Diversity of Thought, and the Power of Introverts
In 1999, I first became aware that I am an introvert. Rather, that’s when I first became aware that there’s a word for my tendency to favor quiet time alone over time spent socializing in large groups. I had completed the Myers-Briggs Type Assessment and on that test (as well as on the four that I’ve taken since), my scores indicated that I lean strongly to the “I” side of the introvert/extrovert spectrum. What stuck with me in that initial discussion about introversion and extroversion was that an introvert can exhibit behavior that we typically ascribe to extroverts (mingling, presenting, facilitating training, etc.), but it might take a different kind of toll. Introverts, it was explained to me, tend to recharge and gain strength by being on their own, immersed in a book or a thought.
In "The Girl with the Lower Back Tattoo", comedian Amy Schumer describes being an introvert and a stand-up comedian:
“There’s a National Geographic photo I love of a young brown bear. He’s sitting peacefully against a tree near the border of Finland and Russia. The caption reads something like, ‘The cubs played feverishly all day, and then one of them left the group for a few minutes to relax on his own and enjoy the quiet.’ This was very meaningful to me because that’s what I do! Except in my case, the bear gets ripped away from his chill spot by the tree, and several people paint his face and curl his fur and put him in a dress so he can be pushed onstage to ride one of those tiny bicycles in the circus. I’m not saying he doesn’t enjoy making people laugh, but still, it’s hard out there for a fuzzy little introvert.”
Schumer, in her unique way, describes not only her experience of being an introvert, but touches on the societal expectations that can come with a certain job or organizational culture. I’ve just been reading "Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking" by Susan Cain. In the book, Cain lays out a well-reasoned, scientifically-supported case for the fact that Western culture tends to embrace what she calls an “Extrovert Ideal”. She speaks to schooling trends that emphasize collaboration and participation that may play well to the natural inclinations of extroverts, but that may leave little time for individual, quiet study that might be a more effective and productive learning setting for introverts. And she talks at length about the tendency within many organizations to equate extroversion with innate leadership skills.
Some years ago, I worked for a company that took this point to a very literal place. One of the performance behaviors that all employees were rated on was boldness. In fact, “Bold” was called out as a core value of the company. It might come as little surprise to learn that my scores on boldness were some of the weaker parts of my annual performance appraisals. In fact, my individual development plan included goals that were intended to help me to become more comfortable engaging in collaborative conflict, and more willing to raise an opinion (and my voice, if necessary).
Not all organizations are quite this overt in the ways that they embrace the Extrovert Ideal. But I would argue that, in many organizations, there is not enough effort made to include our more introverted colleagues.
Please realize that I’m not about to argue that we need to embrace introverts and shun extroverts. Rather, there are some really interesting studies that argue for the importance of leveraging the skills and styles of both introverts and extroverts to drive organizational success. One such study analyzed data from a large national pizza chain, and found that weekly profits from stores managed by extroverts were 16% higher than those managed by introverts – but only when the employees being managed were passive types who did their jobs without exercising initiative. For introverted leaders, when they worked with employees who actively tried to exercise initiative and improve operating procedures, their results were 14% higher than those of their extroverted counterparts. This and other studies argue for the idea that certain management conditions favor extroverted leaders (who are more likely to be directive in their management style). Introverted leaders, in many cases, displayed a tendency to welcome and encourage ideas from their subordinates, and when their employees were willing to be empowered in this way, results were quite favorable.
If one were to extend this thinking, it might make you wonder what type of leadership is going to best support a culture that wants to empower employees and encourage creativity and innovation.
Cain also writes about the cultural interest in collaborative work, and the emphasis on teamwork as a sure path to innovation. But, she notes, solitude can also be a catalyst to innovation. And, perhaps, by forcing introverts to behave more like extroverts, we lose some of the innovation that could come from individual time engaged in complex thought. She cites the work of research psychologist Anders Ericsson, who popularized the idea of “Deliberate Practice” as a way to achieve mastery of a subject or activity. Core to the idea of Deliberate Practice is practicing in solitude, and we can point to any number of examples of scientists, researchers, inventors, authors, and artists who made great contributions to society as a result of hard work done in solitude.
This all points, for me, to a situation that cannot be addressed as an “either/or” proposition. I would offer that this discussion of introverts and extroverts is part of cognitive diversity, or diversity of thought. I’d argue that, in order to maximize the contributions and talent development of all members of an organization, we need to be thinking about how to include introverts and extroverts. We need to be thinking about how we can set the stage for each to bring their strengths to bear on the issues that our customers and our organizations face.
From a Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) perspective, I see a few things that we might consider as we look to engage and involve introverts differently:
- How can we equip introverts to operate in an extroverted culture
- How do we actively, consciously include introverts in our conversations
- Consider the value of the deep thought and creative energy that can come from our quieter coworkers
The first of these ideas is perhaps the simplest. There are all sorts of development opportunities that can be leveraged to challenge, stretch, and grow introverted employees if that’s an area of interest for them. And not surprisingly, it often is. We do tend to equate leadership with extroverted traits, and we tend to reward extroverted behavior. Many introverts look at the organization around them, and decide that, in order to be successful, they need to adapt.
This isn’t entirely wrong, and it needn’t be some sort of act against one’s true self. But it should be a conscious choice. It should be about an introvert coming to a conclusion that, for his or her own development, gaining some “extrovert skills” is a good idea. And they can use them as needed and (I would suggest) make sure that they still set aside time to retreat to restorative spaces and activities.
The second idea, about actively and consciously including introverts is one that requires leaders of conversations, meetings, and organizations to prioritize inclusion. It means asking for the opinions of those who work and lead more quietly, and giving opportunities for all employees to form opinions in advance of discussions where possible. This could look like sending out an agenda in advance (which is a best practice anyway), or sending out the slide decks and other materials that will be discussed so that those who process in a more quiet, individual way have the time to do that, and come prepared to the discussion.
Finally, the third idea is just about awareness and appreciation. In her book, Susan Cain talks about “soft power” – the kind of leadership that comes from listening and responding thoughtfully. She raises this point in a section of the book that looks at cross-cultural perceptions of introversion/extroversion, and I think she makes a great point about intersectionality. Intersectionality involves taking a more complex look at the multiple dimensions of diversity that make up each one of us. For example, one might wonder if introversion is treated or valued differently if you’re an introvert in China. Or an introvert who’s also a woman. Or an introverted woman from China. Each of these aspects of one’s identity can play out in different ways – in society and in the workplace. For example, Asian cultures tend to value introversion differently, and take a more wary or even negative view of extroverted behavior.
What’s interesting about that last point is that, for Westerners working with colleagues from Asia, it may be that the extroverts need to take some time to learn skills and behaviors that are more common to introverts. Again, it’s not about changing a trait that tends to be embedded pretty deeply in each of us – it’s about learning how to adapt behavior to circumstances that call for us to be more or less quiet in our approach.
So where does this leave me? Clearly, I think that Susan Cain has a lot of important points to raise. We should question the cultural ideal of extroversion. And we should think about how to truly include and leverage the talents and perspectives both introverts and extroverts in the work of our organizations.
