TED Conversations

Adrian Malpass

Business Developer (Emotionally Intelligent), The Experience Group

TEDCRED 500+
TEDx Organizer

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Do introverts make better leaders?

Part of what I do is involved in developing emotionally intelligent businesses, leaders and teams.

Having recently seen Susan Cain's video on TED.com on 'The Power of Introverts' and listened to her in a recent radio interview here in the UK, I am increasingly finding my mind occupied by wondering about any link between being an introvert and being a successful leader.

My experience tells me that introverts quite possibly, or even probably, make better leaders than 'extroverts'.

What are your thoughts?

Related Talks:
Topics: Emotional Intelligence Extrovert business business development business idea collaborative learning introvert leadership team work
+5
Share:
progress indicator

  • Stuart Aitken

    • +1
    May 1 2012: Extroverts tend to go with their idea and push it onto everyone else, I think, even if the plan might ideally need a bit of rethinking before being carried out. Whereas the more introverted types don't want to be so 'invasive' in the group. Hence them not taking the lead so much, even though their ideas are often the most logical and, as someone else said, the most moral, or considerate, of the group.

    I reckon extroverts are the best leaders if the thing they are leading is worth leading. They have more passion and power to bring people together. Whereas for more 'general' leadership, introverts would normally do a better job because they are more considerate of the whole situation, as opposed to anybody's individual ideas or motives.

  • Kenneth Shaw

    • +1
    May 1 2012: I strongly believe being a great leader is a state of mind. You don't necessarily need to be the most outgoing person in the room but you do need to be able to capture your teams attention. When trying to inspire others you need to know your audience and be able to inspire action. Yes, this is easier said then done but if you truly believe in your message and convey it through your words. Then your going to be able to generate followers. Remember its not what you say but how you say it.

    Many different great leaders throughout history haven't been the smartest nor the most outspoken of their time. What do these great leaders have in common? "They believe" when you believe in what your saying no matter if your an introvert or not you will be able to generate followers. People are drawn to passion and everyone wants to believe in something. No one wants to be told what to do but rather we want to believe in what we do.
  • thumb

    Brian Cerda

    • 0
    May 1 2012: Who better to lead the flock than the one who already watches over it vigilantly?
  • thumb

    peter lindsay 30+

    • 0
    Apr 30 2012: I'm not so sure the classification of people as introvert or extrovert is relevant. Its like classifying people as tall and short. I'm 186cm (6ft 1inch if you prefer). Am I tall or short? It depends on who I'm with. Being extroverted can help with gaining the attention of the people you are leading but good leaders also need to be independantly motivated. Perhaps the best leaders are those that can utilise both sides of their personality when appropriate.
  • thumb

    Lori de Wet

    • 0
    Apr 30 2012: Do introverts make better lovers? Possibly. You never know until you see them in action...
  • thumb

    Bernard Seremonia

    • 0
    Apr 26 2012: Actually this can not be determined unequivocally, but this is just based on what is considered to be most strongly in a problem.

    There are two types of leadership. The first leadership comes from mastery of meditation, and second, the leadership that obtained with very few involving the mastery of meditation.

    The first type of Leadership by meditating, giving us less control in the use of introvertness or extrovertness.While the leadership of the second type gives us a strong alignment.

    Although in theory we know nothing of the most important of the two types of leadership, but in practice, we always choose strongly with one of them.

    So, in answer to the question: Do introverts make better leaders? I responded by stating that the best leadership does not come from an introvert or extrovert mastery, but how one or both working together to be able to connect us to a higher source to gain wisdom.

    Perhaps, people tend to say introvert will make our leadership better, because the fact that introvertness will make us easier closer to spirituality or having wisdom at higher level, such us sharpen intuition etc.

    Extrovert or introvert is not a better or best solution to a decision-making process or the like, but extrovert or introvert must be a solution for us to be more connected to the source of the solution itself.

    Do not let the extrovert or introvert playing at the branch for us, but let it take us to the root or source of wisdom.

    Less or more ...
  • thumb

    Mydhili Bayyapunedi

    • +1
    Apr 26 2012: Interesting that I am reading this topic here after having read an article in HBR on "How Introverts Can Become Better Innovators"
    Francesca Gino from HBS writes, "But compared to extroverts, introverts may be more open to others' creative ideas. Adam Grant of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, Dave Hofmann of the University of North Carolina, and I conducted some research that shed light on this possibility. We asked managers and employees at 130 franchises of a U.S. pizza-delivery company to fill out a survey, and we obtained data on each store's profitability. Managers answered questions about their own personality. Other employees answered questions about their attempts to introduce improvements in job procedures. We found that in stores where employees tried to proactively introduce their creative ideas for improvements, introverted managers led stores to higher profits than more extroverted ones did. In franchises where employees stayed quiet and didn't offer their ideas, extroverted managers led stores to higher profits than more introverted managers did."

    Full article here: http://blogs.hbr.org/hbsfaculty/2012/04/how-introverts-can-become-bett.html

  • sameen liaqat

    • 0
    Apr 26 2012: If we are talking about true leadership,that surely doesn't have anything to do with extrovertness or introvertness,but everything to do with Decision making power.However,these days,votes are required to make you a leader,one that can act with authority.so some degree of extrovertness is necessary too.I mean people generally like extrovert,open people more.
  • thumb

    Chetan Somani

    • 0
    Apr 20 2012: Better leaders can either be extroverts or introverts.it doesn't matter..at the end of the day all it matters is how they have pursued there leadership skills and what they do in order to improve there skills and get out fruitful results from there work.
    so i cant precisely say introverts make better leaders.

  • M Tan

    • 0
    Apr 19 2012: I think being a good leader, whether introvert or extrovert, has to do more with how you handle people

  • Ed Schulte 50+

    • 0
    Apr 19 2012: You really would receive useful

    In put if you listened to Eckhart Tolle recent talk to the GOOGLE organization.

    What cause the Intro/ Ext variations in individual personalities is simply the nature of the ego .....remember BOTH present day personality and ego are temporary ...iow relative ONLY to this current live cycle.

    It is a BIG mistake to say the Introverts do not have a active ego....they do....the difference between Intro and Ext ..dissolves with the Inner understanding of Who we are beyond name and Form.

    The latter is ...as Tolle points out...THE most important subject school children can be taught ...because that understanding is also the doorway to TRUE ...non-ego driven Creativity ((( read non-destructive Creativity ...also called Peace )))
  • thumb

    Ayan Ghoshal

    • 0
    Apr 19 2012: No . Leadership has nothing to do with this aspect .
  • thumb

    vasudevan satagopan

    • +1
    Apr 19 2012: I feel its contextual.There are organisation situations where extroverts are required to propel the organisation.In certain situations where the organisation is mature, introverts may be better suited since a " maintenance" role is required. There are certain roles where the introvert is a better leader and other situations where the extrovert is a better leader.Leadership qualities needs to be viewed bearing in mind the context.
  • thumb

    philip kanoutos

    • 0
    Apr 17 2012: To Linda Taylor

    We agree about Jung and it is my mistake that I didn't say that he define personalities by describing behavior. Yes he didn't try to explain personalities by recording behavior. He proposed the psychoanalytical method. The rest that I say remain exactly the same. Since we define a personality type by describing its behavior but then admitting that we can see the same behavior from other personality types, categorizing personalities that way is useless. Another model is needed (they already exist though).

    My personal approach about behavior in leadership is not an effort to explain personalities. My simple approach is the effects in leadership that behavior has (introversion or extroversion). In fact there is research in that area that has already produce rules of leading and types of leadership and management.
    • thumb

      Linda Taylor 50+

      • 0
      Apr 17 2012: Rules of leading. Hmm. You're already out of my ballpark because I do not play by the rules. But you bring up a point that measuring behavior is just output. Not much information. You need to also look at the input and thru-put to really understand true leadership. Ergo personality traits. Too many people making too much money selling too many books full of junk science. Yeah, I read those books too.
      • thumb

        philip kanoutos

        • 0
        Apr 18 2012: I sense that you sense some of my worries. Ballpark? To bad sounds like fun.
        Behavior is output, it is a tool, it is a symptom and it can be other things too, symbolic for instance. Ι think I've made my points clear.

        To debate I need clues, evidence, data. If no one can provide "valuable basics", I dispute the original claims, or at least I worry that something fundamental is really wrong or missing. That was my action plan here.

        I am aware of the things that you suggest that I should look for (some of that). But I can only propose things that, as no expert, are acceptable for my field of expertise. Still I've made the mistake to provide "solutions" and introduce other approaches. It is a mistake because, as no expert, I cannot guarantee valuable information or knowledge. Not because I believe that my overall position is wrong.
  • thumb

    philip kanoutos

    • 0
    Apr 17 2012: To Edward Bolton

    I can say "someone is a happy person" (it is really a state of being, not a personality). With that I can possibly mean he is optimistic, he is cynical and doesn't care about nothing or he is a sensitive person in a good period e.t.c. In everyday speaking I can say "he is a happy person" or "personality" if you like. But when I approach the term "happiness" I must put it in the right context. I can't drag people in a conversation like "are you a happy or a sad person?" because my capacity to comprehend things ends right there. It is WRONG.

    I will not feel guilty if I say tomorrow "I am an introvert" in a personal conversation. If there is no motivation, money, good salary, a challenge, helping people or gaining real knowledge I can be an "introvert" in no time.
    My introvert character can be "translated" as lazy, a hard liner that doesn't change his opinion, as a shy person that he got scared from his opponents or simply a person that reserves his powers and strength. Maybe it is all that or some of that. Or maybe I don't want people to dislike me and increase tension. We need more data to come to a conclusion. But what ever my reasons are, my introvert behavior is a conscious choice that serves my purposes. And I am not pretending or feeling dishonest. I cannot make it more clear than that.
  • thumb

    TARUN AGARWAL

    • +1
    Apr 17 2012: Being Introvert or Extrovert is not how you define leaders.A short and precise definition of a Leader is one who is able to better the lives of people around him.There is no particular trait which can be attributed for a person to be called a Leader.
    A person who is introvert need not necessarily be some one who cannot manage people or things around him.In the same way,an Extrovert need not necessarily be someone who is able to manage gamut of things.

  • Maria K

    • 0
    Apr 17 2012: I wouldn't say that either extroverts or introverts make better leaders because they are both extremes on a continuum.
    To gain competitive advantage firms need to be ambidextrous pursuing often conflicting priorities e.g. cost and differentiation, integration and localization. Leadership then means being both an introvert and extrovert at the same time and trying to reconcile these in any particular situation. Extroverts may have a tendency to talk to much and stifle others but they also can energize people and communicate well, while introverts do the opposite- let other ideas come through. But both are necessary for successful operations.

  • Vijay Kumar

    • 0
    Apr 17 2012: Walking the talk is easier to do if you talk less. Chances of hurting other's feelings are less if you speak less.Leaders need to exhibit integrity before anything else. Introverts tend to have an edge in this because of their inherent personality trait.

  • Mr K

    • 0
    Apr 17 2012: Is and Es differentiate not only in their interaction out to the environment but also in the input taken from it, because of their own different perceptions.
    Each unique person will respond differently to outer stimulations, and, in the non existing ends of these two different personalities, while Is analyze, Es act.
    Therefore, and without being exactly at these opposite places, each one develops a unique set of skills as a result for their behavior and responses got from those behaviors.

    Every I or E responses to any and all situations potentiates that difference, increasing the gap in between, making them more defined on their stance and each getting “perfected” with your own interior feedback. You get into a loop where you praise what makes you so you conditioned by your unique point of view.
    Distance might get attenuated in face of negative reactions towards your ways, but other than that, if you do not feel a need to change, you will remain at your comfort zone, and, in my belief, both Is and Es humbly sure to have the better set of skills.
    Over time, if you become or are made aware of the separation to your opposing end, you might try to break the distance, being this conscious act the way to better yourself adding that what you feel you were in lack of.

    Which is best to lead? I honestly can’t tell.

    In my opinion, introverts are more and more analytical, reserved and measured, while extroverts are more spontaneous, communicational and vivid.

    I picture an introvert in an ongoing internal dialogue seeking for answers, while extroverts tend to provide answers without that much thought. And while sometimes it’s time to act, on other occasions it is best to think it through.
    An introvert needs self assurance before taking the leap to exposure; an extrovert needs a crowd, and on many times the crowd needs him and no situation is better than the other without a context.

    Introverts are masters of their silences; extroverts are prisoners of their own words.
  • thumb

    philip kanoutos

    • 0
    Apr 17 2012: To Linda Taylor

    Everybody knows (simply from high school years), that someone can fake and pretend introvert behavior (which directly proves it is a BEHAVIOR). But the person that performs the act, is extremely outgoing and fun. So if we don't know that this person is faking its behavior pattern, (only his friends know) how can we derive conclusions about his personality and his capacity to lead? And what short of team and for what tasks this person would be a good or bad leader? I would like an answer to that.

    The only think we know about this person is that is a teaser. LOL

    Diplomacy is another great example. A diplomat uses introvert or extrovert behavior according to its orders and the cause that he serves. Exactly the capacity of diplomates to change BEHAVIOR according to needs, without second thoughts and remorse, makes them excellent in leading and some of them have make it to prime ministers (LEADERS). They use calmness and talking but they can deliver threats as well. They use hi profile or a low profile, according to the circumstances. When you want to convince, you adjust your BEHAVIOR. But your personality remains the same.
    • thumb

      Linda Taylor 50+

      • 0
      Apr 17 2012: Oh I agree with all of the above. But you are talking how we judge other people as leaders. Some of the discussion is about how we as leaders leverage these preferences. But I really like the distinction because it clarifies a lot.

      But behavior is not the definition of introvert/extrovert. The characteristic may or may not be manifest in the behavior as you so well pointed out. It can be measured by self-report instruments that target an individuals preference for certain social situations. So really the only person that can say if you are an introvert/extrovert is you.
      • thumb

        philip kanoutos

        • 0
        Apr 17 2012: The fact that this topic is very interesting to me is because the first time that someone characterized him/her self as an introvert or extrovert appeared here (for me). Or because of that TED video I watched here.

        Before, I characterized people that have a low behavioral profile as shy, or scared, or wise (thinkers), cool people, calm personalities if you want, discreet philosophers possibly, silent workers maybe. All these people have totally different personalities. I "learned" here that all the above are introverts (maybe). The definition replaces-covers a huge variety of terms that are very descriptive with one that means actually nothing and gives no clues. Experts can't agree, probably because they mixed philosophy with psychological elements (wrong).

        Carl Jung's definitions indicate it is a behavior (tension). He defined the behavior. He said nothing about personalities. The definitions in wikipedia define extraversion and introversion as a state (of mine), act or habit (behavior again). But the actual definitions they create more questions than answers (very abstract). They also point that introverts and extroverts behave different from their personality type (What else is new?). Nobody mentions ambiverts here(why?). Nobody here claimed that he is an ambivert. Yet they are approximately the 68% of the population.

        Yes you have the right to call yourself as you please but it is a useless action. The behavior is something that can be discussed and provide something useful. Everybody seem to fight that idea.
        • thumb

          Linda Taylor 50+

          • +2
          Apr 17 2012: These are Jungian personality types (kinda a subset of Jungian personality archetypes). Introversion/extroversion refers to how energy flows for the individual. There are others, how we take in information etc. Jung believed that you needed to understand the personality through psychoanalytic techniques in order to understand the resultant behavior. Not the other way around.

          When you take personality types (categories) and turn them into personality traits, people fall along a continuum. Then you get closer to the domain of ambivert.

          The behaviorist were people like Watson, Skinner who didn't care as much about the why, they just adjusted the behavior.

          All this is so last century anyway.

          This century they are linking these tendencies with brain structures, dopaminergic and serotonin receptors in the brain and seeing if there is a biological correlation to these descriptors of personality or is it, as you say, just a category. Treatment options would of course be different and you can bet the pharmaceuticals are all over this. I don't mean this in a bad way, but you could imagine the addiction treatment options.

  • Roberto Garcia

    • 0
    Apr 17 2012: I am super introverted, but for some reason, with my team at work i dont operate as an introverted person. Maybe its because i must transmit to them self confidence. I think that someone can be basically introverted or hyperactive but according to the situation or the setting we adapt "change gears" in order to accomplish the job that has to be done.
  • thumb

    Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+

    • 0
    Apr 16 2012: Edward,

    Interesting analysis. Who knows? More thoughts --

    Regards the "E," I don't know that Obama's oratory skills qualify him for an automatic "E." I often speak in public (though no stadiums yet). And it is next to impossible for people who don't have similar "Introvert who is comfortable in social settings" energies to believe I'm not an extravert. Needless to say extraverts are those who find this hardest to understand.

    Regards Obama pursuing Law, I wonder if this wasn't a case of an INTP's drive to break usual models. A black lawyer at Harvard is an innovator, by this line of thinking.

    And regards his policy style. My understanding from a few I know who've worked with him, is he is a stickler for democratic equity. Which tracks with the analytical that INTPs are.

    So what looks like "giving in" to many on both sides of the aisle, I'm reading as yielding to the truest and more inherent ideals of democracy, which requires progress through negotiation. If I'm getting this right the principle related to his integrity is his commitment to the integrity of a true democracy. I suspect, he, as INTPs tend to, questions his own take on principals as much as others. And isn't willing to give his principals a bigger "vote" or influence than others. Including people in his own party. This is where his integrity to the process of democracy seems present to me.

    My theory on political leaders is, if no one is complaining, nothing is getting done. Democratic progress doesn't come without rapids. It comes with progressing through them, in productive relationships. If a leader is riling up roughly equal sides of the political spectrum in the rare balance where democracy can and should emerge from.

    Regards your point on campaigning. This is tougher to debate. But, consider how Obama goes into places like South Carolina and Arizona. This suggests creativity, vision and analytical tendencies of an INTP. And, may - we'll see - be genius.

    Andrea

    • Edward Bolton

      • 0
      Apr 17 2012: You present a good argument that is for sure. But speaking as an INTP, I have analyzed all of the major issues in our society, and the failed policies of government, and my conclusions present winners and losers in all cases. In real reform, lets say in healthcare or the war on drugs for instance, policy changes that would be best for the people will not be beneficial for big business. There is no silver bullet to appease all sides of the issues. So I guess there may be a thin line between delusional and genius if Obama thinks he can have his cake and eat it too so to speak. If he was like me in any fashion (in character as an INTP) he would at least attempt to push through the better solutions for society instead of thinking he can make everyone happy. Logic and analysis would impact the reality of the situation. I know he realizes to severity of each issue, but I do not believe he is willing to take the political risk (true leadership over self-interest) to enact policies that are for the greater good of society. His actions reflect my statements. Maybe he has the correct intent, but it takes a lot more than that to make major changes. Plus he has to realize that no matter want he does the republicans will twist it negatively since they want him out of power so they can control the office again. So I am not sure of his level of complexity and whether or not it can compare with INTP traits based on what I have seen so far. That being said, I still have tremendous respect for Obama and wish him the best.

  • Edward Bolton

    • 0
    Apr 16 2012: Many qualities are needed to make a truly great leader. And the topic is not as simple as classifying people into an either/ or scenario. If you have taken the myers-briggs or blanchard DISC assessments or the type A/B personality test you will come to better understanding of personal character design. Introverts and extroverts exist in varying levels of the defined terms. There are high level introverts and low level, and many levels in between. Obviously the same goes for extroverts. That being said, I believe introverts in a general sense are less subjected to being influenced by group think than extroverts. If a person wants or needs to fit in a social order or desires to be popular, that person is more likely to adjust his/her behavior to gain acceptance instead of sticking to a high level of internal principles, a trait normally found in extroverts. True leaders strongly believe in thier principles and are unwaivered in resolve, a trait necessary to make tough decisions that may not be popular, but are better solutions for difficult problems, since major societal issue resolutions will result in winners and losers in most cases. I firmly believe that an introvert is better suited to make tough decisions at the risk of being unpopular because introverts do not need popularity to build self-esteem. However in society a dilemma exists because of the nature of elections. Introverts do not fair well in selling themselves to raise campaign money or votes. Extroverts perform better in this task. So we end up getting great pitch men/women or great salesmen as our elected leaders, instead of true leaders who could inact sound policy for a society.

  • Edmund Sutton

    • 0
    Apr 15 2012: I don't see why researchers and people try to seek out what is better as a leader. I'm a college student, and there's much for me to learn, but in every management class I've taken to date, we've seen at least one research study which tried to explain how this makes a better leader.

    I'm not trying to refute research, far from it. All I'm saying is that all personality types have their good points when it comes to leading a group. Like many before me, it's where they get the most energy, so I'll assume that introverts would be better in independant or individual efforts in leadership, and extroverts in more cooperative ones.

  • Hubert de Bourgogne

    • 0
    Apr 14 2012: I am an extreme introvert and I assure you, I am not a good leader!
    I´m retired now, but had generally better ideas on the fields I was working, but being a leader requires selling your ideas to others and that is generally a weak point of introvert people.

    • Edward Bolton

      • 0
      Apr 16 2012: I think you are examining the issue from a definition that describes who usually ends up being leaders instead of what characteristics make a great leader. People who pitch their ideas and convince others to buy into those ideas are salesmen, but not necessarily good leaders, they may be great conartists at best. Being a leader is not something that you can push on people. A great leader is defined by his or her actions and people then choose to follow of their own free will. Just because someone is in charge does not make them a leader either, only a boss.
  • thumb

    Kris Rosvold

    • +2
    Apr 13 2012: Introverts ( I am one) are among other things: Precise, thoughtful, not in (much) need of the approval of others. Because of these tenancies, I have been told that I make a great leader; Problem is.... I don't (generally) want the job. Yes, I may be good at it but I value my time to "just think" more than I value the kudos of others. One of our statesmen (I don't remember who) said that "in order to find a great leader, look for the man who does not want the job" . Also The introvert, because of their need to be congruent with their morals FIRST, will do the best job that they know how to.
  • thumb

    Jaime Lubin 10+

    • +1
    Apr 13 2012: Why we dont see in a deep review some historical leaders, and find their abilityes to leadership?

    Some examples:

    Marco Aurelio
    Atila
    Saint Francis of Asissi
    Sain Ignatius of Loyola
    Saladino
    King Richard Lionheart
    Leonora D'Aquitania
    Cesare Borgia
    Pope Paulus III
    Amerigo Vespucci
    Napoleon I
    Adolf Hitler
    Mao Tse Tung
    John F. Kennedy
    Emiliano Zapata
    Angela Merkel
    Evita Peron
    Francisco Franco
    Fidel Castro
    Che Guevara
    Charles de Gaulle
    Noam Chomsky
    Albert Einstein
    Pablo Picasso
    Teresa de Calcuta
    Dalai Lama
    Vladimir Lenin
    Jules Verne

    The list is so big but this are just a few real leaders to research their introvertion or extrovertion.
    But no the gray "office and corporation "leaders".
  • thumb

    philip kanoutos

    • +1
    Apr 13 2012: In her prologue, the author described that she was an introvert and had some issues with extroverts. In her epilogue, she neutralized her initial statement, by admitting that we don't have total introverts and extroverts. Then what is the point in categorizing people?

    If any person can judge to change its behavior, from an introvert to an extrovert according to the surrounding needs, what is the exact purpose of this debate? It is a tactical behavior of the average person to shift between these two roles. Is there anything more in it? Maybe it comes in phases and it is not a tactical but a strategic behavior. And this is something to debate about.

    Anyway, I can't recall any known psychological disease connected to introvert and extrovert behavior solely. I would say that behavior patterns are "symptoms" rather than "reasons" for a psychological disease. And most of the times we will meet both in the same patient.

    Leaders also use both behavioral patterns accordingly. So an issue like "introvert VS extrovert behavior in applying leadership" sounds more accurate. In any case, the author talks about introverts and extroverts (people) and not about an introvert or extrovert approach in leadership. That sounds like a mistake to me rendering the entire positioning useless. Probably I am making an error, that I can't detect since I am not an expert in this. But it is a very vivid impression.

    • Edward Bolton

      • +1
      Apr 16 2012: Because humans are complex creatures. That being said, we still need to explore the nature of humanity to gain a better understanding of what makes us human. It is in our nature to explore and be curious about ourselves and everything around us, and categorization is just a tool in the research and examination process.

      • Mary M. 100+

        • +1
        Apr 17 2012: It has really been interesting learning about introverts in this conversation ....I had a totally different concept of what an introvert was....I thought introverts were, according to how people have used it around me before, someone shy, and not open to communication........but, according to what you said in your reply to me, introverts dislike social situations because people do not act true to themselves. I am thus an introvert..............by this definition.

        I do not get satisfaction when I interact with the people around me.....most of whom do not share my enthusiasm for learning and growing. I guess that is why I enjoy TED so much. I have an intellectual escape when I participate in these wonderful conversations.

        Thanks Edward.
      • thumb

        philip kanoutos

        • 0
        Apr 17 2012: I do understand the need of exploring human nature and categorizing as a tool. But I also say that the categorization "set" we use here, might be the wrong set. The debate's question-approach, that we all consider as a "fact" it can probably be wrong.

        So, according to my opinion, the answer to the question: "Do introverts make better leaders?" is this:

        Behavioral patterns, cannot be linked with "leading capability" and its various forms and needs in any way. The reasons of introvert and extrovert behavior, vary from person to person and they don't reveal the characteristics and potential of their personalities. We cannot talk about introvert and extrovert persons (personalities). We can talk about behavior (introvert or extrovert).

        This is the "set" of categorization that I propose and the definitions we should have used.

        • Mary M. 100+

          • +1
          Apr 17 2012: Philip, for what it's worth, I totally agree with you.
        • thumb

          Linda Taylor 50+

          • 0
          Apr 17 2012: I disagree Phillip. These definitions are based on self report. Not observed behavior.So they are intrinsic reports of the tendency for introvert or extrovert preference. Not behavior that someone else observes. Just sayin...

        • Edward Bolton

          • 0
          Apr 17 2012: Exactly, introverts and extroverts are defined through self-assessment, not a behavioral research study/ Only you truly know what is going on inside your head. However, it is possible to lie and be dishonest in assessment, but it is difficult because you get asked the same questions over and over again throughout the test with different wording and slightly different twists and spins, which is the genius behind self-assessment. Someone else is not determining who you are, you are just finding out who you already are.
  • thumb

    philip kanoutos

    • 0
    Apr 12 2012: If we have a very successful man with status, that reacts very carefully and thinks a lot before speaking, can we say that we have an introvert or a wise person? If wisdom equals introvert behavior, in this case, and wisdom comes with experience and aging, how can we justify that behavior in a very young person? It is obvious that we have different origins for the introvert behavior of these two individuals. In addition can the behavior of both be considered as "healthy", since the reasons for behaving as introverts are different?

    Are "extrovert" and "introvert" terms with clear definitions? If we don't have clear definitions, we cannot make comparisons. Also, are there any pathological reasons behind introvert or extrovert behavior? If someone, from time to time, appears to have both kinds of behavior in what category falls?

    Can "snobism" for instance, be considered as introvert behavior? Or is a hysterical and extreme extrovert behavior? When someone confronts drunk people on the streets, by not reacting, can be considered as an introvert? Wise? Coward? Not in the mood?
Load more comments…