This research suggests that in leadership roles,
extraverts have a clear advantage. However, scholars
have begun to question whether this conclusion
overstates the benefits of extraversion in leadership
roles and overlooks the costs.
Hypothesis 1. Employee proactivity moderates the association between leader extraversion and group performance. When employees are passive, leader extraversion is positively related to group performance but when employees are proactive, leader extraversion is negatively related to group performance.
Hypothesis 2. Employee perceptions of receptivity mediate the moderating effect of employee proactivity on the relationship between leader extraversion and group performance.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our studies point to the provocative possibility that when extraverted leaders enrich jobs to provide autonomy and empowerment, they may respond to employees’ ensuing proactive behaviors in ways that undermine their potential to contribute to improved performance.
Practical Implications and Conclusion
First, our findings provide less extraverted leaders with a new set of tools for directing their groups toward effective performance. The popular press is replete with suggestions for individuals low in extraversion to “build on their quiet strength” by practicing their public speaking.
Limitations and Future Directions
It remains to be seen whether the patterns generalize to more difficult, complex, or creative tasks. It is possible that differences in leader extraversion may have a stronger effect in more complex tasks—not only through the motivational mechanism of perceived leader receptivity, but also . By being receptive to employees’ efforts to voice ideas, take charge to improve work methods, and exercise upward influence, less extraverted leaders can develop more efficient and effective practices that enhance group effectiveness through the knowledge mechanism of enabling leaders to utilize better task strategies