The era of the extroverted CEO is over and here’s what these experts believe should replace it
The age of the extrovert leader has come to an end and successful executives now need to embrace their introverted qualities if their companies and workers are to prosper.
Getty Images for Unsplash+
This is the argument set out in We Are All Ambiverts Now, written by Professor Karl Moore and Gabriele Hartshorne-Mehl. The authors delve into foundational psychology research on personality and fuse it with their own contemporary, qualitative findings to explore the strategies existing and prospective business leaders should enact to elevate their companies.
They also suggest this dual approach could be useful for more introverted junior team members who have aspirations of leadership in the future, but consider themselves to be ruled out as cultures have previously celebrated extrovert traits.
Leaning on more than 750 interviews with major executives secured through Professor Moore’s CEO Series radio show and podcast, the book explores the differences between introverts and extroverts through the lens of leadership, and suggests being an ambivert – a balance between the two – is the optimum solution.
“Flexibility has become a vital trait for success in our rapidly evolving and unpredictable corporate world,” write Moore and Hartshorne-Mehl.
“Recent times of uncertainty and turbulence have confirmed that resilient adaptability is an important prerequisite for effective leadership.”
Extrovert qualities can remain useful for business leaders, the authors suggest, but ignoring the benefits of introverted traits could make it more challenging to galvanize everyone behind a company’s goals.
Taking decision-making as an example, the authors point out how highly extroverted leaders are likely to take action quickly and confidently with limited consultation, while introverts tend to take more time to consider their views, particularly when it comes to taking risks.
Making a decision that could impact the future of a business either too quickly or too slowly could prove problematic, which is why the ambivert approach offers a compelling middle-ground.
The authors’ analysis of the Free Trait Theory, by eminent professor Brian Little, shows that while our personality is largely constructed with so-called fixed traits that tend not to change, we have the ability to temporarily override these.
“Our general satisfaction is dependent upon accomplishments that might require the conscious substitution of these inherited traits for what Little calls free traits, which offer a greater likelihood to advance important personal endeavours,” write Moore and Hartshorne-Mehl.
“His work suggests quite clearly that individuals can act contrary to their natural inclinations when the situation demands it.”
Moore and Hartshorne-Mehl acknowledge the toll it would take on an individual to constantly display a leadership style that is the polar opposite to their natural personality, and therefore encourage a nuanced and balanced approach.
The authors outline how introverts and extroverts gain their energy from different types of stimulation, meaning that foregoing those to appear more or less of an introvert or extrovert can be challenging.
They therefore suggest ‘breaks’ are “essential”, stating introverts may need to find time to be alone after displaying extrovert characteristics, and extroverts may need to seek out the company of others if they have had to work in solitude for a long period of time.
Interestingly, the authors note that out of their hundreds of interview subjects, around 40 per cent consider themselves extrovert, another 40 per cent introvert, and the remaining 20 per cent believe they are ambiverts.
Regardless of whether being an ambivert comes naturally or requires learned behaviour, though, the authors accept for all its strengths, ambiversion also has weaknesses that leaders and future leaders need to be aware of.
“First, ambiverts are at risk of appearing inauthentic,” the authors write.
“Second, because they are so flexible, ambiverts are unpredictable in their behaviour, making them highly confusing to work with on occasion.”
But with the self-awareness that is required of all business leaders, the authors suggest these weaknesses can be overcome. In fact, conquering them could even be non-negotiable in the post-Covid, hybrid world of work, where working hours are split between business premises and home, offering community and isolation respectively.
“What does this shift to hybrid work mean for leadership in today’s world?,” the authors ask. “Executives and managers must recognize that neither introverts nor extroverts have an inherent advantage in these new environments.”
The authors also highlight the importance of crafting a leadership style for more junior workers with C-suite aspirations.
“If you are (or aim to be) on the path to rising the corporate ladder, you may well have to learn to stretch a bit and act like an ambivert,” they write. “At a younger age, it is prime time for you to work on this skill; you are allowed a bit more latitude to experiment, your habits are less cemented by time, and the burdens of delivering results and being a strong leader are generally considerably less when the stakes are not all on you.”
The potential benefits of ambiversion are also relevant in the context of several other seismic cultural phenomenons, notably the explosion of unlimited data and information that has germinated fake news, mistrust of politicians, and conspiracy theories against scientific consensuses, such as climate change.
“The extrovert archetype is particularly ill-equipped to tackle this new problem,” write Moore and Hartshorne-Mehl.
“The qualities we once celebrated in extroverted leadership, namely their capacity to assure and to perform, are not as capable of deciphering fact from fabrication. If anything, this archetype has only contributed to the problem.
“We used to trust loud leaders to be in charge, but the reasons for this decision do not hold up in present conditions. There now exists room at the top for other approaches to have a strong voice.”