
prevent a follower from taking corrective action, it can also cause the
follower to have a negative perception of the leader and prolonged negative
performance from a subordinate (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008).
Benefits
of having introverted leaders, managers, and communicators
An introverted approach to organizational leadership puts
team members into leadership positions, making them leaders who are given
control (Marquet, 2015). The situation creates an intent-based leadership
environment that results in a workplace where everyone is engaged in
contributing their full intellectual capacity, and everyone is able to feel
like a leader (Marquet, 2015). This is possible because introverts are
listeners and independent thinkers who quietly earn respect through actions,
not words, and followers have to be able to take responsibility and perform
duties without constant reinforcement (Remund, 2015). Introverted leaders can thrive in
the military since they are required to make decisions in isolation and not be
overly attached to those under their command (McCormack et al.,
2002).
Stephens-Craig et al. (2015) found
that introverted leaders are reserved in their actions and decisions, come
across as business-like, and don’t get overly excited. They were perceived as introspective, able to
“filter” communications, calm, measured, detailed, and sources of stability (Stephens-Craig
et al., 2015).
Grant et al. (2011) concluded that when
employees were proactive, introverted leadership was associated with higher
group performance. This research explains that when employees were proactive,
those who lead in a less extraverted style were viewed as more receptive to
employee proactivity (Grant
et al., 2011). Followers’ proactivity strengthened the performance
of groups led by less extraverted individuals. Extraverted leadership is not
required for organizational effectiveness, and extraverted leaders may
undermine employees’ potential to contribute to improved group performance (Grant et al., 2011).
Discussion
The limitation of
these studies was that they were all focused on very small groups, and the
findings of the individually reviewed industries may not be reflective of all
business or working environments. Grant et al. (2011) was one of the more cited
articles in this area of research but is limited by its sample of studying a
retail environment and a simulation involving a sample of college students.
Similarly, McCormack et al. (2002) focused on a sample of Australian military
personnel, and the largely qualitative feedback was likely skewed by the
societal norms and mores of Australian culture, which may or may not be
indicative of attitudes in other countries, such as the United States, for
example.
Conclusion and Further
Study
More study is needed to validate
which environments are best suited for introverted and laisse-faire style
leadership. This review indicates several clear strengths that organizations,
businesses, and groups can gain from maximizing the best characteristics from
introverts. Introverts are natural leaders for other highly intelligent,
proactive, and conscientious individuals. Introverts are not micro-managers and
are not naturally inclined to offer constant feedback. However, while it is understood
that no person is all introvert or extravert, the two characteristics are on a
spectrum that allows individuals to adapt to situations, despite their
predominant disposition.
References
Andersen, J. A. (2006). Leadership,
personality and effectiveness. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(6),
1078–1091. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.066
Elkin, A. (2015). Donald Trump Has
Found the Perfect Insult for Jeb Bush. Retrieved November 20, 2015, from
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-03/donald-trump-has-found-the-perfect-insult-for-jeb-bush
Extroversion and introversion.
(2015). Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, 1.
Flynn, S. I. (2015). Authoritarian,
Democratic, and Laissez-Faire Leadership. Research Starters: Sociology
(Online Edition).
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. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.61968043
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C.
A. (2008). An examination of “nonleadership”: From laissez-faire leadership to
leader reward omission and punishment omission. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(6), 1234–1248. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0012875
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., &
Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and
theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly,
20(6), 855–875. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004
Marquet, D. (2015). Quit the
Masquerade and Have Meetings That Matter. Leader to Leader, 2015(78),
43–48. http://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20204
McCormack, L., & Mellor, D.
(2002). The role of personality in leadership: An application of the
Five-Factor Model in the Australian military. Military Psychology, 14(3),
179–197. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1403_1
Remund, D. L. (2015). Introverts in
an Extroverted Profession. Public Relations Tactics, 22(3), 9–9.
Stephens-Craig, D., Kuofie, M.,
& Dool, R. (2015). Perception of Introverted Leaders by Mid to High -Level
Leaders. Journal of Marketing & Management, 6(1), 62–75.
TED. (2012). Susan Cain: The
power of introverts. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0KYU2j0TM4
No comments:
Post a Comment