Introversion and Leadership: Nature vs Nurture

Running Header: INTROVERSION/EXTRAVERSION 1
Introversion/Extraversion: Culture or Genetics? Roles of Personality in Leadership
Collin McGrath
Houston Christian High School Distinguished Scholars Program

INTROVERSION/EXTRAVERSION 2
Research Abstract
The Researcher examined the personality types of introversion and extraversion and how
these personalities are caused by culture, genetics, and family upbringing. The
Researcher then examined how introverts can succeed as business leaders, particularly as
transformational leaders. After researching personalities and leadership, this Researcher
conducted further research evaluating how Americans perceived their employers’
personality and which personality they would prefer for their employers; the research
indicated a majority preferred introverted. The Researcher also did a case study
comparing an introverted CEO, Douglas Conant, with an extroverted CEO, Harry Gordon
Selfridge, in terms of generosity, listening abilities, risk-taking actions, and
transformational leadership qualities. The Researcher found they demonstrated equal
generosity, Conant demonstrated more listening abilities, Selfridge demonstrated more
risk-taking actions, and Conant demonstrated more transformational leadership qualities.
For future research, one could examine how personality affects acting skills and abilities.

In this world, there are two kinds of people, introverts, people who receive
stimulation from the inner world of thought and need alone time to relax, and extroverts,
people who receive stimulation from the outer world of people and activities and need
social time to relax, and both are common in different countries (Bainbridge, 2013; Cain,
2012). America and Europe tend to host the most extroverts, dominating businesses and
being the center of attention, but Asian countries such as Japan, tend to host the most
introverts, quietly working and spending time in thoughts (Cain, 2012). Typically,
people tend to have a strong inclination to one personality and will fall into the
characteristics of said personality (“The story”, 2013). Introverts and extroverts are
radically different personalities, having many qualities that make them distinguishable
from each other and make them suited for different tasks. For example, introverts think
before they speak while extroverts think while they speak; introverts excel at solitary
tasks involving focus and thought while extroverts can excel at social tasks involving
pressure and quick reactions. When interacting with people, introverts typically prefer to
speak one-on-one while an extrovert prefers being in a crowd. Introverts prefer to meet
people on a friendly basis, while extroverts prefer to meet people on the basis of
competition. Introverts have superior concentration but are easily overwhelmed by
stimulating environments, and extroverts have less concentration but enjoy and seek out
stimulating environments. One might ask, “Why should personality matter when they do
not affect my life?” Wrong. Ever since the dawn of time, humanity has sought guidance
under leadership. Throughout history, there have been uncountable instances of
leadership, some well known, some less known, some on the large scale of running a
country, and some on the small scale of a school club. Although noticeably different, all

of these leadership styles share a simple fact: many of them succeeded and many of them
failed. Some factors cause this success or failure such as the state of the workplace, the
group members, and the available resources. Sometimes the results of leadership can be
traced to one primary factor: the leader. Leaders can determine if an organization will
blossom or whither through their policies, interactions with workers, and actions. So
what determines how a leader will go about achieving success? Yes, leaders often rely
on experience, but the majority of their actions are often determined by their personality.
An introverted leader will not typically conduct business like an extroverted leader or
vice versa. Today, researchers seek to determine if either introversion or extraversion is
the superior personality for leaders, particularly in business. To determine this, however,
one must understand what causes a person to be introverted or extroverted in order to
determine where successful business leaders should arise and what primarily influences
them: country, family, or genetics? In addition, one must know how these personalities
are different and how these differences can affect leadership. Scientists and
psychologists have studied introversion and extraversion and will continue to do so. Of
course, this research had to start somewhere.
Background
Pioneers
One of the first people to research the subconscious was Sigmund Freud who
believed malicious feelings lurked in the subconscious, and there was untold malice in
people in the form of the id kept in check by the moral compass of the superego (Boeree,
2006). He believed man had to make sense of his subconscious to truly understand
himself. Today, many of his beliefs are highly disputed, but nonetheless, his work

became the basis of psychology, which future researchers would expand upon including a
younger colleague of his, Carl Jung. After studying medicine at the University of Basel
and deciding to pursue psychiatry, Carl Jung identified and named schizophrenia as a
brain disorder where people interpret reality abnormally and invented word association
(Schizophrenia, n.d.). Although Freud saw Jung as the heir to his work, Jung did not
completely agree with Freud’s work and took a different approach to analyzing the
subconscious and personality (Boeree, 2006). He labeled the parts of the collective
unconscious as archetypes and divided those archetypes into groups such as the mother
archetype, manna, shadow, and so on. Jung is most well known, however, for identifying
the distinction between introverts and extroverts. In fact, most people today primarily
know Jung for distinguishing these personalities and do not realize he researched other
topics. Nonetheless, Jung established introverts as individuals who prefer introspection
and extroverts as individuals who prefer the outer world, and he established the idea of
one having a strong preference for a personality but is not a “pure introvert” or “pure
extrovert”. In 1940, two scientists who were inspired by Jung’s research, Katherine Cook
Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers, developed the now famous Myers Brigg Test (Richard,
1993) that could successfully identify an individual as highly introverted or highly
extraverted (“The Story”, 2013). Today, millions of businesses around the world use this
test to identify the personality of an applicant and determine the applicant’s suitability for
a certain occupation (“The Story”, 2013). For the sake of time, this Researcher will focus
on the concepts of introversion and extraversion, the causes of these personalities, and the
suitability of these personalities for leadership.

Introverted Personality
Jung’s research defines an introvert as an individual who draws strength from the
inner world (“Philosophy 302,” 2006). On the other hand, Merriam-Webster dictionary
defines an introvert as a shy, quiet person who has difficulty talking to others, but
introverts are better defined as individuals who need time alone to relax because of the
structure of their brains, particularly the structure of their ascending reticular activating
system or ARAS, a part of the brain that controls sensory stimulation (Cain, 2012). It is
completely inaccurate to call introverted people shy; introverts prefer to spend time alone
to relax, but shy people spend time alone because they fear social disapproval, and
shyness is not an introverted personality; extroverts can also be shy (Cain, 2012; Moore,
2013).
Introverted Response to Dopamine
Introverts also differ from extroverts in work ethic (Cain, 2012). Introverts have
very good focus when they need to complete a task (“Philosophy 302”, 2003). Generally,
their attention is directed toward the task instead of the reward (Cain, 2012). An
explanation for this focus comes from the chemical dopamine, a chemical released in
response to anticipated pleasures (“The Scientific Evidence”, n.d.). While dopamine can
give people energy to accomplish tasks, it can also make people neglect the big picture
and focus on the reward itself (Cain, 2012). For an introvert, smaller dopamine
passageways make introverts less sensitive to rewards and the end goal of a task;
consequently, introverts are less prone in neglecting the big picture and are more careful
avoiding risks (Cain, 2012). Rather than experiencing large amounts of dopamine,
introverts feel a sensation called “flow”, a state of mind when a person is totally engaged

in his or her activity, not bored, not anxious, and not questioning his or her own adequacy
(Cain, 2012).
Introverts and Conversation
Furthermore, introverts treat conversations differently than extroverts (Cain,
2012). Introverts dislike small talk (Cain, 2012). They simply are not interested in trivial
topics that lack profundity and can unintentionally create barriers between people and
would much rather discuss a personal topic that interests them (Cain, 2012; Helgoe,
2010). In fact, when introverts discuss something that interests them, they become very
excited and eager to talk (King, 2013). Introverts also tend to act as counselors to other
introverts in conversation, by trying to talk to each other about their problems and offer
advise; introverts think about what they are going to say carefully before they say it
(Cain, 2012). Introverts also crave a certain degree of authenticity in their conversations
that does not come from text messages or Internet interactions (Gregoire, 2013). Some
introverts, however, do spend time on social media interacting other people because it
eliminates anxiety from in-person interactions and allows them to simply leave a
conversation when they have nothing left to say (Collier, n.d.). Researchers, however,
have found evidence social people tend to benefit more from social media because they
become even more involved in community while introverts did not foster social contacts
(Bower, 2002). In any case, it is clear introverts desire to personally connect to other
people, and as leaders, they may be more inclined to establish such connections with
subordinates.

Morality of Introverts
Introverts also have a certain set of surprisingly strong morals and can often
inspire morality in others (Cain, 2012). When they grow up in a nurturing environment
like any other child, introverts develop a strong sensitivity to immoral activities and tend
to recognize the feelings of others much more (Cain, 2012). They try to avoid conflict,
preferring to meet people on a friendly, non-aggressive basis (Cain, 2012). As a leader,
an introvert might prefer to avoid arguing with employees and try to establish friendship.
Introverts Skilled at Writing
While not excellent at tasks involving pressure and generally not athletic
participants, introverts tend to excel in activities involving thought such as writing and
listening, as writing is a solitary profession, which perfectly suits introverts who gain
strength from being alone (Cain, 2012; Blake, 2013). Furthermore, introverts have a
deep need to process information, a key quality of successful writers as giving context
and meaning to a set of facts and emotions is necessary for storytelling (Blake, 2013).
Introverts also prefer listening instead of talking in social situations (Blake, 2013). Thus,
an introverted leader may be more willing to listen to employees and customers than an
extroverted leader to achieve success and introverts may be more fitted for any solitary
aspects of leadership.
Introverts as Friends
Although they need solitude to relax, introverts also crave intimacy (Cain, 2012).
They have a few friends, whom they hold to be very dear (Cain, 2012). An introvert is
fiercely loyal to those friends; an introverted friend is quite often a friend for life (King,
2013). Introverts want to make very personal connections to other people on the basis of

friendship and understand people on a personal level (Cain, 2012). Although introverts
can often see extroverts as false and insincere, introverts are often drawn to extroverts in
business, friendship, and marriage (Cain, 2012; “Philosophy 302”, 2006). When talking
with extroverts, many introverts will often report discussing happier topics and making
conversation more easily (Cain, 2012). So clearly, introverts and extroverts are
compatible and can collaborate to accomplish difficult tasks in business; an introvert
could lead extroverts (Cain, 2012).
Introverts are not perfect (Cain, 2012). They can lack confidence and do have
tendencies to be unsocial, shy, or hesitant (“Personality 302”, 2006). They do not
however, have nearly as many weaknesses as the extroverted world would like to believe,
so the popular perceptions of introverts as weak and socially inept must be reevaluated.
Otherwise, the business world could miss out on a personality, which could bring unique
leadership strengths.
To say the media has not always had a positive perspective of introverts is an
understatement (King, 2013). Today, the media tends to perceive introverts as aloof
nerds who hate people and do not know how to have fun or as cold and distant
(“Philosophy 302”, 2003; King, 2013). The media also believes introverts can and
should fix their personalities to become extroverts (King, 2013). Overall, the media
believes introverts are generally not suited for leadership positions because they do not
inspire confidence (King, 2013).
Extroverted Personality
On the opposite side of the spectrum of personality, Jung’s research defines an
extrovert (or an extravert) as a person who prefers the outside world of people and

activities (Boeree, 2006). Webster-Merriam Dictionary defines an extrovert as an
outgoing person who gets along easily with others, but an extrovert is better defined as an
individual with a need for social time with other people to unwind after a long day
(Bainbridge, 2013).
Extroverted Reaction to Dopamine
While they can focus on long, difficult tasks when necessary, extroverts do not
typically have the level of focus as introverts and can have difficulty working alone for
long periods of time (Blake, 2013). Furthermore, extroverts have wide dopamine
passageways and are more responsive and motivated by rewards (Cain, 2012).
Unfortunately, the anticipation of dopamine can make extroverts blind to the bigger
picture and lead their followers astray (Cain, 2012). When they are focused on the
reward, they neglect potential dangers and ignore warning signs to pursue the reward, and
this negligence can lead to disasters like refusal to sell stocks in a company even when
shares are decreasing or is involved in political or business scandals (Cain, 2012).
Sometimes, however, risks can pay off; if a company conducts a risky business practice,
such as doing something other companies do not, and achieve success, then other
companies may often follow suit, knowing such practice may bring success. In essence,
many extroverted leaders are prone to making bold, occasionally reckless, risky actions.
Extroverts and Conversation
In addition, extroverts tend to enjoy small talk much more than introverts (Cain,
2012). When talking with other extroverts, they often enjoy being the center of attention
and offer casual information – such as pets, hobbies, or families – to establish similarities
between themselves (Cain, 2012). Extroverts dislike solitary thinking but enjoy small

talk; in fact, they can actually think as they speak to respond quickly in conversations, so
they can, and often will, respond to a sudden crisis or problem very quickly compared to
introverts who prefer to carefully consider the best course of action (“Philosophy 302”,
2003; Blake, 2013). As leaders, this makes extroverts more comfortable with a large
group of followers and allows them to completely engage in any company conversation.
Compared to introverts, extroverts can be more callous to the feelings of others
and are much more confrontational (Cain, 2012). Most extroverts are never afraid to
express their opinion or argue especially since their lower blood pressure invites higher
stimulation (Hozawa, et al., 2006). In fact, extroverts are often drawn to people on the
basis of competition, which is why extroverts are much more likely to participate in
sports where they can compete with other people (Cain, 2012; “Philosophy 302”, 2006).
This does not mean extroverts are arrogant, rude individuals; rather introverts are the
more sensitive of the two. If extroverts are eager to compete, then as leaders they may
run business like competition and try to outperform competitors.
An extrovert is less fastidious about authenticity, or connecting to the actual
person in conversation, than an introvert (Gregoire, 2013). Considering they want to
converse with other people, they do not really mind what form of technology they use to
communicate be it texting or Facebook (Gregoire, 2013). This love of communication
can be seen particularly in the rise of popularity of I-phone based activities. Extroverts
do not mind unauthentic relationships in communications or in businesses. As leaders,
they do not feel a need to personally connect to employees and customers and might not
listen to them as an introverted leader would.

Like introverts, extroverts also crave intimacy, but they crave it in a different way
(Cain, 2012). Extroverts generally have a wide network of friends from which they
receive this intimacy, and extroverts are generally admired by many of their friends and
other people (Cain, 2012). They prefer to interact with people on the basis of
competition (Cain, 2012). Often extroverts can see introverts as selfish and boring, but
oddly enough, extroverts are also drawn to introverts in business, friendship, and
marriage (“Personality 302”, 2006; Cain, 2012). When extroverts communicate with
introverts, extroverts report a feeling of relaxation with their introvert partners (unlike
when communicating with other extroverts), a feeling they can honestly share problems,
and a feeling they do not need to be falsely upbeat, meaning not only can introverts lead
extroverts, but extroverts too, can lead a team of introverts.
The media has almost always had a positive perspective of extroverts, often
seeing extroverts as strong, wealthy, intelligent individuals who work as business owners
or company bosses (Cain, 2012). Some tropes commonly associated with extroverts
include Mr. Nice Guy, a friendly, morally average person everyone wants for a friend;
big man on campus, the friendly, popular, straight A student, and even life of the party
(Extraversion Tropes). Overall, the media portrays extroverts as the individuals most
qualified for leadership and the common mentality is they are the only qualified
personality for leadership positions (Bono & Judge, 2004). Indeed, extroverts can make
successful leaders but such successes can make society neglect selecting introverts as
leaders, which would diminish introverted leadership styles.
So far, the basic knowledge of introversion and extraversion has been established.
There are two basic personalities: introversion, which entails a preference of the inner

world of thought and a desire to seek solitude in order to relax, and extraversion, which
entails a preference of the outer world of people and activities and a desire to seek social
activities and stimulating environments to relax (Cain, 2012; “Philosophy 302”, 2006).
Introverts can be further characterized by their concentration, listening abilities, desire to
connect personally, tendency to think before speaking, and their tendency to consider and
plan their courses of action. Extroverts, on the other hand, can be further characterized
by their competitive nature, risk-taking actions, upbeat demeanor, tendency to speak
while thinking, and their tendency to react quickly to sudden events. Although a person
can have a strong preference for one personality, they cannot be completely introverted or
completely extroverted. Finally, media tends to favor extroverts over introverts and
consequently, society values extraversion more and typically sees extroverts as the
primary candidates for leadership roles. With all this in mind, one must ask the question:
is introversion or extraversion a product of culture, genetics, or both? In the case of
personality, which personality contributes more to a successful business? In the case
study of Douglas Conant and Harry Gordon Selfridge, how do the two compare in terms
of generosity, risk-taking actions, listening skills, and transformational leadership
qualities?
Review of Related Literature
Nurture
Often, the culture of a nation and family interactions can influence the nature of a
person; a nation’s culture can determine what a person believes while the way a person
interacts with their family can influence how they will interact with others in the future.
These factors can also influence if a child will grow up and become introverted or

extroverted; Americans are surrounded by a verbal culture and often grow up extroverted,
while Asian children are surrounded by an introspective, studious culture and often grow
up introverted.
American Culture Trends Towards Extraversion
What caused America to value extraversion over introversion? The answer
actually comes from the Industrial Revolution beginning around 1760 (Cain, 2012).
People originally lived on farms isolated from each other, but the rise of technology
caused people to move away from these farms to crowded cities where there was more
available interaction (Cain, 2012). Furthermore, people began to believe a successful
business required a certain personality (Cain, 2012). America became a verbal culture
where the choice to remain silent was a poor choice (Helgoe, 2010). The new ideal self
was magnetic, energetic, and dominant; people had to do more than sell a product, they
had to sell themselves in order to succeed in business.
At the turn of the 20th century, there was a new perception of introversion in
America; it was a disease to be cured. Introverts were labeled with an inferiority
complex and the common belief was that introversion would lead to tragedies such as
alcoholism and even suicide. People began to suspect quiet males of being homosexuals
and saw introversion as a major hindrance to public speaking. There was also a new
perception of a true leader as someone who acted confidently, could make decisions
despite incomplete information, and could discuss easily. America soon became a
naturally extroverted country (Helgoe, 2010). Extraversion is a product of American
values such as sociability, easy, cheerful association, and high self-esteem (belief in
oneself and putting individual needs before group needs (Twenge, 2006)). These cultural

beliefs influenced other aspects of American society which further reinforced the
tendency to value extraversion.
American Parenting Effects on Personality
These cultural beliefs can influence the perspectives of American parents and how
they treat their children. With these perspectives of introversion in mind, many
American parents praise talkative children but frown upon silent children; some parents
try to force introverted children to behave like extroverts, which can hurt the children
mentally (Cain, 2012).
American Academics Effects on Personality
The American educational curriculum is evidence of the influence of extraversion
as it does not typically emphasize introverted interests such as reading, writing, or
solitary thought. Most projects involve cooperating with other students and many classes
utilize oratory exercises and demand participation. In some business colleges, the
students are taught the ability to gather information and write a paper is useless if one
lacks the confidence to present the information (Cain, 2012).
American Religion Effects on Personality
Religion has also been affected by these beliefs. Take Christianity, for example.
Normally, Christians today would separate themselves from the world to talk to God, but
today worship tends to feature loud, joyous singing and celebration and neglect
introspection. Indeed, extraversion has become the majority and introversion the
minority in America, but in Asian countries, however, introversion is not the minority.

Asian Culture Trends Towards Introversion
While countries like the USA, England, and France welcomed extraversion,
countries like China and Japan have embraced introversion. To understand why, one
must examine the history of these regions. Typically, the Eastern world has been an
isolated culture, which has tried to avoid influence (Cain, 2012). Before Europeans had
begun overseas exploration, the Han Dynasty of China had already established Indian
Ocean trade networks with Africa and the Middle East. The Chinese utilized massive
boats called “junk” which far exceeded any boat the Europeans would later build (“Junk”,
n.d.). The Chinese could have crossed the Atlantic and explored the New World in these
boats; however, they never did. Why? Many Chinese citizens were concerned their
religion and culture would be infected by foreign contact. Indeed, when the great
Chinese explorer Zheng He converted to Islam after his travels to the Middle East, the
Chinese were outraged and fearful, and thus, they decided to shut down overseas
exploration and remain isolated. Japan also adopted such policies and refused to allow
outside influences, and due to Japan’s geography, the country remained isolated for many
years, keeping the population homogenous. Unlike American pioneers, the Eastern world
did not explore the great unknown and became comfortable with being isolated.
Asian Parenting Effects on Personality
As for Asian countries today, parents find introversion both acceptable and praise
worthy (Cain, 2012). Parents encourage children to focus on academic pursuits, work
diligently, and believe there is wisdom in silence (Paul, 2011). In fact, many people of
Asian roots will often express dislike for a person who speaks too much; they often

believe people who talk too much tyrannize everyone else by imposing their will onto
others, and by doing so, are acting arrogant (Cain, 2012).
Asian Academics Effects on Personality
The curriculum for students in Asian countries is vastly different from that of
America or Europe; Asian countries often adopt a curriculum that actually encourages
introversion by focusing on introvert interests including the following: listening, writing,
reading, and memorization (Blake, 2013; Cain, 2012). Unlike the American curriculum
focusing on oratory exercises, conversation is flat out discouraged; conversation is simply
not a focus of the Asian curriculum (Cain, 2012).
Asian Religion Effects on Introversion
Furthermore, Asian country values are vastly different from American or
European values and in some ways encourage introversion as they tend to focus on moral
virtues, deeper values, and putting group needs before individual needs (Cain, 2012).
While Americans tend to see prioritizing the needs of the group as conformity, Asians see
such prioritizing as expressing concern for others (Cain, 2012).
Tiger Moms Effects on Personality
Another possible cause of introversion is Tiger moms, mothers who aggressively
push their children to work hard in school and in life (Paul, 2011). While Tiger moms
can be present in many cultures, they tend to be very prevalent in the Eastern world (Paul,
2011). As harsh as it sounds, this parenting method achieves remarkable results, as
recent tests show Chinese students, particularly from Shanghai, are effectively and
embarrassingly outclassing American students in reading, science, and math. Like the
event of Sputnik, Americans are falling behind another country once again (Paul, 2011).

Different Parenting Causes Different Personality
Some research actually suggests the way parents treat a child affects the
personality of child (Siegelman, 1966). Research shows if a child finds interaction with
parents enjoyable, the child is likely to seek out similar enjoyment from interactions with
others and thus takes on an extroverted personality (Siegelman, 1966). Conversely,
should a child experience unpleasant interactions with parents, then the child may feel the
desire to avoid other interpersonal relationships, and thus takes on an introverted
personality (Siegelman, 1966). Normally, a loving parent is much more likely to reward
children when they demonstrate extroverted behavior compared to an introverted
behavior, so perhaps the love American parents show their children makes their children
take on extroverted personalities while the strictness Asian parents show their children
makes their children take on introverted personalities (Paul, 2011). Interestingly, many
introverted children tend to report having parents who often rejected them, while many
extroverted children tend to report having parents who often showed love to them
(Siegelman, 1966). On the other hand, many scientists and individuals believe
introversion and extraversion are not a result of culture or family upbringing but a result
of genetics and nature.
Nature
Genetics and Predictability of Personality
Many psychologists have wondered if introversion or extroversion is something
people are simply born with, and recent evidence suggests that very well could be the
case (Cain, 2012). Experiments have shown it is possible to predict whether a child will
grow up to be introverted or extroverted at infancy through environment sensitivity.

When an infant was placed in an unfamiliar environment and cried, a scientist could
predict the infant would grow up to be introverted because they were environmentally
sensitive. On the other hand, when an infant was placed in an unfamiliar environment
and did not cry, a scientist could predict the infant would grow up to be extroverted
because they were not environmentally sensitive. These reactions suggest people are
fated genetically even at infancy to be either introverted or extroverted (Cain, 2012).
Free Trait Theory
Furthermore, people can only stretch their personalities so far according to the
Free Trait Theory (Cain, 2012). The Free Trait Theory states people may act out of their
natural personality but still need time to be true to themselves; the body and mind both
need time to be true to the inherent personality of the individual. If people deny
themselves this time, they risk their mental health and experience stress or burnout, long-
term exhaustion or diminished interest in work (Merriam Webster Dictionary). People
who deny themselves time to be true to their nature also risk their physical health and
could experience cardiovascular disease or an increase in autonomic nervous system
activities, which includes involuntary actions such as heartbeat, digestion, and eye
dilation, all of which can result in compromising the immune function (Cain, 2012;
“Autonomic Nervous System,” 2013). This is not the only evidence of personality being
related to genetics.
Different Dopamine Structure
In the body, there are noticeable differences between introverts and extroverts.
As previously discussed, there are structural differences between dopamine passageways
of introverts and extroverts (“The Scientific Evidence,” n.d.). For introverts these

passageways are much less open, making introverts less reward sensitive than extroverts,
but for extroverts these passageways are much more open, making extroverts incredibly
reward sensitive (Cain, 2012). When working hard on a task, introverts are not usually
energized by dopamine like extroverts but experience a sensation called “flow,” where
they are completely absorbed by their task, do not fret about their adequacy, or their time
(Cain, 2012). Introverts and extroverts also differ genetically in the regions of activity in
their brains.
Different Regions of Brain Activity
In the 1960’s, Hans Eysenck, a German psychologist living in Great Britian,
proposed the difference between introverts and extroverts was their different levels of
arousal, or the extent to which their bodies and minds are alert and responsive to
stimulation (Cooper, 2013). Hans’ theory stated extroverts have a lower level of arousal,
meaning to reach the same level of arousal introverts might reach easily, extroverts have
to work harder; in addition, Hans theory also stated introverts have a higher level of
arousal, which can make them easily overwhelmed by stimulating environments and
people and prefer time alone, one-on-one conversations, and predictable situations.
Today, researchers believe the ascending reticular activating system, or ARAS, the part
of the brain leading up to the cerebral cortex and to other parts of the brain, that controls
sensory stimulation flowing into the brain confirms Eysenck’s theory (Cain, 2012). For
an introvert, the ARAS channel is wide open, making introverts susceptible to over-
arousal (“The Scientific Evidence,” n.d.; Cain, 2012). Consequently, introverts prefer
less stimulating environments where there are fewer distractions (“The Scientific
Evidence,” n.d.). Extroverts also have an ARAS structure in their brains; however, the

ARAS channels of an extrovert are far less open, making extroverts prone to under-
arousal (Cain, 2012). In response, extroverts seek stimulating environments and
stimulation from talking with other people (Cain, 2012).
One particular region of brain activity for an extrovert is found in the region
known as the anterior cingulate cortex (Forney, n.d.). While scientists have debated the
exact functions of this region, most scientist agree it deals with cognitive functions, such
as thinking, understanding, learning, and remembering, along with temporary mood
changes, depression and anxiety disorders, and the perception of pain (Luu & Posner,
2003). Other regions of activity include the temporal lobes, which deal with memory,
emotions, hearing, and language and the posterior thalamus, which decodes emotional
tones and contains mechanisms of recent memory (Forney, n.d.; “The brain”, n.d.).
Generally, the extroverted brain displays activity in regions involved with discussion and
is designed to focus on the external world (Cain, 2012; Kaier, 2015). The brain of an
introvert, however, has different regions of activity.
A large area of activity in the brain of an introvert is the thalamus, a midline
paired symmetrical structure within the brains of any vertebrate and the frontal lobes
(Thalamus, 2010; Forney, n.d.; “The Scientific Evidence”, n.d.). The thalamus relays
activities to the cerebral cortex and midbrain such as sensations, special senses, motor
signals, and regulates certain activities, namely, consciousness, sleep, and alertness
(Thalamus, 2010). These areas of the brain involve sensory processes such as
remembering, problem solving, and planning (“The Scientific Evidence”, n.d.). In
general, the introverted brain demonstrates activity in regions associated with thought and
contemplation and is designed to focus on the internal world (Cain, 2012; Kaier, 2015).

Since extroverts and introverts are noticeably different in terms of genetics, this could
likely affect the leadership skills in business they each demonstrate respectively.
Role of Personality in Business
Basic Leadership
Despite many cultures writing their ideas on leadership and theories behind it,
there is not any single true definition of leadership (Townes, 2012). Definitional
leadership is generally accepted as “…an influence relationship between leaders and
followers who intend changes or objectives that reflect shared (reciprocal) meanings,
strategies, and purposes” (Mills, 2007). Literature and research has often identified
transformational leadership as the most powerful leadership when it comes to motivating
employees to work to the best of their abilities (Townes, 2012).
Transformational Leadership
James MacGregor Burns, a political scientist, first coined transformational
leadership in his 1978 book, “Leadership”, and since then transformational leadership has
become one of the most extensively researched academic topics (“About James”, n.d.).
When it comes to running any sort of business or even a team, people are always looking
to hire a transformational leader, or a charismatic leader who transforms an organization
from its current status to the desired status (Townes, 2012). Often, research will indicate
extroverts are the best candidates for transformational leadership; they are charismatic,
upbeat, and easy to get along with, but new information suggests introverts can be just as
effective in leadership, which could overturn previous assumptions and convince
researchers introverts can bring unique strengths to the leadership role (Townes, 2012).

According to American business consultant, author, and lecturer, Jim Collins and
his study of great organizations in 2001, the transformational leaders in charge of many
organizations do not completely fit the general model of a transformational leader; they
were not charismatic or overly extroverted. In fact, the leaders Collins researched tend to
be full of humility and full of willpower (Collins, 2001; Townes, 2012). There is another
concept necessary to understand when describing elements of effective leadership:
emotional intelligence (Townes, 2012).
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence is widely regarded as an essential trait for a
transformational leader and can be defined as the “ability to recognize the meanings of
emotions and their relationships and to reason and problem-solve on the basis of them”
(Mayer et al., 1999). Unfortunately, society tends to limit the candidates for
transformational leadership by automatically selecting the most outspoken individuals for
the role, leaving introverts for supporting roles preventing introverts from lending their
unique strengths to the leadership position and could prove crippling (Townes, 2012).
Personality Correlated
In their study of the connection between personality and transformational
leadership, researchers Joyce E. Bono, from the Department of Psychology at the
University of Minnesota, and Timothy A. Judge, from the Department of Management at
the University of Florida, (2004) found their results showing the connections between
personality and transformational leadership were weak (Bono & Judge, 2004). In any
case, the researchers still concluded extraversion was an important personality trait
connected to transformational leadership; they believed when followers were extroverted,

the followers would then be “more likely to perceive transformational leadership” and
more readily accept this form of leadership (Felfe & Schyns, 2006; Townes, 2012).
Further studies conducted by other groups, in particular, researchers Robert S. Rubin of
DePaul University, David C. Munz of Saint Louis University, and William H. Bommer
of Cleveland State University, demonstrated results consistent with those of researchers
Judge and Bono’s (2004) results; agreeableness –but not extraversion – is the best
predictor of transformational leadership (Rubin et al.’s, 2005).
Introverts at Leadership
The common perception has always been talkative people are the most intelligent
people, but introverts actually have several strengths when it comes to transformational
leadership (Cain, 2012). Rather than rely on charisma to motivate employees, introverts
rely on inspired standards and are more than willing to listen to the ideas of others (Cain,
2012). In addition, researchers from the University of Macau including Professor
Raymond Chi Ho Loi, Associate Professor in Management and Faculty of Business
Administration, Dr. Jenifer Lai Yuen Man, Assistant Professor in Management and
Faculty of Business Administration, Professor Lam Long Wai,
Professor in Management, Head of Department of Management and Marketing, and
Faculty of Business Administration, found supervisors who demonstrated their
commitment to an organization often positively led subordinates on organizational
values, which as a result would enhance the commitment of employees (Loi et al., 2012;
Prof. Lam, n.d.; Prof. Loi, n.d.; Dr. Lai, n.d.). Introverts are the individuals who
demonstrate this loyalty and long-term commitment; they tend to build great trust in the
work place, and on any team, people must be able to trust each other, showing loyalty to

their work; introverts are the people who will stay late to work on a project with all of
their strength after work (“The Secret”, n.d.; Todd, 2010).
Introverts can have tremendous success as leaders. Generally, introverts tend to
have the best success as leaders when they lead a group of proactive employees because
they prefer listening (Townes, 2012). Leaders who are less extroverted tend to be more
open to the ideas, suggestions, and empowerment of proactive employees, but highly
extroverted leaders can often see such suggestions as undermining their authority
(Townes, 2012). In essence, introverts are good at leading proactive, initiative-taking
employees because introverts have a tendency to listen to others and lack interest in
dominating social situations, which makes introverts more likely “to hear and implement
suggestions” (Cain, 2012). Often, they can further encourage their followers to be even
more proactive and create a “virtuous circle of proactivity” (Cain, 2012)
While most people do believe extroverts make better leaders than introverts,
experiments have shown this opinion can quickly change (Adams, 2013). One such
experiment conducted by researchers Corinne Bendersky, an associate professor at
UCLA’s Anderson School of Management and Neha Parikh Shah, an assistant professor
at Rutgers Business School, required students to rank how successful they believed
individuals would be as leaders, and they initially ranked the most extroverted student as
the most successful student and the neurotic or introverted student as the least successful
student (Adams, 2013). Within ten weeks, however, extroverted leaders had lost status
with their peers and were judged more harshly, but introverts had surpassed expectations
and had grown in status (Todd, 2010). Generally, people believe introverts will not
contribute anything to a group, so followers are often impressed when they do contribute

(Todd, 2010). There are plenty of introverted leaders who succeeded not in spite of their
personality but because of their personality.
Leaders
Gandhi
In the business of running a country, Mahatma Gandhi of India is a prime of
example of the power of introverts in leadership (“16 Outrageously”, 2013). Rather than
sway a crowd through anger and resentment, he encouraged them to protest through
nonviolence. Although he never wanted to express his thoughts at any meeting and could
never work up the courage, his introversion gave him a unique strength – restraint present
throughout his life. As a young man he decided to travel to England to study law even
though the leaders in his social group, the Modhi Bania subcaste, disapproved and tried to
dissuade him. As a result, he was excommunicated, and although any other man would
argue for readmission; Gandhi respected the wishes of the Sheth, the head of the
community, and kept at a distance. As a result of his compliance, the subcaste stopped
harassing him and its members – even those who excommunicated him – assisted him in
his political work without expecting to receive anything in return (Cain, 2012).
Essentially, these people came to follow Gandhi because he was agreeable, and would
listen to others rather than assert his own will. His agreeableness made him not only an
effective political leader, but also an effective transformational leader by transforming
India into a long-desired nation independent from Britain. Gandhi’s personality inspired
people to challenge the status quote in a gentle way (“16 Outrageously”, 2013).

Business Leaders
As for business leaders, two introverted leaders stand out from the rest: Bill Gates
and Mark Zuckerburg (“16 Outrageously”, 2013). Although competitive as a child,
Gates enjoyed reading and spending time alone (“Bill Gates,” 2014). He became
fascinated with computers and spent time tinkering with software, and eventually he and
his friend, Paul Allen, built Microsoft (“Bill Gates”, 2014). Naturally, he could be very
exclusive regarding the people in his work group, surrounding himself with a small group
of familiar individuals. Bill Gates prefers to keep to himself, but he is not shy; shyness
would imply he fears social judgment, which he himself does not; therefore, he is more
accurately described as an introvert (“16 Outrageously”, 2013). Being an introvert does
not hamper his abilities; he knows how to be competitive and run his company effectively
and is not afraid of how others will perceive him even if his corporate methods seem
unorthodox or even unfair; he is more concerned with results than popularity (Cain, 2012;
“Bill Gates,” 2014). An industry executive for Microsoft once stated it can be difficult to
reach Bill Gates by phone because he enjoys time alone to relax, and another executive
reported showing Gates a game where the executive won 35 of 37 times, but a month
later Gates won or tied every match by studying the game to compete more effectively
(“Bill Gates”, 2014). As any introvert would, he persistently worked to overcome his
adversary by improving his skills; perseverance is indeed a common characteristic of
introverts (Cain, 2012). Some business majors believe being an introvert could hinder
leadership because they believe introverts lack confidence and may not be willing to
discipline employees or compete effectively in the market. Bill Gates, however, can
disprove this belief and show being an introvert does not hamper his abilities or keep him

from disciplinary actions. Another introverted business leader is the co-founder of
Facebook, Mark Zuckerburg (Vargas, 2010). After co-founding Facebook, Zuckerburg
became the youngest billionaire, but preferred to stay out of the spot light. In one such
instance, he kept his wedding on a small scale, no lavishly expensive ring for his wife or
food, just a modest ring and Mexican food; he did not want excessive attention
(McManus, 2012). He has been described as brusque but energetic when engaged in a
task he enjoys, particularly thinking alone. He and Gates are the individuals who prefer
to develop technology without others surrounding them (Vargas, 2010). They both
needed a space alone to work like any introvert; when they had it, they could achieve
breakthroughs. As leaders of technological development, Gates and Zuckerburg perform
most effectively with time alone, which could indicate introverts can find solitude in
aspects of leadership where they can perform at their best. These three introverts show
introverts can be successful and even surpass extroverted leaders. Does this mean
extroverts should never be qualified for leadership positions? Not at all, both
personalities can contribute to leadership in different and unique ways. This is clearly
illustrated when comparing an introverted leader, such as Douglas Conant, with an
extroverted leader, Harry Gordon Selfridge.
Case Study
Douglas Conant is a prime example of an introverted leader who transformed an
organization to the desired status by serving as CEO of Campbell Soup from 2001 to
2011 and reforming the workplace (Cain, 2011). On the other hand, Harry Gordon
Selfridge is an extroverted leader whose practices also changed an industry, specifically
when he formed a department store in London and challenged the status quo by running

his store differently from competitors (“H. Gordon Selfridge”, 2014). With this in mind,
the Researcher decided to compare Conant and Selfridge by finding instances, practices,
and situations where they demonstrated generosity, risk-taking actions, listening, and
transformational leadership qualities. The Researcher chose generosity, or if they treated
people well because the research collected in the Review of Related Literature suggested
both extroverts and introverts are equally capable of treating people well, risk-taking
actions, or actions entailing great risk, because the research stated extroverts are more
likely to take risks, listening because the research stated introverted leaders are more
likely to listen to employees, and transformational leadership qualities because the
research stated introverts could be successful transformational leaders.
When examining generosity, the Researcher examined if Conant and Selfridge
treated people well. The Researcher noted Conant wrote 10 to 20 handwritten thank you
letters to employees at various levels each day, eventually adding up to 300,000 letters.
He tried to communicate with employees to gain insight to their problems; in his blog,
Conant recalled an incident where a new employee told him about his own problems with
his workload and Conant helped him work around such problems (Conant, 2011;
Gerdeman, 2013). Conant allowed employees to “call him out” if he ever seemed aloof,
and encouraged the company to adopt environmentally friendly policies such as using
solar energy (Conant, 2011; Gerdeman, 2013). He was also responsible for Campbell’s
services to the city of Cadmen, New Jersey, one of the most dangerous and poor cities in
the US where Campbell was originally formed, despite receiving no real benefit in return
(Kleiner, 2012). Furthermore, Conant started a ten-year program to help children in
public schools receive proper nourishment from a well-balanced diet, “revitalize the city,

starting with nutritional training in the schools [and] attract quality supermarkets and
other food sources to the center of the city” (Kleiner, 2012). Conant was interested in
treating employees well, while Selfridge was most interested in treating customers well,
which was not a common practice among department stores in the early 20th century in
London; customers in his store were allowed to browse without forcing them to buy
anything (Labov, 2014; Metz, 2013). He never allowed floorwalkers, employees who
forced customers to either spend money or leave, in his store so customers would enjoy
shopping, and he used exhibits and performances to keep customers entertained, and let
women shop without a chaperone and tried to inspire his employees instead of
intimidating them (Duncan, n.d.; “H. Gordon”, 2014; Metz, 2013; “Who was”, 2014).
Both Conant and Selfridge were interested in treating people well.
In terms of risk-taking actions, the Researcher found Conant took few; he
appeared to think through most of his actions before executing with a goal of long-term
impact in mind (“Douglas Conant”, Linkedin, n.d.). He did take risks coming to
Campbell; the company was losing consumers due to certain practices, suffered from one
of the worst employee interaction rates reported by Fortune 500, and it was unclear if it
could recover (Gerdeman, 2013; “About Doug Conant”, 2014). Conant, however, had
“25 years of experience from three of the world’s leading food companies: General Mills,
Kraft, and Nabisco”; he understood how to run such a company. While in charge, he did
make what he confesses to be two risky decisions; first in 2007, he “invested $135
million in an enterprise resource planning system (ERP) … [and] second, in 2008, [he]
opened offices in Russia and China” (Kleiner, 2012; “Douglas Conant”, Kellogg School
of Management, n.d.). He thought out these actions before hand with long-term goals for

the company in mind; he believed the first risk “would allow [Campbell] to manage [its]
cost structure as effectively as other large food and beverage companies” and that the
second risk was wise because neither country had access to a “major commercial soup
manufacturer … [and] that their growing number of middle-class consumers would soon
want convenience foods” (Kleiner, 2012). He only needed the investments in one of the
countries to work, and when he left office, Campbell reduced its efforts in China and
“pulled back” on Russia (Kleiner, 2012). Overall, Conant left little to chance and seldom
took risks; he appeared to think most of his actions out and had the experience to know
when to take risks. Selfridge, by comparison, often took great risks, particularly when he
started his store, Selfridges in London, which had never been tested for such an American
concept. He conducted many risky practices such as giving customers the utmost respect,
not forcing customers to buy anything, and eliminating the role of the floorwalker (Harry
Gordon Selfridge, Spartacus Educational, n.d.; Packham, 2014). There were even
personal risks; Selfridge did not have much formal education and many rival department
stores to compete against in London (Manning, 2013; Packham, 2014). In the end, he
challenged the status quo, and ultimately redefined store practices (Labov, 2014). Of
these two, Selfridge was the greater risk-taker by far.
As for listening, the researcher found Conant was listening the moment he came
to Campbell. He learned about the company’s very low employee engagement and
satisfaction rates through Jim Clifton from Gallup (Kleiner, 2012). Conant stated he
preferred to listen at meetings, allowed employees to point out when he seemed aloof,
and communicated with employees to discover any problems they might have (Conant,
2011). Conant believed when he allowed employees to tell him when they felt he was

acting distant, they were more comfortable talking to him; one employee came to talk
about his difficult circumstances and Conant managed to help him instead of turning him
away (Conant, 2011). Conant also reported he tried to listen to the customers and collect
“global views of customers” to improve Campbell’s “ability to compete” (Kleiner, 2012).
For instance, when he learned customers were having difficulty finding some items, he
convinced Campbell to develop an “innovative shelving system”; when he learned
customers “were concerned about the amount of sodium in their diets”, he convinced
Campbell to create “word-class reduction salt reduction capabilities in soup” and then
apply those capabilities to other company products (Kleiner, 2012). Selfridge often
listened to customers and tried to treat them well. In fact, most scholars believe he
developed the philosophy “the customer is always right” and the idea “people will sit up
and take notice of you if you will sit up and notice what makes them sit up and take
notice” applying both of these philosophies into his business model (Metz, 2013; Labov,
2014). Selfridge believed in good manners and tried to give customers respect by paying
attention to their desires (Metz, 2013). When he realized most shoppers had problems
finding what they wanted, he organized his store to facilitate shopping; when he realized
other shops forced people to purchase items and threw out browsers, he encouraged
customers to browse (Metz, 2013; “H. Gordon”, 2014). Selfridge used shows and
exhibits in his store to satisfy customers and inspired employees to give customers “the
highest level of service” (Metz, 2013; Labov, 2014). Both individuals tried to listen to
both customers and employees alike.
As the Researcher previously stated, a transformational leader is one who
transforms an organization from the current status to the desired status. For Campbell

soup, Douglas Conant fits this description perfectly and completely. Campbell was
losing customers, laying off employees, had the worst employee interaction according to
Fortune 500, and a rapidly decreasing market value (Gerdeman, 2013; “About Doug
Conant”, 2014). He visibly improved the workplace by increasing employee interaction
and improved current leaders his company, creating a school to keep improving this
leadership, developing a unique way of thinking for Campbell leaders, improving
company income (Kleiner, 2012; Gerdeman, 2013, “About Doug Conant”, 2014). Conant
helped Campbell achieve a strong cash flow, improved its position in the market, and
increase “marketing spending to competitive levels” (Kleiner, 2012). He also showed
Campbell ways to maintain customers by giving them what they wanted, such as a
shelving system to find products more easily or reducing the amount of sodium in its
products without ruining the taste (Kleiner, 2012). The Gallup Organization awarded
Campbell with its ‘Great Workplace Award’ for four years straight and the 2010 Catalyst
award for “helping women advance their careers” (“Douglas Conant”, Linkedin, n.d.).
Due to his leadership, Campbell turned to environmentally friendly means of energy and
assisted the town of Cadmen by ensuring public school children receive a nutritious diet
(Kleiner, 2012; Gerdeman, 2013). From the start, Conant focused on reforming
workplace and building trust; therefore, the Researcher concluded Douglas Conant fitted
the description of a transformational leader (Gerdeman, 2013). For department stores,
the Researcher investigated if Selfridge could be considered a transformational leader in
his field. Selfridge changed working conditions by employing new methods in his own
store; in essence, Selfridge focused on challenging the status quo and pleasing customers
(Labov, 2014). Selfridge focused on treating customers with respect, using exhibitions to

keep customers interested, and inspired employees instead of intimidating them (“H.
Gordon Selfridge, Sr., retail entrepreneur”, 2014; Labov, 2014). Selfridge’s “innovations
of discounts and bi-annual sale are taken for granted now”, but he is remembered for
“launching [the] first-ever bargain basement”, boldly displaying cosmetics in the front
floor entrance instead of hiding them, and his store was “incredibly the first store in
Britain to provide women’s toilets” (Metz, 2013; “Secrets”, 2013). The way he
organized his store so customers could easily find what they wanted still influences stores
across the world today, as does the way he tried to make shopping an enjoyable
experience (“H. Gordon”, 2014). “He gave [women] the freedom to shop un-
chaperoned”, “broke down entrenched British class barriers”, and “revolutionized the
way Brits spend money” (“H. Gordon”, 2014; Metz, 2013; “Secrets”, 2013; “Who was”,
2014). It is unclear whether he meant for any of his radical ideas to have a long-term
impact in the department store industry; in some ways, he was trying to attract more
customers (“H. Gordon”, 2014). Nevertheless, Selfridge clearly changed many practices
of department stores from undesirable options to more desirable options, so the
Researcher concluded Selfridge fit the description of a transformational leader. With all
this in mind, the Researcher decided to conduct certain research.
Methodology
Purpose
After reading research about the bias against introverts particularly as leaders, this
Researcher decided to investigate employee perceptions of their employer’s personalities
as it relates to the employer’s competence as a leader. Next the Researcher wanted to

research in the unique contributions of an introverted and an extroverted business leader.
As a result, this Researcher developed both a null hypothesis and case study.
Null Hypothesis
There is no preference between introverted or extraverted
CEO’s among Americans.
Case Study
How did Douglas Conant function as an introverted CEO and how did Harry
Gordon Selfridge function as an extraverted CEO?
In short, this Researcher studied employees’ perceptions of the personality of their
leaders, and the effectiveness of leaders of both personalities.
Participants & Sampling Procedures
This Researcher was interested in the opinions of employed Americans. Thus, the
researcher studied a sample whose members were employed, above the age of 18 or
below the age of 60, with a College or Associate Degree, Bachelor Degree, or Graduate
Degree, and located in America. The Researcher sent the same survey to the Houston
Christian parent population as they satisfied the employment and American citizenship
conditions.
These conditions were chosen to obtain information from a group of people in
America who were most likely employed. This population was not limited by gender as
both provided different perspectives of merit. Employment guaranteed the population
would be working under an employer; this was crucial to the population as the purpose of
the survey was to study how employees perceived their employers’ personality.
Therefore, the other factors; age range and education were specified to obtain information

from an employed population. The age range excluded those under the age of 18 or
above the age of 60 because these individuals were less likely to be employed, while the
education requirements further specified a population more likely to be employed.
For the case study, the Researcher met with his mentor to examine introverted and
extraverted CEO’s and eventually decided to examine Douglas Conant and Harry Gordon
Selfridge because Conant and Selfridge are influential leaders with different personalities
that affected their business practices.
Research Design
The Researcher performed a descriptive study with a quantitative research design,
specifically a structured interview for his null hypothesis. The Researcher conducted the
survey electronically first by using a survey made through Survey Monkey, which was
then replicated for Google Forms, and reach the desired population quickly and
efficiently.
For the qualitative study, the Researcher conducted a case study by collecting
artifacts and texts with a qualitative research design, allowing the Researcher to
investigate and compare Douglas Conant and Harry Gordon Selfridge in terms of
generosity, risk-taking actions, listening skills, and transformational leadership qualities
most efficiently.
Experimental Manipulation
For the quantitative study, the Researcher collected data using two self-created
electronic surveys from a specific population of employed Americans, both in identical
form, to receive more feedback. The Researcher included four questions each with two
options either pertaining to the introvert personality or extrovert personality but left the

first three of the four questions as descriptions of the personality instead of the
personality itself. The first question dealt with how the participants perceived the
personality of their employer according to the personality type description of introversion
and extraversion (i.e. quiet, prefer solitude; talkative, prefer social time) without
specifying which option pertained to introversion and which option pertained to
extraversion. The qualitative variable of interest was the perception of employers. The
second question dealt with which leader personality descriptions participants preferred
and had the qualitative variable of personality preference, and the third question dealt
with how their employer typically motivates employees and had the qualitative variable
of methods of motivation. The fourth question then asked whether they perceived their
boss’s personality as introverted or extroverted and had the qualitative variable of
personality perception. The data was reliable because the survey was concise and gave
two options that were either associated with introversion or extraversion. The purpose of
the survey was to determine if there is an American preference within the corporate
setting of extraversion over introversion and to see if Americans would prefer
characteristics associated with introversion when those characteristics were not identified
with introversion.
For the case study, the Researcher reviewed online research, taking notes and
categorizing information. Overall, the Internet provided an easier method to quickly and
effectively gather information. In the past, researchers have investigated and compared
introverted leaders and extroverted leaders, making this Researcher curious about the
accuracy of these comparisons. Such researchers have stated that both are capable of
kindness, and of being transformational leaders. Extroverted leaders tend to take more

risks: therefore, qualitative variables of interest included the following: generosity, risk
taking qualities, listening skills, and transformational leadership qualities. The reliability
was established through the use of multiple resources found on the Internet, from
reputable resources including Conant himself, confirming the information, while the
validity confirmed or refined what past researchers have investigated.
Data Collections
The Researcher distributed the survey electronically. The Survey Monkey survey
was created on September 10, 2014 while a Facebook post made on September 30, 2014;
the Facebook post received two responses. The Researcher created a new-targeted
audience survey on October 1, 2014, which received 97 responses on October 8th, 2014
and 7 responses on October 9th, 2014. The Researcher then copied the Survey Monkey
survey to a Google doc survey on November 6, 2014 after maxing out on 100 responses.
As for the case study observations, the Researcher made observations through Internet
research of previously stated variables on November 26, 2014.
Data Analysis Plan
The Researcher conducted analysis of the data collected to test the null hypothesis
through descriptive statistics by examining the frequency of certain answers, namely
whether introversion or extraversion received a majority on each survey question. The
Researcher then determined if the null hypothesis could be refuted.
The Researcher also conducted analysis of the data collected for the case study
through descriptive statistics by measuring and comparing the occurrences of acts (or
evidences) of generosity, risk-taking, good listening skills, and transformational
leadership.

Ethical Consideration (Human Subject Protection)
In consideration of the human subjects, all surveys were anonymous and subjects
were not required to give their name, religion, race, or marital status. Participation in this
survey was completely voluntary and subjects had the choice to answer or not answer the
following: gender, age, household income, education, and location. In his case study, the
Researcher tried to present information collected in such a way to give both Conant and
Selfridge respect and refrained from belittling either person. Although the Researcher,
tried to be respectful and objective of both case study subjects but unintentional personal
preferences might have biased the identification of various behaviors being recorded and
compared.
Bias
The population excluded in the Survey Monkey survey were those without
computers, as the survey was electronic; those unemployed or under the age of 18, as
they lacked the experience to properly answer the questions; those who could not read
English, as the survey was written only in English, and the blind, as they could not read
the survey. The same population was excluded for the Houston Christian survey except
teachers of the school were not sent the survey, as the Researcher feared receiving
multiple, responses based on the same leader. Adults who did not read the Houston
Christian newsletter and respond to the survey were also excluded in from the survey.
Assumptions

With the quantitative study, there were many factors this Researcher had to take
for granted; first, people had understanding and could identify the personality of their
employer, introverted or extroverted but had little to no previous knowledge of
introversion/extraversion in leadership or the strengths introverts bring. The Researcher
also had to assume subjects were raised with American values that emphasized
extroversion, and they gave honest responses and had more or less a reliable perspective
of their boss. The Researcher also had to make assumptions for his case study, namely,
all Internet resources were reliable and information for the case study would be available
and accessible.
Limitations
Due to limitations on time, resources, and money this Researcher did not
deliberately study fictional introverted/extroverted leaders, other than Superman in a
previous draft, ambiverted leaders, religious preferences of different personalities,
introverted/extroverted followers, or which personality makes a better follower, or if
either Douglas Conant or Harry Gordon Selfridge was the better director, as this is purely
a comparative study, and there is no real way to gauge this. Naturally, the Researcher
could have improved several factors of the research process such as obtaining multiple
(and possibly) different perspectives from employees about the same boss to compare
perceptions, personally interviewing various businesses for a comparative case study,
wording survey differently to make better comparisons, adding more questions to survey
to obtain more values to work with, and specifying exactly what this Researcher meant
by “accomplishments” in his case study. The Researcher decided not to use book
resources for this case study because such resources might take more time than available

as the Researcher would have to locate such resources. If the Researcher had access to
unlimited resources, he would have conducted more comparative research for Conant and
Selfridge, constructed better survey questions, and collected even more responses.
Findings
Sample
The Researcher collected 100 responses from Survey Monkey and 31 responses
from the Houston Christian survey; in total, the Researcher collected 131 responses. This
sample shared the following characteristics: living in America, above the age of 18 but
below the age of 60, employed, and having at least some college education.
The Researcher found that Douglas Conant is an introvert who served as the CEO
of Campbell Soup from 2001 and 2011, and reformed the workplace, improving
employee interaction, leadership skills, and company income by increasing morale,
training leaders, and listening to employees and customers. Harry Gordon Selfridge was
an extrovert who started his own department store in London, which encouraged respect
for the customer and other then risky marketing tactics.
Survey Findings/Interviews/Observations
To collect information for his null hypothesis, the Researcher created a four
question survey and distributed it to his previously mention sample. In this survey, the
first question asked how participants perceived their boss according to descriptions of
personalities, the second question asked what personalities they believed would be best
for their boss, the third question asked how their boss typically makes employees work
effectively, and the fourth question outright asks them to identify boss as introvert or
extrovert.

According to previous research, an introverted leader is typically characterized as
quiet, thoughtful, and humble and prefer listening and thinking over talking, while an
extroverted leader is typically characterized as charismatic, charming, and social and
prefer talking and motivating to listening. With this in mind, the first question asked
participants, “How would you describe your boss's personality?” The response options
were (a) they are quiet, thoughtful, and humble and prefer listening and thinking over
talking, or (b) they are charismatic, charming, and social and prefer talking and
motivating to listening.
Figure 1
As seen in Figure 1, roughly 59% of the participants chose “they are charismatic,
charming, and social and prefer talking and motivating to listening”; therefore, the
Researcher had to conclude that most employees see their boss’s personality according to
extroverted descriptions.
41%
59%
Figure 1: "How Would You Describe Your
Boss's Personality?"
Option A: "Quiet, thoughtful, and
humble and prefere listening and
thinking over talking"
Option B: "Charismatic, charming,
and social and prefer talking and
motivating to listening"

The second question asked participants, “What personalities do you believe would
benefit your boss?” The response options were (a) open-mindedness, agreeability, or (b)
charisma, lively and magnetic personality.
Figure2
As seen in Figure 2, roughly 72% of participants chose “open-mindedness,
agreeability”; therefore, the Researcher had to conclude that many employees saw open-
mindedness and agreeability as beneficial to their boss.
The third question of the survey asked, “Which does your employer typically rely
on to make people work effectively?” and gave response options of (a) inspired motives
and (b) motivation through speeches.
72%
28%
Figure 2: "What personalities do you believe
would benefit your boss?"
Option A: "Open-mindedness,
agreeability"
Option B: "Charisma, lively and
magnetic personality"

Figure 3
As seen in Figure 3, roughly 70% of participants chose “inspired motives”, thus,
the majority of bosses represented rely on inspired which is consistent with an introverted
personality.
The fourth question asked, “What personality type do you believe your boss or
CEO is?” and gave the options (a) introvert and (b) extrovert.
70%
30%
Figure 3: "Which does your employer
typically rely on to make people work
effectively?"
Option A: "Inspired Motives"
Option B: "Motivation through
speeches"

Figure 4
As seen in Figure 4, roughly 60% of participants chose “extrovert”, so the Researcher
concluded that the majority of employees surveyed perceive their boss as an extrovert.
In the Researcher’s case study observations, the Researcher compared Douglas
Conant and Harry Gordon Selfridge in terms of generosity, risk-taking actions, listening,
and transformational leadership qualities. The Researcher observed instances and
practices, both general and specific where Conant and Selfridge demonstrated each of
these qualities and constructed bar graphs to reflect the difference or similarity. The
Researcher based the scoring system on a simple tally mark; each instance, practice, and
result equally counted as one point, so they would be easier to count; the researcher also
set fourth some rules. The Researcher allowed instances of generosity and listening to
coincide as he felt some of the instances qualified as both and did not neglect general
observations of either man’s practices, but tried to focus on specific instances as much as
possible; the Researcher did count general observations about Conant and Selfridge but
tried to focus on specific observations. When examining risk-taking actions, the
40%
60%
Figure 4: "What personality type do you
believe your boss or CEO is?"
Option A: Introvert
Option B: Extrovert

Researcher also investigated risks due to circumstances that either Conant or Selfridge
faced, personal or from outside forces. When examining transformational leadership
qualities, the Researcher examined different factors that he felt would be most applicable
for such qualities and settled on the following six factors: economic improvements,
which could be monetary or in terms of marketing positions, new (and if possible
superior) business policies, which could be related to company leadership or company
standards, new practices, any new, beneficial ways the company would operate, for
example, a new method to distribute goods, employee effectiveness, or whether the
leader had a visible change in employee behavior, work ethic, etc., long-lasting impacts,
or changes that stayed within the company long after the leader had left it, and societal
changes, or any improvements that reached a wider scope than the realm of business in
terms of areas effected, such as change in business policy that affects or comes to affect
an entire city or even world.
When examining generosity, the Researcher examined if Conant and Selfridge
treated people well. The Researcher noted Conant tried to connect to employees and
understand any problems in their lives, and make Campbell assist the city of Cadmen
(Conant, 2011; Gerdeman, 2013; Kleiner, 2012). The Researcher also noted Selfridge
ensured his customers were treated well and with respect they did not receive in other
stores, and organized entertainment for said customers (Duncan, n.d.; “H. Gordon”, 2014;
Labov, 2014; Metz, 2013; “Who was”, 2014). With this in mind, the researcher
constructed the following graph.

Figure 5
As shown in Figure 5, the Researcher found two instances, two general practices,
and one specific practice demonstrating Douglas Conant’s generosity and three general
practices and two specific practices demonstrating Harry Gordon Selfridge’s generosity.
In total, the Conant and Selfridge are tied with five points each.
When examining risk-taking actions, the Researcher found Conant took few and
tried to consider the best courses of action and plan ahead, though he did take risks
coming to Campbell when it was in such a poor state (“About Doug Conant”, 2014;
Gerdeman, 2013; Kleiner, 2012). In contrast, Selfridge took many risks when starting his
store by using an untested American concept in London and when running his store by
encouraging customer to browse and giving them freedoms other stores would not
(Labov 2014; Packham, 2014). With this in mind, the Researcher constructed the
following graph.
Douglas Conant Harry Gordon Selfridge
Instances 2 0
General Practices 2 3
Specific Practices 1 2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5Tally
Figure 5: Generosity

Figure 6
As shown in Figure 6, the Researcher found two specific practices and three
circumstances where Douglas Conant’s action entailed risk and found one instance, two
general practices, four specific practices, and two circumstances where Harry Gordon
Selfridge’s actions entailed risk. In total, Douglas Conant has five points for risk-taking
actions while Harry Gordon Selfridge has nine.
When examining listening, the Researcher found Conant constantly tried to listen
to employees to encourage proactivity and customers to satisfy their desires (Conant,
2011; Kleiner, 2012). Selfridge also tried to listen to customers by treating them with
respect so he could gain insight to their desires and adapt his store to satisfy their wants
(“H. Gordon”, 2014; Labov, 2014; Metz, 2013). Conant and Selfridge both demonstrated
the ability to listen. With this in mind, the Researcher constructed the following graph.
Instances 0 1
Circumstances 3 2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5Tally
Figure 6: Risk-Taking Actions

Figure 7
As shown in Figure 7, the Researcher found three instances, four general
practices, and two specific practices demonstrating Douglas Conant’s listening, and four
general practices and two specific practices demonstrating Harry Gordon Selfridge’s
listening. In terms of listening, Selfridge has six points total while Douglas Conant leads
with nine points total.
When examining transformational leadership qualities, the Researcher found
Conant reformed Campbell by improving employee interaction, company leadership,
company products, economic status, and encouraging community service (“About Doug
Conant”, 2014; “Douglas Conant”, Linkedin, n.d.; Gerdeman, 2013; Kleiner, 2012). The
Researcher found Selfridge reformed department stores by showing respect to customers,
satisfying customer desires, turning shopping into a pleasure instead of a chore, and by
constantly challenging the status quo (“H. Gordon”, 2014; Labov, 2014; Metz, 2013;
Instances 3 0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5Tally
Figure 7: Listening

“Secrets”, 2013; “Who was”, 2014). Both Conant and Selfridge fit the descriptor of a
transformational leader. With this in mind, the researcher constructed the following
graph.
Figure 8
As shown in Figure 8, the Researcher found five economic improvements, four
new business policies, four new practices, three indicators of employee effectiveness, two
long-lasting impacts, and two societal changes demonstrating Douglas Conant’s
transformational leadership qualities and one new business policy, six new practices, one
indicator of employee effectiveness, and four societal changes indicating Harry Gordon
Selfridge’s transformational leadership qualities. In total, Douglas Conant has 20 points
in terms of transformational leadership, while Harry Gordon Selfridge has 12.
Economic Improvements 5 0
New Business Policies 4 1
New Practices 4 6
Employee Effectiveness 3 1
Long-Lasting Impacts 2 0
Societal Changes 2 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Tally
Figure 8: Transformational Leadership
Qualities

Analysis
The Researcher conducted a hypothesis test using a one-population z test with
information from his second question, p equaling the proportion of respondents who
chose “open-mindedness and agreeability”. The Researcher obtained a p-value of
0,which led the researcher to reject his null hypothesis. There was a preference among
Americans of introverted employers over extroverted employers based on the personality
description deemed to be the most beneficial to a boss. Based on findings, Americans
prefer an introverted leader when presented with certain descriptors of introversion and
extraversion.
The Researcher conducted a comparative case study using information collected in
the Review of Related Literature. The Researcher found Conant and Selfridge were
equally generous, meaning introverted and extroverted leaders are both capable of
kindness. The Researcher found Selfridge took more risks, as an extrovert is reported to,
while Conant listened more, as an introvert is prone to, and found these results consistent
with his Review of Related Literature. For transformational leadership qualities, the
Researcher found Conant had more overall but Selfridge achieved more societal change,
meaning introverts and extroverts can both be successful transformational leaders.
Discussion
The Researcher’s null hypothesis stated there is no preference between introverted
or extroverted CEO’s among Americans. With this null hypothesis, the Researcher
expected to find a large preference for introverted personality based on description. The
results of the information gathered agreed with this assumption to an extent, and the
Researcher did find results generally consistent with his expectations.

In response to the second question of the survey, which asked participants which
personality descriptors they would prefer in their employer, the researcher received
roughly a 72% majority for introverted personality descriptors. The Researcher did agree
with the findings and expected these results from this question preferring the introverted
personality descriptors, open-mindedness, agreeability, to the extroverted personality
descriptors, charisma, lively and magnetic personality. The Researcher also suspected if
participants were not told which option described which personality, they would be even
more likely to select introvert descriptors because they would not consider which
personality they preferred but which descriptor they preferred; essentially, participants
would pick introverted descriptors if they did not know the descriptors pertained to
introverts. Although most Americans have been taught an extroversion preference to
introversion, they can value the personality descriptors if the actual name of the
personality is not mentioned.
With the case study, the Researcher compared Douglas Conant and Harry
Gordon Selfridge as an introverted and an extroverted leader expecting results consistent
with information collected in the Review Of Related Literature and found such results
consistent with studies of introverts and extroverts. The information collected for the
Review of Related Literature stated introverts seldom take risks, prefer to plan most
courses of actions and are full of humility and create circles of proactivity (Cain, 2012).
Conant was reported to prepare ahead of meetings by visiting where the meeting would
take place and practicing for the meeting; he took few risks, considered the long-term
impact of his decisions, and tried to be humble by letting employees call him out if he
seemed too aloof; he improved employee interaction by encouraging and motivating

employees (“About Doug Conant”, 2014; Conant, 2011; Kleiner, 2012). Conversely, the
information on extroverts stated they often take risks due to large quantities of dopamine
(Cain, 2012). Selfridge conducted many risky practices such as using an untested,
American marketing idea on a London Market, and challenging the status quo, which
inevitably led to his success because he gave the citizens of London what they had been
looking for (Packham, 2014; Labov, 2014; “Secrets", 2013).
The Researcher also had to determine whether Conant or Selfridge could qualify
as transformational leaders, or people who can be deemed a transformational leader if
they change an organization from the current status to the desired status. Conant came to
Campbell Company when it was falling apart; the company was losing consumers to less
expensive soup brands and decided to cut costs by reducing advertising and laying off
employees, which resulted in even lower sales. The company’s share price had dropped
from a high of $60 in 1998 to $30” when Conant was recruited (Gerdeman, 2013). The
company also suffered from a rapidly decreasing market value, poor leadership decisions,
and the worst employee interaction and satisfaction according to Fortune 500 (“About
Doug Conant”, 2014). Conant came to Campbell Company in 2001 with a goal to
increase morale and by the time he left in 2011 the company was visibly improved with
increased income and strong cash flow, superior leadership, schools to train potential
leaders, a record-breaking ratio of engaged employees to disengaged employees of 17:1,
an engagement ratio for the top 350 leaders of 77:1 (Gerdeman, 2013), methods of
obtaining customers by listening to their wants (Kleiner, 2012), using alternative sources
of power such as solar energy, and engaging in community work, specifically assisting
the town of Cadmen (Gerdeman, 2013; “Douglas Conant”, Linkedin, n.d.; Kleiner, 2012).

Based on these numerous, beneficial changes, the Researcher believes Douglas Conant
fulfills the description of a transformational leader.
Before Harry Gordon Selfridge started his department store in London, most
department stores in London would force customers to buy merchandise or prohibit
browsing, used floorwalkers to pressure customers to spend money, were generally
cluttered and disorganized, viewed shopping as a necessity rather than a pleasure, and
most store owners would intimidate employees (Metz, 2013; “H. Gordon”, 2014; Labov,
2014). In his store, Selfridge promoted radical ideas that many stores came to adopt such
as treating the customer with respect, structuring the store to facilitate shopping, making
shopping an enjoyable experience, inspiring employees to provide the greatest level of
customer service, and using educational and scientific exhibits to attract customers (“H.
Gordon”, 2014; Labov, 2014; Metz, 2013). All of these actions were risks that ultimately
changed the status quo. Although it is unclear if he meant any of his practices to affect
other stores, the Researcher believes Harry Gordon Selfridge fulfills the description of a
transformational leader.
Based on findings, the Researcher believes Douglas Conant demonstrated more
transformational leadership qualities within Campbell, but Harry Gordon Selfridge
demonstrated more risk-taking actions and was able to achieve more long-lasting societal
change. In some ways, their personalities allowed them both to succeed in different
ways. Conant’s introverted personality allowed him to listen to employees, making them
feel valued, humble himself so employees could feel comfortable around him, listen to
the desires of customers to increase Campbell’s marketing efficiency, and see the internal
issues of Campbell Company rather than consider the best ways to beat out the

competition (Kleiner, 2012; Gerdeman, 2013). He could plan out his actions, so he could
determine the best coarse of action and long-term impact of his decisions, and inspire
confidence and trust by making an effort to personally connect to employees (Kleiner,
2012; Gerdeman, 2013). On the other hand, Selfridge’s extroverted personality made
him take many risks despite the circumstances and challenges, like treating customers
with respect despite the common practices of competing stores, popularizing an untested
American concept in London, restructuring the department stores, and improving the
shopping experience (Metz, 2013; “H. Gordon”, 2014; Packham, 2014). He could focus
on the outer world and issues affecting others, such as how he recognized the issues of
other department stores in London and sought to run his store differently by giving
shoppers what they needed (“Secrets”, 2013; “Harry Gordon Selfridge”, n.d.). In the end,
the Researcher agreed that both could qualify as transformational leaders. Conant
transformed Campbell Company from its initial status, where income had drastically
decreased, the company was losing customers to cheaper brands, employee involvement
was at the lowest any company had seen, and leadership was poor, to its desired status,
where the company had better income and a better marketing position, methods to make
company products healthier and more accessible, employee involvement reached record
breaking highs, and leaders, both current and potential, were trained and properly
prepared for their positions (Kleiner, 2012; Gerdeman, 2013; “About Doug Conant”,
2014; “Douglas Conant”, Linkedin, n.d). Selfridge changed department stores in London
and influenced department stores in London and across the world in terms of superior
treatment of customers, store organization, and overall experience (Metz, 2013; “H.
Gordon”, 2014).

Implications
When conducting this investigation, the Researcher primarily sought to confirm
strengths of introverted leaders established in previous investigation. In short, the
Researcher wishes to inform companies of the benefits of an introverted leader.
Companies should encourage the hiring of introverted leaders as these leaders can
contribute unique strengths of listening and humility and generate proactivity and
productivity in employees, and the research of his findings indicates Americans have
demonstrated a desire for introverted leaders based on their descriptors. If a company
allowed an introverted individual a leadership opportunity and fellow employees were
unaware of the individual’s personality, employees could come to value the individual for
what they bring to the position that an extroverted leader might not; then, employees
could come to believe introverts are equally qualified for leadership roles as extroverts,
and would more readily accept introverted individuals as leaders.
Although introverts bring unique strengths to the leadership position, the role of
an extroverted individual as a leader should in no way be diminished; extroverts are more
prone to making risky decisions or using different practices than competitors which can
turn out for the best and extroverts are generally more comfortable in social settings
(Cain, 2012). Companies might consider an introverted and extroverted co-leadership to
obtain the unique strengths of both personalities. As the Researcher stated in his
background, introverts and extroverts may not always see eye-to-eye, but often they come
to value each other and meet together in partnerships, businesses, and even marriage
because they feel completed by each other (Cain, 2012). If companies can train
introverted and extroverted leaders, both current and potential, to collaborate respectfully

as equals and friends, they may achieve an effective leadership characterized by
generosity for employees and customers, reasonable risk-taking actions that could
improve the company or even society, and listening to the specific problems of
employees and customers.
Of course, this Researcher understands co-leadership is challenging with clashing
perspectives and ideals. Should a co-leadership prove impossible or companies are
hesitant to try such a leadership, there could be an alternative, which future researchers
could investigate: ambiverted leaders. An ambivert is an individual who enjoys social
interaction and time alone equally; on a Myers Brigg Test, they would fall near the 50%
mark of personality preference (“The story”, 2013). This Myers Brigg Test would be an
interesting topic for future research. Future scholars could research the effectiveness of
ambiverted leaders to see if they can offer a compromise between introverted and
extroverted leadership. Scholars should consider, however, the difficulty would be
determining which individuals could be considered ambiverted. The Researcher found
no description of ambiversion beyond enjoying social interaction and time alone equally
and believes the personality may be far less common than introversion or extraversion.
The only way to identify individuals with the personality may be through a Myers Brigg
Test, which could not only prove difficult and tedious but inconclusive; the personality
may be very rare and difficult to find. In addition, there may be an issue for such a case
study comparing ambiverted leaders to introverted and extroverted leaders. When
searching for examples of introverted and extroverted business leaders, the Researcher
could find examples of both, but when searching for ambiverted business leaders, the
Researcher found no specific results. There may be only a handful of a well-known

ambiverted leader whose leadership skills can be compared to introverted and extroverted
leaders. Should scholars decide to investigate such a topic despite the difficulties and
manage to find examples of ambiverted leadership, the research could indicate if
companies could compromise and employ ambiverted leaders or would be better
choosing between introverts or extroverts.
Researchers may believe companies need a different comparative case study to
evaluate introverts and extroverts as leaders. If so, researchers might consider a case
study considering individuals bearing more similarities, namely introverted/extroverted
leaders who both started their own companies or reformed a workplace, so that
companies can decide if one personality is better suited for a specific leadership position.
Perhaps extroverts are better leaders for starting a business that conducts risky but
ultimately beneficial practices, while introverts are better leaders for reforming a
workplace encouraging improvements in employee interaction, company leadership,
income, and customer satisfaction by listening to employees and customers, making both
feel valued. Different comparisons could yield different results, but this Researcher
believes the overall trends should be similar and consistent with the Researcher’s own
results.
In the Review of Related Literature, the Researcher examined how America came
to value extraversion over introversion through the Industrial Revolution (Cain, 2012).
Americans had to adopt new confident personalities to successfully market their wares;
thus, they discouraged introverted personalities and became an incredibly extroverted
country. In the western world today, extroverts outnumber introverts 3 to 1 (Sword,
2002). What would this mean for America? As the Researcher noted, extroverts prefer

the outer world to the inner world of thought and tend to take risks, which would mean
such extroverted thought would be the majority among Americans. On the other hand,
this generation, despite its numerous faults, is noted to be more tolerant of different
people, particularly of different races, than any other previous generation (Twenge,
2006). This tolerance may come to extend to introverted personalities and Americans
may come to value the strengths of introverts and shake off the perspectives enforced
during the Industrial Revolution, but in the mean time, introverts in America must
persevere in an extroverted country. Can they do more than persevere; can they thrive?
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Researcher studied introversion and extraversion and the roles
they play in leadership and found introverts prefer the inner world of thought and solitude
while extroverts prefer the outer world of people and activities (“Philosophy 302”, 2003).
The Scholar found extroverts tend to be common in America because the Industrial
Revolution forced workers to take on extroverted personalities, and introversion is
common in Asian countries because the curriculum of the Asian world focuses on
introverted interests and religious beliefs stress the community before the individual
(Cain, 20012). Children may grow up to be extroverted if they experience enjoyable
interactions with their families or introverted if they experience unpleasant interaction
with their families (Siegelman, 1966). The Researcher showed it is possible to predict if
an infant will become introverted or extroverted through environment sensitivity, and the
Researcher found Free Trait Theory states when people do not set aside time for their
natural personality, they experience mental stress and burnout (Cain, 2012). The Scholar
showed introverts have smaller dopamine passageways than extroverts, making them less

Introversion and Leadership: Nature vs Nurture

Introversion and Leadership: Nature vs Nurture

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Introversion and Leadership: Nature vs Nurture

Similar to Introversion and Leadership: Nature vs Nurture (20)

Introversion and Leadership: Nature vs Nurture