How Management Boards
benefit from the Strengths
of Silent Leaders

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 communicating^3,4 . 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

1. Maria Castañón Moats, Paul DeNi­co­la, Catie Hall: “Why good boards make bad deci­sions”, Price­wa­ter­house­C­oop­ers LLP, Febru­ary 2024
2. Joseph L. Badarac­co: “Lead­ing Quiet­ly – An Unortho­dox Guide to Doing the Right Thing”, Harvard Busi­ness School (HBS) Press, 2002
3. 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
4. “What Success­ful Lead­ers Have in Common”, Haufe News, May 2017
5. 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
6. Gordon E Kenney: “Myers-Brig­gs Types Among Gener­al and Leader Popu­la­tions”, Cowart Consult­ing Group (CCG) Tech­ni­cal Reports, 2024
7. Biland Sadek: “Psycho­log­i­cal Safe­ty in the Board­room”, Jour­nal of Human­i­ties and Social Science Research, Febru­ary 2024

(Image source: istockphotos.com)