Much is written in management articles about leadership personality traits. There is an ongoing debate about whether leaders are born or can be developed. Having spent my working career in the engineering and ICT profession, I have  observed that it attracts people who are high on the introversion scale. The word “geek” is now commonly used for people who seem to be great with machines but lack the social skills to be the life and soul of the party. ICT managers are often the ones doing the listening in  the meeting while the more extroverted sales, marketing or operations people are the ones who may appear to be more involved. Because the introverted person is not talking, it is often assumed they do not have an opinion or worse still, that they are deliberately withholding their view. Extroverted behaviour is often seen as the dominant strength in leadership. For example, in one study of over 11,000 subjects, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology,  extroversion was seen as the highest factor in leadership effectiveness and emergence.

But are introverts misunderstood?

It appears they are. Education experts Jill Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig point out that it is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert. “Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would want to be alone”.

Introverts are misunderstood to be shy and it is assumed that when they are alone or not talking that they are unhappy with that situation. Introverts are often quite happy with not being in the limelight or being involved in very public or high risk activity. It is not that they want to do it, but are too shy to volunteer, as extroverts often seem to think. Recent brain studies have shown that introverts are wired differently. What is exciting and pleasant for an extrovert can be extremely unpleasant and stressful for an introvert. The processing of information from the same event, by introverts and extroverts releases different amounts of stress inducing or pleasure causing chemicals in our brains. These two extreme personality types experience very different worlds, even if in an identical situation.  In a simulated test involving gambling,  it was shown that  the two personality types process stimuli in different ways. For extroverts, the brain signals take a shorter path, close to an area associated with taste, touch and visual and auditory sensory processing, whereas in introverts it took a longer pathway through areas associated with remembering, planning and problem solving. This supports the observation that extroverts sometimes express, that introverts are analysing whether they are having fun, rather  than just enjoying the experience.

But what has this got to do with leadership? The answer is, everything and nothing! The truth is there is no such thing as an introvert or an extrovert. The more I read about how we function as humans, the more convinced I am about our uniqueness and individuality. All of us are capable of introverted and extroverted behaviours. These brain tests are usually done on people at the extreme ends of the continuum. Our personalities reflect where we are on the introverted-extroverted continuum, and describe a preference, not a behaviour. Understanding that we are all different and understanding that some people are more energised by socialising and engaging with groups of people, than others, helps us to be better leaders, wherever we fit on the continuum.  Treating people as people, accepting that not everyone sees the world through our eyes, and adapting our styles, attitudes and behaviours to get the best outcome for the situation, is the secret to good leadership in my view.

Most of us know what the most important things are we have to do. The trouble is because they are so important, they seldom can be finished in a single session or even by working all day on them. What we end up doing is working on all the less important things that give us the reward of getting finished, and procrastinate on the big stuff.  Many of us will remember the  story of the tortoise and the hare, where the tortoise won the race by just plodding along while the hare at first raced ahead, but then got distracted and took long breaks and so lost the race. Getting the really important things done involves daily discipline. It is about planning to so something every day towards that big goal. 

I find that by setting aside 15 minutes at the start of each work day to plan my day, I can focus on the most urgent and most important. I then ask myself:  “What key activity will I do today towards achieving my most important goal.” I then schedule time in my diary to do it, as though it were a dedicated meeting. I can then closet myself away for that time period to work in a focussed manner on that next step towards my goal, without interruptions.  In isolation, it may appear that little progress is made, depending on the size of the task to finish, but day by day and week by week, I then notice how my big goal is closer to being achieved. There is an old Chinese proverb that says, "One step at a time is good walking".  Jim Collins (Good to Great author) in his latest book, talks about the 20 mile walk. Steady, planned progress, day by day.... All great achievements are done by having a clear goal, and then getting on with it, one (aligned and focused) step at a time.

Dreaming big on its own will not achieve anything. A dream without a plan is just a wish. By setting aside time daily to plan, and then actually doing what we planned, we can achieve great things.

Being an engineer, I have always prided myself in being analytical and logical. If someone said to me, “you are so logical”,  I would take it as a compliment. On the other hand, if someone said to me “you are being emotional”, I would take it as a harsh criticism that I needed to pull myself together and be more rational. More recently, I have been reading about neuroscience, and understanding that these two aspects are dominated by two different parts of the brain. Understanding personality styles,  I also discovered that other people, in different fields,  do not necessarily process information or make decisions the same way most engineers do.   What is perfectly logical to them, is not necessarily logical to me. They may have a higher bias for emotional reasoning. It’s about a balance and getting it right is a critical skill in leadership.

Passion seems to be a word that is more readily accepted as a positive trait than being emotional, yet what is passion other than an emotional emphasis on what you are doing? A leader without passion and a display of true emotions and feelings is hard to follow or be inspired by. On a different occasion we can talk about emotional high jacking where we lose control, and do and say things we regret afterwards, but here I am talking about allowing ourselves the freedom to display some emotions and true feelings, and to be real – rather than being so politically correct and professional, that we appear aloof and cold. Doug Sundheim, author of “ Taking Smart Risks: How Sharp Leaders Win When Stakes are High” says, “Emotions are critical to everything a leader must do: build trust, strengthen relationships, set a vision, focus energy, get people moving, make tradeoffs, make tough decisions, and learn from failure. Without genuine emotion these things always fall flat and stall. You need emotion on the front end to inform prioritisation. You need it on the back end to motivate and inspire.”

As human beings we process information at both an emotional and logical level, and if we can learn to trust both sources, we will become better leaders.  So the next time someone says to me "you are being emotional", I will take it as a complement!