手機(jī)版
Conventional wisdom tells us that leaders are the men and women who stand up, speak out, give orders, make plans and are generally the most dominant, outgoing people in a group. But that is not always the case, according to new research on leadership and group dynamics from Wharton management professor Adam Grant and two colleagues, who challenge the assumption that the most effective leaders are extraverts。
In fact, introverted leaders can be more effective than extraverts in certain circumstances. The determining factor is who leaders are managing, according to Grant and co-authors Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School and David Hofmann of the University of North Carolina's Kenan-Flagler Business School.
Extraverted leadership involves commanding the center of attention: being outgoing, assertive, bold, talkative and dominant. This offers the advantages of providing a clear authority structure and direction. However, pairing extraverted leaders with employees who take initiative and speak out can lead to friction, while pairing the same group of employees with an introverted leader can be a pathway to success, the researchers note. This has implications for leaders and managers at all levels who want to improve their own leadership styles. "If you look at existing leadership research, extraversion stands out as the most consistent and robust predictor of who becomes a leader and who is rated an effective leader," Grant says. "But I thought this was incomplete. It tells us little about the situations in which introverted leaders can be more effective than extraverted leaders."
So he and his fellow researchers began looking at the issue through the lens of a business that could easily track productivity and team effectiveness -- pizza delivery franchises。
"We wanted to study an organization where we could actually see differences in performance, and where people were generally doing the same work," Grant notes. "If there is variation in franchise profitability, as a function of who leads and who your employees are, then that would be a very powerful statement about the true impact of a leader on a group."
Threatened By Proactivity
The researchers obtained data from a national pizza delivery company. They sent questionnaires to 130 stores and received complete responses from 57; the responses included 57 store leaders and 374 employees. To adjust for differences in location that were beyond the leaders' influence, the researchers also controlled for the average price of pizza orders and worker hours. Leaders were asked to rate their own extraversion -- the degree to which they commanded the center of attention by acting talkative, assertive, outgoing and dominant. Employees were asked to rate levels of proactive behavior in the store, such as improving procedures, correcting faulty practices, speaking up with ideas and stating opinions about work issues。
What Grant and his colleagues found was a simple inverse relationship: When employees are proactive, introverted managers lead them to earn higher profits. When employees are not proactive, extraverted managers lead them to higher profits. "These proactive behaviors are especially important in a dynamic and uncertain economy, but because extraverted leaders like to be the center of attention, they tend to be threatened by employee proactivity," Grant notes. "Introverted leaders, on the other hand, are more likely to listen carefully to suggestions and support employees' efforts to be proactive."
Pairing an extraverted leader with a proactive team, he says, can hurt, not just hinder, the company's effectiveness. "Once the extraverted leader responds in a less receptive way, that becomes discouraging for employees and makes them less willing to work hard," Grant states. "It may also make them less willing to share ideas in the future, which would limit creativity and innovation."
In fact, the personality conflicts can lead to a power struggle within an organization, openly pitting leaders against employees. This is especially true in companies or groups with a flat hierarchy -- for example, if the leaders were recently promoted from the peer level, or if a new leader's competence and skills are not yet established. Such situations would "be much more likely to lead employees to challenge, and leaders to feel threatened," a situation known as "status uncertainty," according to Grant。
"If you are leading a pizza franchise, you are often doing this as your full-time job, and you might be managing high school and college students who have a different set of aspirations and, in some cases, might actually look down upon you as the leader," Grant points out. At that point, an employee with a better idea for how to get orders processed efficiently on Super Bowl night, or a suggestion for a new coupon or special deal, could make extraverted leaders feel like their "status is being threatened. They might say, 'I'm supposed to be in charge here. Let me reassert my authority.' Whereas the introverted leader, with less of a concern for position, status and power -- and a willingness to spend more time listening and less time talking -- is likely to quietly process the ideas that come up. That leader is worrying less about the ego or image implications of employees taking charge and introducing ideas."
The T-shirt Challenge
The research team also conducted another study that looked specifically at extraverted leadership behavior, not just self-reported traits. They took 163 college students from a university in the Southeastern U.S. and designated them as team members and leaders in a T-shirt folding group. The aim was to fold as many shirts as possible in 10 minutes, with iPods as a reward for the top performers。
Some students were randomly assigned to lead in either an extraverted or introverted manner. The extraverted leaders were given examples of famous leaders who were bold, talkative and assertive, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jack Welch. The introverted leaders were given examples of famous leaders who were quiet and reserved, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln. Both groups were then asked to reflect on a time when they led effectively in a similar manner. Meanwhile, two other graduate students, or "confederates," were paired with each group and secretly told to act either passively or proactively, with proactive confederates offering a new, efficient away to fold T-shirts。
The researchers found a significant interaction between extraverted leadership and proactive behavior that meshed with the findings from the pizza study. When the confederates were passive, teams performed better when led in an extraverted manner, but when the confederates were proactive, teams performed better when led in an introverted manner. "When the confederates were proactive, participants perceived the more extraverted leaders as less receptive to ideas, and they invested less effort in the task," the researchers write。
The implications of the power struggle for the leader-employee relationship and labor relations became very clear, according to Grant. "At some level, the power struggle is finished, with the leader asserting authority and the employees saying, 'We're not going to work as hard on your behalf.'" The employees basically decided that "Hey, these leaders are not receptive to good ideas .... We don't really have a ton of respect for the leader. We don't want this leader to be one of the top performers. We want to feel, at the end of the day, like our ideas are valued and our contributions are appreciated."
Interestingly, neither the introverted leaders nor the extraverted leaders showed higher productivity or profitability than the other. The difference, Grant and his researchers found, was in the pairing of leaders and employees。
"It shows that introverted and extraverted leadership styles can be equally effective, but with different groups of employees," he says. "As a social scientist, this is appealing -- people in organizations are sufficiently complex that you can rarely ever conclude that one style is always more effective than another.... Our research provides insight into when each style is effective, as opposed to trying to test which one is better -- which I think is the wrong question."
Given these conclusions, why does the popular view persist that extraverts are better leaders across the board? The authors point to several possible reasons: One is that extraverts are often perceived as more effective because of a "halo effect." "This may occur because extraverted leaders match the prototypes of charismatic leaders that dominate both [Western and Eastern cultures] and are especially prevalent in business," they write. One online survey of 1,500 senior leaders earning at least six-figure salaries found that 65% actually saw introversion as a negative quality in terms of leadership。
Creating Space for Employees
Grant says the study has broad implications for corporate leaders who want to examine their own leadership styles as well as make changes in the lower management ranks. "We tend to assume that we need to be extremely enthusiastic, outgoing and assertive, and we try to bring employees on board with a lot of excitement, a clear vision and direction," Grant says, "but there is real value in a leader being more reserved, quieter, in some cases silent, in order to create space for employees to enter the dialogue."
He worked with the CEO of one Fortune 500 company who has a policy of silence for the first 15 minutes of meetings. He does not utter a single word, although he is an extravert. "He feels that he has a tendency, once he gets excited about ideas, to run with them to the point where, at times, it leaves employees feeling like they weren't included," Grant says. "So he tries to combat that: 'I want you guys to tell me whatever you're thinking about -- suggestions, feedback, questions -- and the floor is yours.' He listens quietly and takes notes."
There are also lessons to be learned about giving employees authority and autonomy to make decisions on their own -- "providing them with choice about what work they do, as well as how, when and where they complete it," Grant notes. "One of the strongest predictors of proactivity is a sense of responsibility for the larger team or department or organization. When employees feel like they are responsible for a larger unit, they are much more likely to broaden their roles beyond their specific individual job descriptions."
So how can managers actually implement some of the lessons from the study? Grant suggests that once prospective team members have the required skills and expertise, leaders can explicitly look at personality in making the final selection -- examining both the employees and the managers, figuring out which teams will work best together. "When I have extraverted leaders, if I have the opportunity I tend to invite in some of the less proactive employees who I think are more likely to want a clear, dominant vision from a leader and who are also more likely to get energized, to step a little bit out of their comfort zones."
And how do you identify those employees who might fit better with an introverted leader at the helm? By looking and listening, Grant says. "Proactive employees, by definition, spend more of their time and energy taking initiative -- whether that's in terms of generating ideas, coming up with a new work process, staying late to help their colleagues or even going out of their way to seek feedback. You develop a reputation pretty quickly for that set of tendencies."
Extraverted leaders also need to be careful to delegate responsibility to proactive employees, Grant suggests -- putting such workers in areas where they have ideas for moving forward or want to take on larger responsibility. These leaders also should actively solicit feedback, positive and negative, and listen to it. Some companies employ 360-degree feedback surveys, but those can be harder to use in small groups. "Asking for advice from employees on how to change can kill two birds with one stone," Grant says. "It allows the leader to actually learn, and it creates opportunities for employees to contribute right there and then."
參考譯文：
傳統(tǒng)觀念總是認(rèn)為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者都是那些積極表現(xiàn)、勇于發(fā)言、擅于發(fā)號(hào)施令、制定計(jì)劃的人，通常在人群中處于最主導(dǎo)的地位。然而事實(shí)未必如此。沃頓商學(xué)院管理學(xué)教授亞當(dāng)•格蘭特(Adam Grant)與兩位同事近期就領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力和群體動(dòng)力學(xué)發(fā)表最新研究，對(duì)最高效的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者往往是外向的人這一傳統(tǒng)假設(shè)提出了質(zhì)疑。
事實(shí)上，在某些環(huán)境下，內(nèi)向的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者要比外向的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者更加高效，關(guān)鍵就在于被領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的人。格蘭特在與哈佛商學(xué)院的弗蘭切斯卡• 吉諾(Francesca Gino)以及北卡羅來(lái)納大學(xué)克南-弗拉格勒商學(xué)院的大衛(wèi)•霍夫曼(David Hofmann)共同撰寫的研究報(bào)告中提出了這一論點(diǎn)。
這份報(bào)告指出，外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)風(fēng)格意味著成為注意力的中心：開朗、決斷、大膽、能言善辯并有能力占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位。這種領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者能提供明確的權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)和發(fā)展方向。但是，如果這些領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者所管理的員工同樣具有良好的主動(dòng)性并勇于發(fā)言，就有可能產(chǎn)生摩擦。而如果把這些員工與內(nèi)向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)組合起來(lái)，就可以通往成功。
這對(duì)于任何想要改善領(lǐng)導(dǎo)風(fēng)格的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和管理者而言都具有一定的指導(dǎo)意義。“縱觀當(dāng)下流行的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力研究報(bào)告，外向的性格總是一致被看作是成為一名領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者以及高效領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的最重要因素，”格蘭特表示：“但我認(rèn)為這種觀點(diǎn)并不完善。某些情況下，內(nèi)向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者可能比外向型更為有效，而傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)并沒有涉及這一領(lǐng)域。”
在這種背景下，格蘭特和他的研究伙伴試圖以某種容易跟蹤生產(chǎn)力和團(tuán)隊(duì)效率的經(jīng)營(yíng)業(yè)務(wù)為對(duì)象，就上述問(wèn)題進(jìn)行觀察分析。他們選取了披薩外送連鎖店。
“我們希望選取那些容易比較業(yè)務(wù)績(jī)效的企業(yè)，且組織內(nèi)部的人員所從事的工作具有同質(zhì)性，”格蘭特表示。“作為有領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者以及被領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的組織，如果各分店的盈利性出現(xiàn)差異，那么就可以證明領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)群體的真實(shí)影響。”
主動(dòng)性帶來(lái)的威脅
研究人員從一家全國(guó)性的披薩外送公司獲取數(shù)據(jù)。向130家門店發(fā)送了問(wèn)卷調(diào)查，其中57家門店反饋了完整的信息，這些反饋來(lái)自于57位門店經(jīng)理和374位員工。為了排除不受領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力影響的地段差異等因素，研究人員還對(duì)披薩訂單的平均價(jià)格和工作小時(shí)數(shù)進(jìn)行了控制。在問(wèn)卷中，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者需對(duì)自己的外向程度進(jìn)行評(píng)分——即通過(guò)言辭、決斷力、開朗的性格和主導(dǎo)力能夠在多大程度上引導(dǎo)注意力。而員工則需對(duì)自己在門店工作中的主動(dòng)行為進(jìn)行評(píng)分，例如積極改善流程、糾正不良行為、大膽表達(dá)自己的想法以及發(fā)表對(duì)工作問(wèn)題的意見。
格蘭特和他的研究伙伴發(fā)現(xiàn)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者及其員工呈現(xiàn)出一種直接簡(jiǎn)單的反向關(guān)系：如果員工主動(dòng)性高，內(nèi)向型管理人員能夠帶領(lǐng)他們創(chuàng)造更高的盈利；如果員工不是那么的積極主動(dòng)，那么外向型管理人員則更能夠帶領(lǐng)他們創(chuàng)造高盈利。“在動(dòng)態(tài)且不確定的經(jīng)濟(jì)中，這種主動(dòng)的行為尤其重要，但由于外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者本身就容易成為注意力的中心，因此員工太過(guò)主動(dòng)反而可能令他們?cè)馐芡{，”格蘭特表示“相反，內(nèi)向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者更傾向于認(rèn)真聽取建議，并支持員工發(fā)揮主觀能動(dòng)性。”
同時(shí)，格蘭特還進(jìn)一步指出，如果將積極主動(dòng)的員工與外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者相組合，那么不僅僅會(huì)阻礙，甚至可能會(huì)損害公司的經(jīng)營(yíng)效率。他認(rèn)為“如果外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者不能很好地接受建議，就會(huì)讓員工感到沮喪，降低他們對(duì)工作的積極性。同時(shí)，還會(huì)讓他們變得不愿分享觀點(diǎn)，從而限制創(chuàng)造力和創(chuàng)新。”
事實(shí)上，性格沖突可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致組織內(nèi)權(quán)力無(wú)法發(fā)揮，造成領(lǐng)導(dǎo)與員工的公開對(duì)抗。如果公司或群體采取的是扁平式的組織架構(gòu)，這一問(wèn)題則會(huì)更為突出——舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，如果平級(jí)的同事近期內(nèi)獲得提升成為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，或是新領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的能力和技巧尚未成熟的情況下，就有可能“誘發(fā)員工對(duì)權(quán)威的挑戰(zhàn)，并讓領(lǐng)導(dǎo)遭受威脅”。格蘭特把這種情況稱為“地位不確定”(status uncertainty)。
“如果你是一家披薩連鎖店的管理人員，你通常會(huì)將其作為全職工作，而你管理的人員可能是些高中生和大學(xué)生，他們有著不一樣的志向，有時(shí)還很可能對(duì)你這個(gè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)根本不屑一顧，”格蘭特說(shuō)道。“這時(shí)，如果有員工提出改善流程，從而能在‘超級(jí)碗’比賽當(dāng)晚送出更多的披薩或是有員工提出發(fā)放新的優(yōu)惠券或特別優(yōu)惠的建議時(shí)，外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)會(huì)覺得他們的‘地位受到了威脅’。他們很可能會(huì)說(shuō)‘我才是這里的負(fù)責(zé)人。讓我重申一下我的權(quán)力’。而內(nèi)向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人則不那么在乎職級(jí)、地位和權(quán)力，他們說(shuō)得不多，并愿意花更多的時(shí)間來(lái)聽取建議，如果遇到同樣的情況，他們很可能會(huì)安靜地采納并執(zhí)行這些建議。這種領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者不會(huì)太在意自我，也不會(huì)想象員工可能奪取他們的位置、施加自己的觀點(diǎn)。
疊T恤比賽帶來(lái)的啟示
研究小組還進(jìn)行了另一項(xiàng)研究，對(duì)外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的行為進(jìn)行仔細(xì)觀察，而不僅僅依賴于這些領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的自我描述。研究人員在美國(guó)東南部的一所大學(xué)選取了163位大學(xué)生，并把他們分為不同的小組，每個(gè)小組都有成員和組長(zhǎng)。他們的任務(wù)是在10分鐘之內(nèi)疊好盡量多的T恤，疊的最多的小組的每位成員都可以獲得一個(gè)iPod作為獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)。
研究人員隨機(jī)挑選了部分學(xué)生作為組長(zhǎng)，既有外向型，也有內(nèi)向型。對(duì)于外向型的組長(zhǎng)，研究人員向他們展示了那些以大膽、能言善辯和決斷力著稱的著名領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的例子，例如小馬丁路德金和杰克威爾士。而針對(duì)內(nèi)向型組長(zhǎng)，研究人員則向他們展示了類似圣雄甘地和阿伯拉罕林肯等安靜保守的著名領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者形象。之后，需要兩組人員按照所展示的風(fēng)格來(lái)有效地領(lǐng)導(dǎo)他們的團(tuán)隊(duì)。與此同時(shí)，研究人員還選取了另外兩名大學(xué)生作為“盟友”，并將其分配給兩個(gè)小組，暗中讓他們采取被動(dòng)或主動(dòng)的表現(xiàn)。配合采取主動(dòng)表現(xiàn)的“盟友”需要向組長(zhǎng)建議一種新型高效地疊衣服方式。
研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)在外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)風(fēng)格和主動(dòng)性行為之間存在著重要的互動(dòng)關(guān)系，與披薩研究的結(jié)果一致。盟友采取被動(dòng)表現(xiàn)時(shí)，外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)風(fēng)格帶領(lǐng)下的團(tuán)隊(duì)取得了更好的績(jī)效；而當(dāng)盟友采取主動(dòng)表現(xiàn)時(shí)，則是內(nèi)向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)風(fēng)格下的團(tuán)隊(duì)取得更高的成績(jī)。“當(dāng)盟友表現(xiàn)積極時(shí)，小組成員會(huì)認(rèn)為外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人不能很好地接受意見，因此也就不愿意賣力工作，”研究人員在報(bào)告中如此分析。
領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和員工關(guān)系以及勞動(dòng)關(guān)系之間權(quán)力的對(duì)抗變得非常明顯，格蘭特說(shuō)，“當(dāng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者重申權(quán)力，員工表示‘我們才不會(huì)為你賣力工作’時(shí)，權(quán)力的對(duì)抗就會(huì)結(jié)束。”然而員工會(huì)認(rèn)為“瞧，這些領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人根本不接受好的意見…我們沒必要對(duì)他們表示尊敬。我們可不想讓這種人奪第一。我們希望在一天結(jié)束的時(shí)候，能讓他們體會(huì)到我們的意見是有價(jià)值的，我們的貢獻(xiàn)能夠得到認(rèn)可。”
有趣的是，就盈利性而言，外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和內(nèi)向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者本身并不存在孰優(yōu)孰劣。格蘭特和他的研究伙伴發(fā)現(xiàn)，真正的差異來(lái)自于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和被領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的組合。
“事實(shí)證明內(nèi)向型和外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)風(fēng)格的效率不分上下，但成員組合的方式不同，就會(huì)對(duì)結(jié)果造成差異，”格蘭特表示。“作為一名社會(huì)科學(xué)家，這樣的結(jié)論無(wú)疑有著重大的意義——一個(gè)組織內(nèi)的成員結(jié)構(gòu)非常復(fù)雜，你很難說(shuō)哪種風(fēng)格就一定比另一種風(fēng)格更有效…我們的研究著重在于在何種環(huán)境下哪種風(fēng)格更有效，而不是簡(jiǎn)單地嘗試證明哪種更好——我認(rèn)為這根本就是個(gè)錯(cuò)誤的命題。”
既然結(jié)論如此，那么為什么整體而言流行觀點(diǎn)都認(rèn)為外向型的人才是更好的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者呢？報(bào)告給出了幾個(gè)可能的原因：其中之一就是“暈輪效應(yīng)”(halo effect)。“造成這種觀點(diǎn)的原因可能是因?yàn)橥庀蛐皖I(lǐng)導(dǎo)人更符合東西方文化中人們對(duì)于魅力型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的描繪，這一點(diǎn)在商場(chǎng)上尤為突出，”報(bào)告指出。一項(xiàng)針對(duì)收入在六位數(shù)以上的1500位高級(jí)管理人員的在線調(diào)查顯示，65%的受訪者認(rèn)為內(nèi)向是影響領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力的負(fù)面品質(zhì)。
為員工創(chuàng)造空間
格蘭特表示他們的研究對(duì)于希望改善領(lǐng)導(dǎo)風(fēng)格、改革低層管理級(jí)別的企業(yè)管理人員來(lái)說(shuō)有著廣泛的意義。“我們總是傾向于認(rèn)為我們需要表現(xiàn)得熱情、開朗并富有決斷力，嘗試讓員工感到興奮，為他們描繪清晰的愿景、指明方向，”格蘭特說(shuō)，“但事實(shí)上，有時(shí)候領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者需要采取更為保守和安靜的姿態(tài)，某些情況下，甚至是一言不發(fā)，從而為員工創(chuàng)造更多的參與對(duì)話的空間。”
格蘭特曾與一家財(cái)富500強(qiáng)企業(yè)的CEO共事，這位CEO為自己定了一個(gè)規(guī)矩，即在會(huì)議開始的15分鐘內(nèi)保持緘默，不說(shuō)一句話——盡管他是個(gè)非常外向的人。“他發(fā)現(xiàn)他有種傾向，就是一旦想到一個(gè)他認(rèn)為很棒的點(diǎn)子，就急于讓員工接受，有時(shí)，這會(huì)讓員工覺得自己并沒有參與在過(guò)程中，”格蘭特表示，“所以他嘗試改變這一現(xiàn)象：‘我希望你們告訴我你們的任何想法——建議、反饋或是疑問(wèn)——這個(gè)舞臺(tái)是你們的。’而他則會(huì)安靜的聆聽并記錄重點(diǎn)。”
對(duì)于為員工提供更大的權(quán)力和決策自主權(quán)——即“讓員工選擇做什么工作、如何做、何時(shí)及何處完成工作”——研究報(bào)告也給出了許多值得借鑒的意見。格蘭特指出：“想讓員工變得積極主動(dòng)的一個(gè)最重要因素就是培養(yǎng)他們對(duì)于大團(tuán)體或部門或整個(gè)企業(yè)的責(zé)任感。如果員工覺得自己應(yīng)該為集體利益負(fù)責(zé)，他們就會(huì)在特定的個(gè)人崗位描述范圍之外，主動(dòng)承擔(dān)更多的責(zé)任。”
那么管理人員應(yīng)當(dāng)如何將研究報(bào)告中的發(fā)現(xiàn)運(yùn)用到實(shí)踐中呢？格蘭特建議一旦潛在的團(tuán)隊(duì)成員已經(jīng)掌握必需的技能和專業(yè)知識(shí)，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者就可以開始觀察他們的性格，以便進(jìn)行最終的團(tuán)隊(duì)組合——領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者應(yīng)對(duì)員工及管理人員同時(shí)進(jìn)行觀察，思考如何組合成員才能讓團(tuán)隊(duì)發(fā)揮最大的效率。“如果我的管理人員都是外向型的，那么有機(jī)會(huì)的話，我會(huì)傾向于招一些不是那么主動(dòng)的員工，這些員工更能夠從領(lǐng)導(dǎo)那里獲得清晰、主導(dǎo)性的愿景，更容易被鼓舞，從而發(fā)揮更大的積極性。”
至于如何定義那些適合內(nèi)向型風(fēng)格領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的員工，格蘭特認(rèn)為可以靠觀察和聆聽。“積極主動(dòng)的員工會(huì)花更多的時(shí)間和精力來(lái)主導(dǎo)自己的工作——無(wú)論是提出建議、規(guī)劃新的工作流程、加班幫助同事或是超越自己的工作范圍來(lái)征求反饋。你會(huì)很快發(fā)現(xiàn)這些趨勢(shì)和特征。”
除此之外，外向型領(lǐng)導(dǎo)在下放責(zé)任給主動(dòng)性員工時(shí)也需保持謹(jǐn)慎，格蘭特指出，應(yīng)當(dāng)讓這些員工從事他們所希望的領(lǐng)域，這樣他們才會(huì)有動(dòng)力前進(jìn)并承擔(dān)更大的責(zé)任。這些領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者還應(yīng)該主動(dòng)搜集反饋，無(wú)論是正面還是負(fù)面意見都應(yīng)該悉心接受。有些公司會(huì)采用360度全面反饋調(diào)查，但這很難適用于小的群體。“向員工征詢?nèi)绾芜M(jìn)行改革的意見可謂是一石二鳥的舉措，”格蘭特說(shuō)道，“既可以讓領(lǐng)導(dǎo)更多地了解員工的想法，也可以為員工創(chuàng)造更大的貢獻(xiàn)空間。”
