Far from being the ‘great leveller’ it was initially christened, the pandemic has served as a powerful disclosing agent for a host of social variances and contrasts.
For business leaders, one area of difference that has become a particular source of fascination and concern is whether their workers happen to be introverts or extroverts – and what sort of blend of those personality types resides within their staff bases.
Those queries have stemmed largely from a sweeping assumption that emerged at the dawn of the pandemic from some of the least-nuanced world-of-work thought leaders: that our sudden lurch to remote working was an introvert’s dream and an extrovert’s nightmare.
In the months since, it has become abundantly clear that the picture is far more complex. But that hasn’t stopped bosses and commentators alike from continuing to use introversion and extroversion as arbitrary gauges for who can, and cannot, ‘cut it’ in the new normal.
Experts who have thought ahead are urging businesses to take a more balanced stance on these matters.
In a recent Forbes opinion piece, US entrepreneur and leadership author Gay Gaddis pointed out that the first people who will rush back to the office when the pandemic subsides will be extroverts, chasing their thirst for human interaction.
Meanwhile, introverts will likely try to stay at home, where they can still solve problems by themselves.
Not a great plan, writes Gaddis: “To produce high-performing teams, an atmosphere of innovation and diversity of thought,” she stresses, “we need both introverts and extroverts.”
Gaddis warns: “If introverts stay at home, we’re going to see rooms full of extroverts feeding off of each other, each one with absolute confidence their idea is best. Meanwhile, introverts will be on the conference line (if invited to the meeting at all), struggling to get a word in edgewise.
“This is problematic, since introverts play a valuable role in grounding teams and forcing them to look at ideas from many different points of view.”
All of which begs the question: should introversion be treated as a diversity and inclusion (D&I) issue?
One specialist who answers very much in the affirmative is Jennifer B Kahnweiler, author of Creating Introvert-Friendly Workplaces, and a self-styled champion for introverts.
As well as writing prolifically about introversion, Atlanta-based Kahnweiler advises large private and public organisations on team dynamics. Few people in the world are as equipped to comment on what is currently preoccupying introverts – and she is more than happy to puncture a few myths about what the pandemic has meant for them.
“At the beginning,” she says, “we saw all those memes saying: ‘this is nirvana for introverts’. But that’s not the case when you look beneath the surface.”
She explains: “I recently ran a survey on homeworking amid the pandemic that took in responses from almost 200, self-identified introverts. While 85% said they want to continue with full-time remote working as conditions improve, other stats – not to mention their vociferous written comments – were more revealing.
“They love not having to commute – that’s their number one gain – and having autonomy. No more spontaneous interruptions. Being able to focus. Choosing their own schedule. But although many respondents had thought they wouldn’t miss people, 45% said it was a challenge communicating with staff outside their teams. Meanwhile, 20% felt disconnected from their own teams.”
There’s a myth that introverts don’t like people. But that isn’t true
She notes: “One individual wrote: ‘I get very lonely sitting at home all day.’ Another said: ‘I love working from home, but it increases my isolation.’ There’s a myth that introverts don’t like people. But that isn’t true. It’s just a question of how much exposure they are comfortable with.”
Like Gaddis, Kahnweiler is adamant about the creative potential inherent in contrasting personality types rubbing shoulders.
“We all get energised by batting around ideas,” she says. “So, the lack of connection we have right now isn’t just emotional or social. It’s having real effects on creativity, innovation and the sparks that happen when people with different perspectives work together.
“What typically happens is that an introvert and extrovert will share conflicting ideas, and get a better single idea as a result of their collaboration. And we’re missing that synergy.”
However, for Kahnweiler, creativity is just one part of a broader D&I agenda that is building up around introverts – one that aims to secure them greater recognition in a working world traditionally dominated by their extrovert counterparts. “As a result of the racial activism that’s taken place around the world,” she says, “we’ve come to a moment where corporate America is becoming less ‘check the box.’
“In parallel,” she points out, “I’m picking up evidence of a greater openness towards looking at diversity in a more holistic way, so it’s not focusing strictly on race and gender, but a whole set of additional differentiators, too. Any area, in fact, where people feel different, or othered.
“And certainly, if you’re an introvert, you can feel othered, and even somewhat ostracised, your whole life. The phrase I keep hearing to describe this more inclusive climate is ‘widening the circle’.”
Leadership excellence coach Joy Maitland – who delivers training based around the concept that people can flex between personality types – applauds D&I’s historical focus on race, but acknowledges that introversion and extroversion have gone “largely untouched”.
A veteran of the corporate world, Maitland recalls: “One company I worked for in the 1990s placed a large ad in a major publication asking prospective candidates whether they were ‘hunters’ or ‘farmers’. I was disappointed. The premise was that only hunters could make a valuable contribution.
“When a new crop of 12 graduates entered the firm, they behaved exactly as you would expect hunters to behave. But who were they really? A year later, only four remained with the firm. It was the worst retention we’d ever seen.”
Kate Cooper, head of research, policy and standards at the Institute of Leadership & Management, has also been keeping a close watch on this territory.
“To me,” she says, “consideration of introverts and extroverts is part of a discussion the Institute has had over the past 12 months about neurodiversity.”
She explains: “People think, create and relate differently. That may be part of an intrinsic neuro-difference, but will also undoubtedly stem from style of upbringing, position in the family – all sorts of factors that impact upon how we think and interrelate, and from where we derive our energy: the critical point of difference between introverts and extroverts.”
Kahnweiler, Maitland and Cooper all, in their own ways, reject the notion of pure introverts and extroverts – but, as Maitland points out, taking that stance requires significant nuance.
She notes: “Carl Jung once said, ‘There is no such thing as a pure introvert or extrovert. Such a person would be in the lunatic asylum.’ While that is true, it is also the case that we each have core psychological preferences. They are ‘who we are when no one is watching’. Some of us are more easily able to flex and adapt as required, while for others, that process is more challenging. And that needs to be recognised.”
Which takes us back to variances again.
So, from a D&I perspective, how should organisations manage the business of developing introverts in a way that highlights their potential to flex, while at the same time honouring their core psychological preferences?
“I think we need to help people step into their strengths,” Kahnweiler says. “As we live in a world built around the extroverted ideal, we want introverts to be able to harness skills that come naturally to extroverts – such as networking, or being the first to speak.
“I give my clients a framework called the ‘Four Ps’: prepare, be present, push yourself and practice. It’s not changing who you are, but it’s opening up a spectrum – you’re going to be more aware of when you’ll need to use which strengths.”
Cooper agrees. “We must develop people by identifying their strengths. The idea of having strictly introverted and extroverted development tracks just wouldn’t work. So, what are people best at? Where are they able to excel? Those questions apply to everyone.”
She adds: “Accept difference. Understand yourself and the people you work with. And if sometimes big labels such as introversion and extroversion challenge our thinking and make us more self-aware, that’s great.”
Matt Packer is a freelance business, finance and leadership journalist