I have always thought of myself as an introvert. I am usually the one listening more than talking, happier in a quiet corner of a conversation than in the middle of the crowd. Yet I have sometimes been asked to take on leadership roles—from coordinating a project, to being elected swim team captain, or nursing student association president. Each time, a part of me felt slightly out of place, as if I was borrowing someone else’s job. If leaders are supposed to be bold, confident, and constantly “on,” how can someone who needs so much quiet also be a leader?

Like many people, my first exposure to personality types came from the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). I tested as an introverted type, and the description felt very familiar: enjoying depth over small talk, planning rather than improvising, needing time alone to recharge. MBTI gave me a language for these preferences. Later, I learned that while MBTI is popular and can be useful for self-reflection, researchers find it has limited power to predict behaviour compared with trait models like the Big Five [1] . In scientific work on personality and leadership, the focus is much more on continuous traits rather than on fixed “types.”

The Big Five model describes people along five broad dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience. Introversion and extraversion are on opposite ends of one of these dimensions, not separate boxes. Extroverted people tend to seek social stimulation and enjoy being the centre of attention, while introverted people prefer lower-stimulation settings, smaller groups, and more time to think things through.

For a long time, leadership research seemed to support the stereotype that extroverts make better leaders. A 2002 meta-analysis found that extraversion was one of the strongest personality predictors of both who emerge as leaders and how leaders are rated [2]. A more recent study synthesised a large number of studies and confirmed that extraversion offers a small but reliable advantage at work, including in leadership-related outcomes [3]. The advantage is real but it is modest, and it is carried mainly by specific facets such as assertiveness and positive emotion rather than sheer talkativeness.

Newer research shows that the story is more complicated than “extroverts lead, introverts follow”. Extroverted leaders were more effective when employees were relatively passive, but when employees were proactive and full of ideas, introverted leaders actually produced better results [4]. Because they were less inclined to dominate discussions, introverted leaders tended to listen more and take employees’ suggestions seriously. Other work focuses on how different behaviours shape perceptions of a leader’s personality. For example, leadership behaviours such as intellectual stimulation or careful, transactional guidance can be effective without necessarily fitting the stereotype of a highly extroverted, charismatic style [5].

Research on “state extraversion” suggests that introverts can sometimes benefit from briefly acting more outgoing. When people, including introverts, temporarily behaved in a more extroverted way in group tasks, they were more likely to be seen as leaders [6]. At the same time, acting this way can feel more draining for those low in trait extraversion, which fits the everyday experience of introverts who can “turn it on” for a while but then need recovery time. This supports a balanced message: introverts can learn visible leadership behaviours, but they do not need to live in that mode all the time.

Personality science also shows that “introvert versus extrovert” is an oversimplification. Each Big Five trait can be broken into narrower “aspects” [7]. For extraversion, these include assertiveness and enthusiasm. A person might be low in enthusiasm for big, noisy social events yet still moderately assertive when something important needs to be decided. The HEXACO model adds a sixth dimension, honesty-humility, alongside emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness [8]. This reminds us that an “introvert” is never just introverted; they might also be highly conscientious, modest, fair, and dependable, all of which are qualities people often value in leaders.

There is also space between the extremes: “ambiverts,” fall near the middle of the introversion–extraversion spectrum and can be especially effective in roles that require both talking and listening [9]. From a more broad, dynamic view of personality and leadership: traits influence who leads and how, but leadership experiences also shape traits over time [10]. This supports the idea that leadership is not reserved for one fixed type of person; it is an evolving pattern of behaviour shaped by multiple traits and by experience.

So where does this leave someone like me, who feels introverted? Recent work on introverted leaders suggests that the doubts I feel are common and often rooted in cultural stereotypes rather than evidence [11]. Introverted leaders may be less visible, but they can contribute in quieter ways: by listening carefully, preparing thoroughly, thinking before they speak, and building trust through consistent, one-to-one conversations. When I look back at the times I accidentally ended up in leadership roles, that is mostly what I see – not dramatic speeches, but small efforts to understand others, organise information, and move things forward.

In that sense, current literature is reassuring. Extroverts do have some advantages in leadership, especially in roles that demand constant visibility. But studies also show that introverts can be highly effective leaders, particularly in contexts where listening, reflection, and collaboration matter. Rather than asking whether introverts can lead at all, it may be more helpful to ask what kinds of leadership different situations need and how people with quieter personalities can offer that in ways that are sustainable for them and supportive for the people around them.

References

1. Zárate-Torres RA, Correa JC. How good is the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator for predicting leadership-related behaviors? Frontiers in Psychology. 2023;14:940961.
2. Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002;87(4):765–780.
3. Wilmot MP, Wanberg CR, Kammeyer-Mueller JD, Ones DS. Extraversion advantages at work: A quantitative review and synthesis of the meta-analytic evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2019;104(12):1447–1470.
4. Grant AM, Gino F, Hofmann DA. Reversing the extroverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal. 2011;54(3):528–550.
5. Liegl S, Furtner MR. Leadership behaviors and perceived personality: Examining alternatives to stereotypically extraverted leadership styles. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023;14:1191235.
6. Spark A, O’Connor PJ. State extraversion and emergent leadership: Do introverts emerge as leaders when they act like extroverts? The Leadership Quarterly. 2021;32(3):101474.
7. DeYoung CG, Quilty LC, Peterson JB. Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007;93(5):880–896.
8. Ashton MC, Lee K. Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2007;11(2):150–166.
9. Grant AM. Rethinking the extroverted sales ideal: The ambivert advantage. Psychological Science. 2013;24(6):1024–1030.
10. Li W, Zhang H, Zheng Y. Personality and leadership: A critical review and future research agenda from a dynamic perspective. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2024.
11. Barnes HA, Stewart SM. Misconceptions about introverted leaders: How quiet personality types influence the workplace. International Journal of Management Development. 2022;2(3):217–235.

Author

Katrina Obas

​​​​Katrina Obas is an epidemiologist in Quality Management & Patient Safety at the University Hospital Zurich, with a background in nursing. She focuses on integrating patient-reported outcomes and experiences into healthcare improvement and quality measurement. She also supports quality improvement through the development of her institution’s KPI strategy for timely monitoring and operational decision-making.​​​ 

​​​​Her research includes case-mix adjustment for benchmarking Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs), actionable health equity indicators, and contributions to the Kosovo Non-Communicable Disease Cohort (KOSCO).​​​ 

​​​​She is a member of the Next Generation Advisory Panel (NGAP) for the International Forum on Quality and Safety in Healthcare and serves as a Data Analyst for the Aspiring Leaders in Healthcare Network (ALiHN), supporting early-career healthcare professionals globally.​​​ 

Declarations of Interest:
No financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Declarations of AI Use:
I used ChatGPT (OpenAI) as a writing aid to help restructure sections of this essay and to suggest relevant academic references. I critically evaluated and edited all content, and I take responsibility for the final version.

Aspiring Leaders in Healthcare

Aspiring Leaders in Healthcare Network aims to foster a multi-professional community of practice, united by the common goal of nurturing future healthcare leaders across the globe. Our regular online meetings, social media communities and conference huddles connect members to a wider network passionate about leading positive change and improvement in healthcare. 

In this blog series, we showcase our member’s diverse experience of leading with impact at the earliest stages of their careers to empower and inspire the BMJ Leader Blog readership.