By Lisa Hochgraf
Hypothesis: Extroverted leaders enchance group performance when employees are passive, but introverted leaders are more effective with proactive employees.
This most interesting assertion was supported by the results of a pair of studies done by Wharton management professor Adam Grant, together with colleagues Francisco Gino from Harvard Business School and David Hofman from the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina. I recently read about them in Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Won't Stop Talking by Susan Cain.
"In the first study," Cain writes, "the three researchers analyzed data from one of the five biggest pizza chains in the United States. They found that the weekly profits of the stores managed by extroverts were 16 percent higher than the profits of those led by introverts--but only when the employees were passive types who tended to do their jobs without exercising initiative.
"Introverted leaders had the exact opposite results. When they worked with employees who actively tried to improve work procedures, their stores outperformed those led by extroverts by more than 14 percent.
"In the second study, Grant's team divided 163 college students into competing teams charged with folding as many T-shirts as possible in 10 minutes. Unbeknownst to the participants, each team included two actors. In some teams, the two actors acted passively, following the leader's instructions. In other teams, one of the actors said, 'I wonder if there's a more efficient way to do this.' The other actor replied that he had a friend from Japan who had a faster way to fold shirts. 'It might take a minute or two to teach you,' the actor told the leader, 'but do we want to try it?'"
In the results of the second study, introverted leaders were 20 percent more likely to follow the suggestion and their teams had 24 percent better results than the teams of the extroverted leaders. When the teams were not proactive--they didn't take the actors' suggestions--the teams led by extroverts outperformed those led by introverts by 22 percent.
Why did it matter whether employees were passive or proactive?
According to the researchers, introverts are naturals for leading employees with initiative because introverts:
- tend to listen
- lack interest in dominating social situations and, as a result
- are more likely to hear and implement suggestions and motivate their followers even more.
In other words, "introverted leaders create a virtuous circle of proactivity," Cain writes. "The team members reported perceiving the introverted leaders as more open and receptive to their ideas, which motivated them to work harder and fold more shirts.
"Extroverts, on the other hand, can be so intent on putting their own stamp on events that they risk losing others' good ideas ... and allowing workers to lapse into passivity."
While this line of research is in its infancy, it's exciting to Grant--and maybe to the rest of us--because proactive employees who "go for it" without waiting for leaders to tell them what to do are increasingly vital to business success.
"To understand how to maximize these employees' contributions is an important tool for all leaders," Cain writes. "It's also important for companies to groom listeners as well as talkers for leadership roles."
Think about your credit union's leaders. Which are listeners/introverts? Which are talkers/extroverts? What is the best leadership style for your organization? What leadership style is your CU cultivating for the future?
Lisa Hochgraf is a CUES editor.
Also read "Rudy Giuliani on Leadership" from this blog.
Leadership will be an important topic of conversation at November's CEO/Executive Team Network.
