Crucial ideas in leadership bodies are not always voiced by the most vocal members. Quieter members can offer valuable insights and nuanced perspectives. So, how can leadership teams and boards ensure that these voices are heard? How can we prevent important insights from being overlooked simply because they are not presented forcefully enough?
In this feature of our Valdivia Leadership Impulse series, we focus on a personality type whose strengths in leadership are often underestimated: the introverted leader. They impress less through their presence and self-promotion than through strategic clarity, careful analysis and long-term thinking.
Discovering the quiet strength
The understanding of which skills are appropriate for a leader and lead to success has changed significantly in the 21st century. On the one hand, a more prominent public profile is today being expected; on the other, social and emotional skills are becoming increasingly important alongside experience and qualifications1. In light of this development, Harvard professor Joseph L. Badaracco examines the characteristics of quiet or introverted leaders and their significance for organisations in his book *Leading Quietly – An Unorthodox Guide to Doing the Right Thing*2 .
According to Badaracco, quiet leaders usually come across as modest and reserved; they are the antithesis of typical leaders who openly address issues at all times, take a ‘firm stance’ and thereby inspire others. A particular strength of quiet leaders is often their ability to solve difficult problems through perseverance. Their approach can become problematic, however, when they have valid objections or alternative suggestions on a topic but prefer to remain silent rather than go against the majority view.
A small group with valuable qualities
It comes as no surprise that introverts usually form a minority in boardrooms: generally speaking, managers are extroverted and enjoy communicating3,4 . However, many personality studies only measure introversion indirectly; for example, a US study from 2016 5 , which identifies six leadership types, only identifies the conscientious, ‘behind-the-scenes’ leader (3.6 per cent) as clearly introverted.
The proportion of introverts in leadership bodies can be determined more accurately using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. For instance, a 2024 study 6 reports the following proportions for introverted types amongst executives and CEOs (first and second scores respectively):
- ISTJ ‘Inspector’ (Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging) 19 per cent and 13 per cent respectively
- INTJ ‘Mastermind’ (Introversion, Intuition, Thinking, Judging) 9 / 10 per cent
- INTP ‘Architect’ (Introversion, Intuition, Thinking, Perceiving) 5 per cent each
- ISFJ ‘Protector’ (Introversion, Sensing, Feeling, Judging) 5 / 3 per cent
with the remaining I‑types all below 5 per cent. On the one hand, this confirms the picture of a numerically small group. On the other hand, it can also serve as a reminder to the extroverted majority to consciously recognise these valuable strengths within their ranks and actively involve them in discussions.
Networks as a source of support
Decision-makers in business are often under considerable pressure. They need self-confidence to tackle difficult issues, to react swiftly and decisively when necessary, or to lead their staff with the necessary authority. Badaracco has recognised that this stands in contrast to the reserve and modesty of ‘quiet leaders’. He therefore recommends that they deliberately build up a network, both within the company and in their private lives, which offers support through practical help or emotional reassurance.
An institutional equivalent of this could also be an official advisory board, which offers not only professional but also personal support – an institution to which we at Valdivia already owe many valuable insights.
Badaracco also addresses two intrinsic issues that can hinder a quiet leader. On the one hand, there is the danger of going round in circles whilst reflecting on and weighing up alternatives, without making any progress. On the other hand, there are problems that are too difficult to be solved by a single person through sheer perseverance alone. In such cases, too, a support network can help, but only if one reflects on one’s own actions and those involved acknowledge their own limitations.
The meeting room as a safe space
Even executive boards and other high-level governing bodies are teams that may, under certain circumstances, develop problematic group dynamics1 . This can easily lead to entrenched patterns where everyone conforms and prefers to go along with the general consensus rather than contributing their own ideas and solutions. Such mechanisms have an even greater impact on members who, due to an introverted personality, prefer to remain in the background anyway .
To avoid this and to harness the collective intelligence of all managers, it is first necessary to foster an atmosphere of acceptance and appreciation within the management team. The group should consciously welcome its own creative, non-conformist ideas and develop mechanisms to ensure the participation of quieter members. In his study ‘Psychological Safety in the Boardroom’ 7, Biland Sadek describes a five-step process through which psychological safety can be systematically built up, reviewed and continuously developed:
- Formulating clear guidelines, such as codes of conduct and whistleblowing policies.
- Define objectives, such as the desired climate of a psychologically safe environment.
- Assess the current situation in relation to the objectives set out in 2).
- Depending on the outcome of 3), introduce targeted improvement measures, e.g. through training, case studies, simulation exercises or the use of external coaches.
- Regularly monitor progress and obstacles – ideally through an independent person – and incorporate the findings into the next improvement cycle.
The role of the chairperson
The chairperson of the relevant committee plays a key role in engaging silent leaders and taking their contributions into account. This person need not be the same as the CEO: the aforementioned PwC study1shows “that members tend to find it more difficult to express a dissenting opinion when the chairperson and CEO roles are held by the same person. An independent chairmanship can enable the CEO to focus on their role and could help to alleviate natural tensions.’ At the same time, the chairperson can concentrate on moderating discussions, seeking out dissenting views, listening to everyone and, finally – where possible – striving to reach a consensus.
In addition, the authors of the study recommend conducting an assessment approximately every three years. This is because “individual assessments provide information on the contribution each member makes and the added value they bring to the board. These insights outweigh any concerns about potential negative effects on collegial relations.” It is advisable to use an external facilitator for this, who can provide an independent outside perspective.
Conclusion
The quality of a governing body is not determined by how many people speak, but by whether all relevant perspectives are heard. When filling leadership and advisory board positions, we repeatedly observe that sustainable success rarely arises from a combination of similar personalities. What is far more crucial is a governing body’s ability to productively combine different leadership styles and ways of thinking.
Calm, introverted leaders are therefore a key factor in their companies’ resilience and success. They work with patience, pragmatism and a long-term perspective. In doing so, they embody a contemporary board and leadership culture that is characterised neither by high-profile performance nor by entrenched conformity, but works in a reflective and disciplined manner whilst also allowing for differences of opinion.
In order to nurture such individuals, involve them and benefit from their strengths, the meetings and sessions of the governing body should be characterised by acceptance and appreciation. Such a leadership culture is supported by a moderated chairing of meetings and mechanisms that provide psychological safety. It is not uncommon for it to be precisely the quieter voices that help to identify risks earlier and make more sustainable decisions .
Sources
- Maria Castañón Moats, Paul DeNicola, Catie Hall: “Why good boards make bad decisions”, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, February 2024
- Joseph L. Badaracco: “Leading Quietly – An Unorthodox Guide to Doing the Right Thing”, Harvard Business School (HBS) Press, 2002
- Sarah Hilário-Bohm: “The Relationship Between Personality and Leadership – The Influence of Introversion on Leadership Behaviour”, Bachelor’s thesis submitted for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) at the European Distance Learning University Hamburg, August 2021
- “What Successful Leaders Have in Common”, Haufe News, May 2017
- Alissa D. Parr, Stephanie T. Lanza, Paul Bernthal: “Personality Profiles of Effective Leadership Performance in Assessment Centres”, Hum Perform (PubMed Central) / University of Minnesota, April 2016
- Gordon E Kenney: “Myers-Briggs Types Among General and Leader Populations”, Cowart Consulting Group (CCG) Technical Reports, 2024
- Biland Sadek: “Psychological Safety in the Boardroom”, Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, February 2024
(Image source: istockphotos.com)
