12 dsp research paper v2

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 environmenta lly

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 8 th, 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, andhumble and prefere listening andthinking over talking"

Option B: "Charismatic, charming,and social and prefer talking andmotivating 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 andmagnetic 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 throughspeeches"


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

3.5T

all

y

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

4.5T

all

y

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

4.5T

all

y

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

Ta

lly

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


reward motivated, along with wider ARAS channels, making them prone to

overstimulation; extroverts have wider dopamine passageways, making them more

reward motivated, along with smaller ARAS channels, making them seek out stimulation

(Cain, 2012). The Scholar discussed the different regions of activity in both introverted

and extroverted brains (Cain, 2012; Kaier, 2015). The scholar explained the leadership

style of introverts typically characterized by patience, perseverance, open-mindedness,

and humility and can be effective transformational leaders (Townes, 2012). After

performing research, the Scholar found many Americans prefer an introverted leader

based on descriptions. For the case study, the Researcher compared Douglas Conant to

Harry Gordon Selfridge in terms of generosity, risk-taking actions, listening, along with

transformational leadership qualities and found both equal in terms of generosity,

Selfridge as the greater risk-taker, Conant as the more listening, and both as capable

transformational leaders. The Researcher concluded people can be comfortable with

introverted leaders if they do not know the personality of their leader, and although

introverts bring unique strengths to the leadership position such as listening and

generosity, the role of extroverted leaders should in no way be diminished. An

interesting area of future study is the effectiveness of ambiverted leaders to see if they

can provide a mix between introverted and extroverted leadership.

Remaining Questions

The Researcher further questioned if personality could play a large part in certain

professions. As stated in the Review of Related Literature, introverts fair well in solitary

professions such as writing, but are they limited to solitary professions (Blake, 2013)? If

an introvert does not set aside time to be who they truly are, they can experience mental


stress and burnout. Some careers involve being in the center of attention and demand

interaction with others, such as acting. As a result of researching introversion and

extraversion, the Researcher was interested in the following remaining questions: how

can personality affect acting skills and abilities and can introverts be successful in acting?

Acting involves being the center of attention, which is not particularly attractive

for introverts (Angela, 2012). It also involves confidence, charisma, along with

establishing a large network of friends, in order to be discovered by a producer, and

indeed, many successful actors are extroverts (Angela, 2012). Based on appearances,

acting is an extroverted career, and yet there are many famous actors and performers,

who have described themselves as introverted or shy such as Johnny Depp, Clint

Eastwood, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Steve Martins, and Lady Gaga to name a few

(Jahnke, 2007; “Introverted celebrities”, n.d.; Sol, n.d.).

Attraction to Acting

In many ways, introverted actors are similar to superheroes; both pose as larger

than life figures and have secret identities that are far more subdued. While extroverts

tend to act the same privately or publically, introverts tend to have two different

identities; one in public and one in private (Sword, 2002). These different behaviors

could explain why many introverts are attracted to acting. For example, in his memoir,

Born Standing Up: A Comic’s Life, Steve Martin reports he is a very different person off

stage and

“’[i]n a public situation, [he] was expected to be the figure [he]

was onstage, which [he] stubbornly resisted. People were


waiting for a show, but [his] show was only that, a show”

(Sokrates, 2013).

His biography states that “Even though during his stand up days he said he was a ‘wild

and crazy guy’, in real life he is actually quite shy and quiet” despite being well known

for his stand up comedy (“Steve Martin”, n.d.). Martin enjoys being the center of

attention on screen with a wall between him and the audience, so introverts may see

acting as a way to be heard without interacting with an audience.

Clint Eastwood is well known for his gritty, violent characters, but off stage he is

a surprisingly soft-spoken fellow. He is associated with his violent roles such as

“Unforgiven” (1992), “Million Dollar Baby” (2004), and “Gran Torino” (2008), but

personally detests violence and is not as confrontational as seen in his movies (“Clint

Eastwood”, n.d.). Similarly, Harrison Ford is known for playing Han Solo and Indiana

Jones, “quick-witted heroes who think on their feet” (“Harrison Ford”, n.d.) but in his

biography, he is described as possessing a “quiet but charming personality” (“Harrison

Ford”, n.d.). On screen, Eastwood and Ford can become a larger-than- life hero,

suggesting introverts could be attracted to acting because it allows them to change their

identity.

Johnny Depp often portrays unusual, eccentric characters and misunderstood

outcasts; off stage and screen, but he is not boisterous or talkative (“Johnny Depp”, n.d.).

In one interview, he states, “if [he] can be accused of anything at all, it’s not being the

most outgoing or boisterous of people; [he] is pretty shy” (Flaa, 2014). This does not

keep him from acting; Depp explains, “it’s more comfortable for [him] to become

wrapped up in a character’s skin [and] for [him] to hide in a character” (Flaa, 2014). In a


way, Johnny Depp finds acting a means of escape, which could show how introverts may

turn to acting to hide themselves. Furthermore, introverts can follow the many advanced

processes involved in acting.

Introverts Suitability for Advanced Acting Processes

Any professional actor would agree acting involves deep, mental processes and

firm commitment to character. Some of these processes are well suited for introverts and

give introverts unique strengths in acting such as focus, commitment, and continuous

hard work.

Acting requires focus; should something go wrong on stage, actors must be so

engrossed with their characters, they cover the mistake without breaking character; actors

also have to create a “circle of attention” where they are aware of the events and people

within their scenes, and not of the audience or those reactions (Wilcox, 2011). Introverts

have great focus and can ignore the outside world; they can put all their concentration

into a scene and ignore the audience. Introverted actor Keanu Reeves states he enjoys

acting for its “intensity and concentration” and when acting he can normally focus solely

on his actions (Sol, n.d.; Sword, 2002).

Actors have to be firmly committed to their characters to the point where they

abandon their own personalities; they must see the world their character inhabits and

have internal monologues where they actually think like their characters, which makes

their lines flow from their character instead of a script. As seen with Johnny Depp, many

introverts turn to acting as a means of escape, so introverts may be more willing than

extroverts to become an entirely different person. In addition, introverts experience a

sensation known as “flow”, as discussed previously, where they are completely absorbed


in their task and forget the outside world and even themselves (Cain, 2012). Introverts

can be more willing to imagine the environment of their characters and lose themselves,

as can be seen in the extreme case of the late Heath Ledger. In his last role as the Joker

in “The Dark Knight” (2008), many directors believed he became so invested, in his

character he lost himself forever. Before his death, Ledger stated his role had affected his

ability to sleep because his mind was always active, and he could not stop thinking. He

died accidentally due to anxiety, pain, and common cold medication, drug overdose, and

received multiple posthumous awards. Many directors believe his personality, life, and

death are a reflection of his introverted personality (“Introverted celebrities”, n.d.).

After receiving a role, professional actors need to thoroughly research their

character and understand not only the character’s motivations, but also connections to

other characters, internal thoughts, mannerisms, and their significance in the story. They

must understand circumstances of the show, such as location, the time period, the

author’s reasons for writing the show, and the themes. When information is not

available, the actors have to create their background and actors are called to read the

script and annotate with their characters internal thoughts and motivations not once, but

everyday (Wilcox, 2011). It is a never-ending task requiring continuous effort.

Fortunately, introverts are very focused and determined workers and are often

characterized by perseverance and focus (Cain, 2011). Heath Ledger’s last role as the

Joker gives credence to this. When trying to understand his character, Ledger reported

locking himself in his room and developing speech patterns and ways of walking unique

to his character (Wallace, 2011). This hard work and deep examination of characters are

effective because they give introverts the ability to portray complex and unusual


characters in ways extroverts might not. In addition, introverts prefer their inner world of

thought so thinking like their character can come naturally and make their dialogue flow

naturally. Some directors prefer introverted actors and believe extroverted actors perform

with little depth or sincerity in all of their roles, while introverted actors can give more

depth to their roles and perform many different roles; the directors admire how introverts

can become absorbed in their roles and consistently work hard. In short, they feel

introverted actors can master the finest characteristics and nuances of the roles they play

(“Introverted celebrities”, n.d.).

In conclusion, on the surface, acting appears to be an extroverted career but there

are many introverted actors and celebrities who can reveal why introverts are attracted to

such a career (“Introverted Celebrities”, n.d.). Steve Martin shows how introverts may

see acting as a way to be heard without directly interacting with an audience, Clint

Eastwood and Harrison Ford show how introverts could be attracted to acting because it

allows them to change their identity, and Johnny Depp shows how introverts see acting as

a way to hide the true selves (“Clint Eastwood”, n.d.; “Harrison Ford”, n.d.; “Johnny

Depp”, n.d.; “Steve Martin”, n.d.). Introverts have many qualities making them suited for

the deeper processes of acting such as concentration, imagination, determination, and

focus (“Introverted Celebrities”, n.d.). When examined theologically, the Bible has

interesting thoughts on leadership.

Biblical

What exactly does the Bible say about leadership? John 13:13-27 states,

“You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then,

your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash


one another's feet. For I have given you an example that you also should

do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not

greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent

him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.”

According to the Bible, a leader should lead by example and practice what they

preach. By doing so, they can encourage others to follow in their footsteps. A leader is

servant to his followers and must do what is best for them even if the followers do not

agree. Furthermore, a follower must understand his part; he is not above the leader and

must also understand humility. When a leader and his followers understand their roles, a

group can function effectively.

The Bible also holds leaders to high standards. Proverbs 16:12 states,

“It is an abomination for kings to commit wicked acts, For a throne is established

on righteousness.”

According to the Bible, leaders must rule with a just heart because all leadership

is built on the concept of righteousness, or being morally correct or justifiable. A

leader’s behavior affects his organization because a morally correct leadership can create

a morally correct organization, while an immoral leader can create an immoral

organization.


References

16 outrageously successful introverts. (2013). Huffington Post. Retrieved February 25,

2014, from News.Com.Au (1226709716411)

About Doug Conant. (2014). ConantLeadership. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from

http://conantleadership.com/conantleadership/doug-conant/

About James MacGregor Burns. (n.d.). University of Richmond. Retrieved January 16,

2014 from http://jepson.richmond.edu/conferences/burns/burnsbiography.html

Adams, S. (2013). Leadership tip: Hire the quiet neurotic, not the impressive extrovert.

Forbes. Retrieved February 1, 2014 from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/04/11/leadership-tip-hire-the-

quiet- neurotic-not-the- impressive-extrovert/

Angela. (2012). The NYC Actor. Retrieved January 20, 2015 from

http://thenycactor.tumblr.com/post/38470931763/hello- i-am-sixteen-years-old-

and-i-want-to-be-an

Autonomic nervous system. (2013). The Free Dictionary. Retrieved October 14, 2013

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/autonomic+nervous+system

Bainbridge, C. (2013). Extrovert. About.com. Retrieved October 14, 2013 from

http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glossary/g/extrovert.htm

Bill Gates. (2014). The Biography Channel. Retrieved February 25, 2014 from

http://www.biography.com/people/bill-gates-9307520.

Blake, C.G. (2013). Why introverts make good writers. A New Fiction Writers. Forum.

Retrieved October 14, 2013 http://cgblake.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/why-

introverts-make-good-writers/


Boeree, G.C. (2006). Carl Jung. Personality Theories. Retrieved December 3, 2013 from

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html

Bono, J.E., & Judge, T.A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (5), 901-910.

Retrieved February 10, 2014 from http://www.timothy-

judge.com/Judge%20and%20Bono%20personality-TF--JAP%20published.pdf

Bower, B. (2002). The social net: Scientists hope to download some insight into online

interactions. Science News, 161 (18), Society for Science and the Public, 282-284.

Retrieved May 19, 2014 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4013436

Cain, S. (2011). Three introverted CEOs and what you can learn from them. Psychology

Today. Retrieved September 27, 2014 from

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quiet-the- power-

introverts/201108/three- introverted-ceos-and-what-you-can- learn-them

Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. New

York, US: Crown Publishing Group.

Clint Eastwood biography (n.d.). IMDb. Retrieved January 24, 2015 from

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000142/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

Collier, M. (n.d.) Why introverts love social media. MackCollier.com. Retrieved May 19,

2014 from http://www.mackcollier.com/why- introverts- love-social-media/

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Conant, D.R. (2011). Are you an introverted boss? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved

November 26, 2014 from https://hbr.org/2011/04/are-you-an-introverted-boss


Cooper, B. B. (2013). Are you an introvert or an extrovert? What it means for your

career. Fast Company. Retrieved February 15, 2015 from

http://www.fastcompany.com/3016031/leadership-now/are-you-an-introvert-or-

an-extrovert-and-what- it-means-for-your-career

Crouch, T.D. (2013). Louis Bleriot. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved January 1, 2015

from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/69300/Louis-Bleriot

Douglas Conant. (n.d.). Kellogg School of Management. Retrieved November 26, 2014

from http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/directory/conant_douglas.aspx.

Douglas Conant. (n.d.). Linkedin. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougconant

Douglas R. Conant. (2014). NNDB. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from

http://www.nndb.com/people/776/000127395/

Dr. Lai, Yuen Man, Jennifer. (n.d.) Retrieved March 19, 2015 from

http://www.umac.mo/fba/staff/jenniferlai.html

Duncan, R.D. (n.d.). How Campbell’s soup’s former CEO turned the company around.

Fast Company. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from

http://www.fastcompany.com/3035830/hit-the-ground-running/how-campbells-

soups-former-ceo-turned-the-company-around

Extraversion tropes. (n.d.). TV tropes. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExtraversionTropes

Extrovert. (2013). Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved November 19, 2013 from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/


Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2006). Personality and the perception of transformational

leadership: The impact of extroversion, neuroticism, personal need for structure,

and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36 (3), 708-

739. Retrieved January 29, 2014 from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0021- 9029.2006.00026.x/abstract

Flaa, K. (2014). Johnny Depp admits to being very shy (and talks new pirates movie).

Youtube. Retrieved January 25, 2015 from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLHWLph4tRM

Forney, M. (n.d.). Introverts and extroverts: Close encounters with communicators of a

different kind. Austincc. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from

http://www.austincc.edu/colangelo/1318/Introverts-Extroverts.htm

Gerdeman, D. (2013). Pulling Campbell’s out of the soup. Harvard Business School

Working Knowledge. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7133.html

Gregoire, C. (2013, August 10). 23 signs you’re secretly an introvert. Huffington Post.

Retrieved October 14, 2013, from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/introverts-signs-am-i-

introverted_n_3721431.html

Harrison Ford biography (n.d.). IMDb. Retrieved January 24, 2015 from


Harry Gordon Selfridge. (2013). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved November 26, 2014

from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/533543/Harry-Gordon-

Selfridge


Harry Gordon Selfridge. (n.d.). Find a Grave Memorial. Retrieved November 26, 2014

from http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=13731901

Harry Gordon Selfridge. (n.d.). Spartacus Educational. Retrieved November 26, 2014

from http://spartacus-educational.com/Jselfridge.htm

Helgoe, L. (2010, September 1). Revenge of the introvert. Psychology Today. Retrieved

December 11, 2013, from

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201008/revenge- the-introvert

H. Gordon Selfridge, Sr., retail entrepreneur. (2014). Geni.com. Retrieved November 26,

2014 from http://www.geni.com/people/H-Gordon-Selfridge-Sr-retail-

entrepreneur/6000000004108776211

Hozawa A., Ohkubo T., Obara T., Metoki H., Kikuya M., Asayama K. …, & Imai Y.

(2006). Introversion associated with large differences between screening blood

pressure and home blood pressure measurement: The Ohasama study. US

National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. Retrieved

October 14, 2013 from PubMed (17053539)

Introversion tropes. (n.d.). TV tropes. Retrieved October 19, 2013 from

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IntroversionTropes

Introvert. (2013). Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved November 19, 2013 from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Introverted celebrities. (n.d.). Wordpress. Retrieved January 20, 2015 from

http://www.gptponline.com/blog/?tag=introverted-celebrities


Jahnke, M. (2007). 18 famous actors and actresses who are introverts. SenseList.

Retrieved January 20, 2015 from http://senselist.com/2007/04/04/18-famous-

actors-and-actresses-who-are-introverts/

Junk (ship) (n.d.). New World Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 15, 2015 from

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Junk_%28ship%29

Kaier, P. (2015). Behavioral health: Are you a introvert or an extrovert. Main Line

Health. Retrieved February 4, 2015 from

http://www.mainlinehealth.org/oth/Page.asp?pageID=OTH007290

King, C. (2008). 10 myths about introverts. Carl King: Filmmaker/Introvert. Retrieved

October 13, 2013 from http://www.carlkingdom.com/10-myths-about- introverts

Kleiner, A. (2012). The thought leader interview: Douglas Conant. PwC Strategy& Inc.

Retrieved November 26, 2014 from http://www.strategy-

business.com/article/00128?pg=all

Labov, H. (2014). Entrepreneurial genius: Taking a cue from mr. Selfridge. Jetset

Magizine. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from

http://www.jetsetmag.com/categories/executive/barry- labov-entrepreneurial-

genius- selfridge.html#.VHZIJFfF9qM

Loi, R., Lai, J.Y.M., & Lam, L.W. (2012). Working under a committed boss: A test of the

relationship between the supervisors’ and subordinates’ affective commitment.

The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 466-475. Print.

Luu, P., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Anterior cingulate cortex regulation of sympathetic

activity. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 126(10), 2119-2120. doi:

10.1093/brain/awg257


Manning, S. (2013). Harry Gordon Selfridge: West end lothario or mother’s boy?

Independent.co.uk. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/harry-gordon-selfridge-

west- end-lothario-or-mothers-boy-8439817.html

Mark Zuckerberg. (2014). The Biography Channel website. Retrieved February 25, 2014,

from http://www.biography.com/people/mark-zuckerberg-507402.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional

standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267-298. Retrieved January 29,

2014 from

http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/EIAssets/EmotionalIntelligencePrope

r/EI1999MayerCarusoSaloveyIntelligence.pdf

McManus, M.R. (2012). Five myths about Mark Zuckerburg. Howstuffworks.com.

Retrieved April 29, 2014 from http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/tech-

myths/5-myths-about- mark-zuckerberg.htm#page=4

Metz, N. (2013). The story behind Mr. Selfridge. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved November

26, 2014 from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-28/entertainment/ct-

mov-0329-chicago-closeup-20130329_1_department-store-marshall- field-co-

carson-pirie-scott-co

Moore, K. (2012). Introverts no longer the quiet followers of extroverts. Forbes.

Retrieved February 17, 2014 from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlmoore/2012/08/22/introverts-no- longer-the-

quiet-followers-of-extroverts/


Moore, M. (2013). 11 things you should stop saying to introverts. Thoughtcatalog.com.

Retrieved January 26, 2014 from http://thoughtcatalog.com/madison-

moore/2013/04/11-things-you-should-stop-saying-to- introverts/

Mills, A.J., & Helm Mills, J.C. (2007). Chapter 16: Leadership in an organizational

context. Organizational Behavior in a Global Context by John Bratton and Peter

Chiaramonte. (pp. 483-502). New York: Broadview Press.

Packham, E. (2014). 7 quotes for your business startup by Harry Gordon Selfridge.

Logomaker Blog. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from

http://www.logomaker.com/blog/2014/08/18/7-quotes-for-your-business-startup-

by-harry-gordon-selfridge/

Paul, A. M. (2011, January 20). Tiger moms: Is tough parenting really the answer? Time.

Retrieved October 14 from

cchs.ccusd.org/.../Tiger%20Mom%20Original%20Article%20with%20re...

Philosophy 302: Ethics Jung’s psychological types. (2003). Philosophy.Landers.edu.

Retrieved December 3, 2013 from http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/jung.html

Richard, L. (1993). How your personality affects your practice: The lawyer types.

(Master's thesis), Retrieved October 29, 2013 from Jstor (27833080)

Prof. LAM Long Wai, Rico. (n.d.). Retrieved March 19, 2015 from

http://www.umac.mo/fba/staff/ricolam.html

Prof. LOI, Chi Ho, Raymond (n.d.). Retrieved March 19, 2015 from

http://www.umac.mo/fba/staff/raymondloi.html

Rubin, R.S., Munz D.C., & Bommer W.H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of

emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior.


Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5). 845-858. Retrieved January 29, 2014

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159701

Schizophrenia. (n.d.). National Institute of Mental Health. Retrieved March 19, 2015

from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

Secrets of Selfridge. (2013). PBS. Retrieved January 11, 2015 from

http://www.pbs.org/program/secrets-selfridges/

Siegelman, M. (1966). Loving and punishing parental behavior and introversion

tendencies. Society for Research in Child Development, 37 (4). Retrieved from

Jstor (1126620)

Sokrates, F. (2013). Sokrates writes!: The introverted actor. Blogspot. Retrieved January

21, 2015 from http://sokrateswrites.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-introverted-

actor.html

Sol, M. (n.d.). Famous introverted people – Keanu Reeves. Retrieved January 16, 2015

from http://lonerwolf.com/famous- introvert-keanu-reeves/

Stagner, R., & Pessin, J. (1934). The diagnostic value of introversion-extraversion items.

American Journal of Psychology, 46 (2), 321-324. Retrieved from Jstor

(1416565)

Steve Martin biography (n.d.). IMDb. Retrieved January 24, 2015 from


Sword, L. (2002). The gifted introvert. High Ability. Retrieved January 20, 2015 from

http://highability.org/the-gifted-introvert/

Thalamus – what is the thalamus? (2010). News Medical Retrieved October 14, 2013

from http://www.news-medical.net/health/Thalamus-What-is-the-Thalamus.aspx


The brain: Understanding neurobiology: Lesson 1 – the brain: What’s going on in there?

(n.d.). National Institutes of Health & National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Retrieved October 14, 2013 from

http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih2/addiction/activities/lesson1_br

ainparts.htm

The scientific evidence for introversion and extroversion. (n.d.). CelebrityTypes.com.

Retrieved October 10, 2013 from

http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2011/04/the-scientific-evidence-for-

introversion/

The secret of building a successful team of introverts and extroverts. (n.d.). HoChoHub.

Retrieved February 1, 2014 from https://www.honchohub.com/content/secret-

building-successful-team-introverts-and-extroverts

The story of a house: Harry Gordon Selfridge. (2013). The Chicago Years. Retrieved

November 26, 2014 from http://glessnerhouse.blogspot.com/2013/04/harry-

gordon-selfridge-chicago-years.html

The story of Isabel Briggs Myer. (2013). Center for Applications of Psychology Types.

Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/isabel-

myers.htm

Todd, S. (2004). Extroverts versus neurotics: New research shows neurotics deserve

equal consideration as leaders. Rutgers Business School. Retrieved February 1,

2014 from http://business.rutgers.edu/news/extroverts-versus-neurotics-new-

research-shows-neurotics-deserve-equal-consideration- leaders


Townes, K. (2012) The role of extroversion and introversion in defining effective

transformational leaders. Alabasca University: Master of Arts – Integrated

Studies, 5-31. Retrieved January 29, 2014 from

http://dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/download.php?filename=mais/kimberlytownes

Project.pdf

Twenge, J.M. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident,

assertive, entitled – and more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press.

Vargas, J.M. (2010). Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerburg opens up. New Yorker.

Retrieved February 25, 2014 from

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/20/100920fa_fact_vargas

Wallace, D. (2011). The joker. New York: Universe Publishing.

Walter, F., Cole ,M.S., & Humphrey, R.H. (February, 2001). Emotional intelligence: Sine

qua non of leadership or folderol? Academy of Management Perspectives, 45-59.

Retrieved January 29, 2014 from http://amp.aom.org/content/25/1/45.abstract

Who was the true Harry Selfridge? (2014). “Tweedland” The Gentlemen’s Club.

Retrieved November 26, 2014 from

http://tweedlandthegentlemansclub.blogspot.com/2014/03/who-was-true-harry-

selfridge.html

Wilcox, J. (2011). Mastering monologues and acting sides: How to audition

successfully for both traditional and new media. New York, US: Allworth Press.


Appendix I: Survey Questions

1. How would you describe your boss's personality?

2. What personalities do you believe would benefit your boss?

3. Which does your employer typically rely on to make people work effectively?

4. What personality type do you believe your boss or CEO is?


Appendix II: Survey Data

Survey Monkey:

Gender

Answer Choices– Responses–

–

Male

46.81%

44

–

Female

53.19%

50

Skipped 0.00%

6

Total 94

Age


–

< 18

0.00%

0

–

18-29

12.77%

12

–

30-44

23.40%

22

–

45-60

36.17%

34

–

> 60

27.66%

26

Skipped 0.00%

6

Total 94


Household Income


–

$0 - $24,999

7.04%

5

–

$25,000 - $49,999

16.90%

12

–

$50,000 - $99,999

25.35%

18

–

$100,000 - $149,999

29.58%

21

–

$150,000+

21.13%

15

Skipped 0.00%

29

Total 71

Education


–

Less than high school degree

0.00%

0

–

High school degree

0.00%

0

–

Some college or Associate degree

20.21%

19

–

Bachelor degree

36.17%

34

–

Graduate degree

43.62%

41

Skipped 0.00%

6

Total 94


Location (Census)


–

New England

4.26%

4

–

Middle Atlantic

10.64%

10

–

East North Central

17.02%

16

–

West North Central

12.77%

12

–

South Atlantic

14.89%

14

–

East South Central

2.13%

2

–

West South Central

9.57%

9

–

Mountain

5.32%

5

–

Pacific

23.40%

22

Skipped 0.00%

6

Total 94

Total Responses:

Figure 1: "How Would You Describe Your Boss's Personality?"

Option A: "Quiet, thoughtful, and humble and prefer listening and thinking over talking" 54

Option B: "Charismatic, charming, and social and prefer talking and motivating

to listening" 77

Total: 131


Figure 2: "What personalities do you believe would benefit your boss?"

Option A: "Open-mindedness, agreeability" 94

Option B: "Charisma, lively and magnetic personality" 37

Total 131

Figure 3: "Which does your employer typically

rely on to make people work effectively?"

Option A: "Inspired motives" 92

Option B: "Motivation through speeches" 39

Total 131

Figure 2B: "What personality type do you believe your boss or CEO is?"

Option A: Introvert 53

Option B: Extrovert 78

Total 131


Appendix III: Case Study

Generosity Instances General Practices Specific Practices

Douglas Conant 2 2 1

Harry Gordon Selfridge 0 3 2

Risk-Taking

Actions

Instances General Practices Specific Practices Circumstances

Douglas Conant 0 0 2 3

Harry Gordon

Selfridge

1 2 4 2

Listening Instances General Practices Specific Practices

Douglas Conant 3 4 2

Harry Gordon Selfridge 0 4 2

Transformational

Leadership

Economic

Improvements

New

Business

Policies

New

Practices

Employee

Efficiency

Long-

lasting

Impacts

Societal

Changes

Douglas Conant 5 4 4 3 2 2


Harry Gordon

Selfridge

0 1 6 1 0 4

12 dsp research paper v2

Documents