This year sees some landmark anniversaries. Bill Gates, frequently cited as the wealthiest person alive, turns 60. J.K. Rowling, whose fortune is valued at approximately $830 million, turns 50, and we recognize the 150th anniversary of the death of Abraham Lincoln.
While there can be little doubt as to the inordinate successes of these individuals, each also shares a characteristic that we don’t commonly associate with prominence and power: Introversion. The trait of introversion has been misunderstood for as long as we have had a language to describe it. At best, introverts are often branded as “shy” or “socially awkward,” at worst they are “uncooperative,” “neurotic” and “problem children.”
What is introversion, really?
In truth, introversion is not synonymous with these descriptors, but rather introversion is about neurological sensitivity to stimuli, including the motivation to seek reward from the environment.
The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) classifies introverts as those who draw their energy from the inner world of ideas, images and memories, as opposed to extraverts, who are energized by people and external events. Both extraverts and introverts usually enjoy company—after all, we have evolved as social beings—but introverts may need to spend more time alone afterwards to recharge.
In fact, most individuals exhibit both extraverted and introverted tendencies at different times; as Carl Jung, whose work informed the development of the MBTI, asserted, “There is no such thing as a pure introvert or extravert; such a person would be in a lunatic asylum.”
Evidence of society’s “extraversion bias”?
While the practice of insightful contemplation may have been exalted during the Lincoln era, in the crowded cities that developed during the industrial revolution, it was the extraverted traits that garnered more attention for a person, and thus, these traits became more valued. Those with more extraverted characteristics, including confidence and charisma, were seen to have greater influence, and still are, according to a 2012 UCLA School of Management study.
Today, assumptions such as these often dictate the structure of workplaces, selection processes and promotional decisions. Reportedly, 96 percent of all leaders are extraverted, despite research indicating that introverted leaders produce higher profits in organizations where employee productivity is high, as they allow for more space for individuals to grow and develop.
Further research by Wharton’s Adam Grant also calls into question the long-standing belief that the most productive salespeople are extraverted, which may reflect the changing nature of sales.
The rise of the internet has meant that information on products and services is everywhere in the form of third-party peer reviews, customer ratings and social media presence, rendering many traditional “persuasion” tactics unnecessary and ineffective. In the world of information overload, consumers are often weary of conventional sales pitches, instead seeking out partners who truly take the time to listen and understand their issues, and apply expert insight and knowledge to help them design appropriate solutions or supply the best products.
These traits often seem more within the domain of the introvert. Susan Cain, author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts argues that society has an “extraversion bias.” In the workplace, this could manifest in poorly designed employee selection systems, for example where group activity that favors extraverts is chosen as a methodology for predicting the best performers for a role which does not require this type of interaction. Alternatively, untrained assessment facilitators may equate extraversion with good performance, overlooking some potential star employees in the process.
Toward a more equitable balance
So, what are the implications of all this?
It may be time for hiring managers to review whether the selection methodologies they employ are really identifying top potential candidates. Regular job analyses should be standard practice, to confirm that the behaviors considered “effective” for a role truly reflect the realities of today’s changing business environment.
Perhaps one-to-one role plays, rather than group presentations, would be more effective at allowing introverts to demonstrate their value? Maybe those evaluating personality assessments could go further to consider the merits of hiring the person who may be less enthusiastic to take the stage. Interviewers must ensure they are not unduly swayed by social, engaging or charming individuals, at the expense of the more understated star.
The performance of our businesses is dependent on the performance of our people, and it is time to pay attention to what the research is telling us. For our companies to shine we must allow our introverts to make a loud splash, in their own unique, contemplative way.