Introvert and Extrovert Differences in Workplace Communication and Whether This Affects Performance: A Case of Saudi Arabia ()
1. Introduction
Individuals with different personality traits compose the workplace, dividing them into two categories, namely introversion and extroversion. However, no individual falls into a fixed personality since they also possess a number of different traits. Each personality trait has strengths and weaknesses, yet people are biased toward introversion (Herbert et al., 2023; McCord & Joseph, 2016). Organizations consider including introverts a necessity for diversity in an increasingly extroverted world that marginalizes introversion (Herbert et al., 2023). This study aimed to understand the communication differences between introverts and extroverts in workplace communication in Saudi Arabia. This study hypothesizes that no difference in introvert and extrovert workplace communication affects the performance of either personality.
Most researchers have conducted studies in Western countries (Afshan et al., 2015; Zelenski et al., 2013; Tychmanowicz et al., 2019), and the growing number of national and international organizations burgeoning in Saudi Arabia (Samargandi et al., 2022) warrants such a study. This study assumes that introverted and extroverted employees and leaders contribute to the organization’s success if they exercise their personalities with thoughtfulness and restraint. For instance, while extroverted people thrive in open workspaces and with teams, managers should carefully monitor this to ensure that productivity does not become a pastime for socializing for personalities that prefer to be around people. Moreover, organizations should enable introverted people to work in teams since they contain units and divisions.
1.1. Research Questions
1) What are the differences between introverts and extroverts?
2) Does one personality trait (introvert and extrovert) qualify better?
3) How do introverted employees and leaders behave and communicate? Can they achieve success?
4) How do extrovert employees and leaders behave and communicate? Can they achieve success?
5) Is either personality trait better than the other? Does that personality trait lead to high performance?
1.2. Significance
The outcome of this study aims to change how different personalities are treated in the workplace and encourage the strengths of both introverts and extroverts. Researchers have studied personality type biases in organizations and found them to exist based on some studies (McCord & Joseph, 2016; McCord & Joseph, 2020; Xu & Chopik, 2020). This will reduce bias favoring extroverts and overlooking introverts, especially in leadership positions.
2. Literature Review
This section begins by providing an overview of introversion and extroversion, followed by how employees and leaders perceive these personality traits. One thing that some of the studies reviewed have noted is that introversion comprises a smaller percentage compared to extroversion, and thus, introverts feel significantly outnumbered because of the continual pressure to conform to an extroverted society (Raja et al., 2021; Osborn, 2015; Farrell, 2017). Nevertheless, even with the definitions that characterize introverts, they thrive in fields where extroverts thrive, such as communication in journalism, public relations, and marketing (Osborn, 2015). While this provokes the question of what would prompt an individual who gets exhausted by interacting with others to choose a career that relies on the ability to communicate with others, creativity could provide an answer (Osborn, 2015). Introverts are known for their creativity; hence, they can position themselves and thrive in various careers as long as they can be themselves (Herbert et al., 2023).
2.1. Overview of Introversion and Extroversion
According to Osborn (2015), psychologists map the introversion and extroversion spectrum on a horizontal axis with the anxious-stable spectrum on a vertical axis. This demonstrates the various personality types, including calm introverts and extroverts and shy or anxious introverts and extroverts. The ambiverts in the middle of that spectrum tend to exhibit introversion and extroversion to certain degrees (Osborn, 2015). Herbert et al. (2023) note that even those primarily considered one or the other do not necessarily fit that specific group because introversion and extroversion interrelate with other personality attributes to create diversity. For example, an introvert may feel compelled to become social in certain situations even though this is not in their nature (Herbert et al., 2023).
The most noticeable characteristic that differentiates introverts from extroverts is where they draw their energy (Forouzande et al., 2010). Introverts draw their energy from internal reserves of ideas, emotions, and interpretations. For this reason, introverts can feel overstimulated by interests, delights, and social experiences that require them to expend energy. As such, they feel the urge to offset such feelings by shutting down or withdrawing to save energy and seek quieter settings to replenish their spent energy (Osborn, 2015). On the contrary, extroverts obtain their energy from the outside world and will weaken or dwindle when they are alone for extended periods (Osborn, 2015). They feed off participating in exciting activities, socializing, and experiencing new places. Unlike introverts, they source their energy from outside. Farrell (2017) notes that extroverts spend energy generously since they feel reinvigorated and restocked when they are out and about.
2.2. Introversion in Workplace Setting
Dannar (2016) notes that in an extroverted world, society views being outgoing as normal and, thus, desirable, a trait that signifies confidence, contentment, and vibrancy. As such, introverts often face marginalization because their traits, most noticeable to others, conflict with cultural norms (Dannar, 2016). Herbert (2023) notes that society seldom views being reserved, thoughtful, and careful as positive compared to extroverts, who are seen as bighearted, warm, and compassionate. This is evidenced in media, especially films where directors typically portray protagonists and popular characters as outgoing while quiet characters adopt the role of victims (Herbert et al., 2023). Despite the differences, Raja et al. (2021) found that introverted and extroverted individuals can collaborate in an organization by exercising their abilities to ensure its success. In any case, organizations demand that individuals/employees conduct their tasks by following the rules and standards formed by executives to achieve set goals.
Herbert et al. (2023) established that understanding introversion about workplace productivity and creativity and how to enhance the inclusion of introverts would benefit employers and employees. This is because it leads to workplace diversity, creativity, problem-solving, and increased performance. The same study also found that employees who identify as introverts can benefit from individualized workplace plans such as flexible working times and environments, work and home-life boundaries, diverse team composition, social support, and relaxation training (Herbert et al., 2023). As mentioned, introverts can thrive in careers deemed for extroverts, such as journalism, public relations, and marketing. While findings have shown that introverts can work in such careers, researchers need to provide more evidence of how this occurs since such traditional careers tend to happen in open office plans or work settings designed to encourage collaboration and proximity (Needle, 2019). The same study established that many employees sought solitude to accomplish specific tasks (Needle, 2019). Findings indicate that open office settings can undermine creative productivity, particularly among introverts, if an organizational policy permits individualized work situations except when teamwork and collaboration are necessary. If this occurs, it tends to lead to discrimination among non-extroverts (Needle, 2019). This study highlights a need for wider inclusiveness of cognitive diversity in the creative sector, especially concerning the marginalization that can occur in workplaces. Considering and collaborating with introverts can benefit extroverts in many situations. Similarly, Dannar (2016) found that introverts may feel put off by excessive light and noise, which they find exhausting, and an active open work setting can also be considered chaos and confusion for an introvert.
Hudson and Ferguson (2016) note that introversion coincides with creativity and can benefit an organization. Therefore, individuals in creative careers who consider the needs of diverse and hard-wired personality traits can create a steady culture of innovation (Hudson & Ferguson, 2016). Such careers include TV, photography, IT, consulting, freelance, performing and visual arts, and research and development (Hudson & Ferguson, 2016). Introverted employees also exhibit efficiency as workaholics who earn respect through action (Dannar, 2016). The same researcher also notes that introverted people listen well, encourage others, and manage their time effectively. This contradicts Herbert et al. (2023) findings that extroverts are more compassionate and empathetic. Active listeners tend to exhibit empathy (Dannar, 2016). In workplaces, Taylor (2020) found that introverts often remain unnoticed and seldom receive credit for their gifts and accomplishments. Taylor (2020) describes introverts as shy, quiet, withdrawn, and reserved. However, Osborne (2015) notes that introverts can exist without shyness, even though most introverts are considered shy.
Regarding leadership roles, introverts bring technical skills and tend to be willing to coach and advise others because they focus on specific tasks and prefer one-on-one communication (Hudson & Ferguson, 2016). Taylor (2020) notes that introverted leaders’ strengths encompass listening skills, relationship building, and leading by example and actions. The researcher also notes that leaders need strong communication skills, and the best communicators listen well, which introverts tend to do (Taylor, 2020). This is beneficial since employees thrive and improve performance when they feel heard and appreciated. Stephens-Craig et al. (2015) found that introverted leaders tend to remain reserved and avoid micromanaging others; for this reason, they demand more from their subjects, succeeding with active employees who demonstrate initiative. Moreover, introverted leaders motivate others and empower their employees (Stephens-Craig et al., 2015). Raja et al. (2021) note that introverted leaders extract ideas from others by assisting them to think critically and, in the process, validate subordinate initiatives.
However, not all studies have found introverted leaders to be valuable. For instance, Dannar (2016) found that many senior executives deem introverts in leadership roles as a liability. This is because they need to fit the image of effective leaders. The same study notes that introverts often emerge as better leaders in specific situations since they do not desire the spotlight, quiet leadership, which can help elevate juniors (Dannar, 2016). Dannar (2016) found that introverts who seek to lead encounter challenges, and most prefer to establish their own companies.
2.3. Extroversion in Workplace Setting
Farrell (2017) discovered that higher extroversion proves desirable for 90% of variables, which indicates a small, continuous advantage in the workplace. Nonetheless, four categories exist in which extroverts enjoy a distinctive advantage: emotional, motivational, interpersonal, and performance-related (Farrell, 2017). According to the study, these four aspects capture the potent effects of extroversion in an organization. Hudson & Ferguson (2016) note that extroversion is associated with enhanced motivation to achieve positive goals and, in the case of work, desired rewards through performance. This closely links to experiencing positive emotions regularly. As their research indicates, happy employees generally feel more satisfied with life, tend to work harder, and are perceived as efficient workers (Hudson & Ferguson, 2016). Also, positive emotions can buffer against pressure during work time (Hudson & Ferguson, 2016). Farrell (2017) points out that since extroverts prefer to be around people, they benefit from interpersonal skills obtained through socializing. Extroverts are perceived to possess stronger communication skills and excel in diverse social situations, including persuasion skills, which are considered a strong leadership trait (Farrell, 2017). Similarly, the study by Raja et al. (2021) found that extroverts maintain an increased success ratio compared to introverts due to their expressive communication skills.
Taylor (2020)’s study, which examined both introversion and extraversion, found that society exhibits bias towards introversion, linking this trait with negative attributes. The same study argues that the world embodies an extroverted culture due to its busy and noisy environment, making it an extrovert’s factory. Forouzande et al. (2010) note that people learn to adopt extroverted traits since society anticipates and even promotes extroversion as ideal and necessary for success. For instance, society considers being outgoing as normal and calling someone a people-person is regarded as a compliment (Forouzande et al., 2010). The bias for extroverts suggests that they are considered good-looking, more intelligent, and interesting (Taylor, 2020). However, all these traits remain subjective since introverts can also possess the same traits.
In the workplace, Hudson and Ferguson (2016) found that extroverts naturally draw followers, causing those around them to become sociable. Moreover, collaboration prevails, and society perceives extroverts as natural-born leaders; for instance, they exhibit contagious energy, charm others easily, and persuade others about their ideas (Hudson & Ferguson, 2016). Eskandarpour & Mohammadzadeh (2016) found that extroverted employees prefer to interact while working and enjoy collaborative brainstorming and contributing to team environments. However, this can become counterproductive as extroverts may roam around seeking interactions rather than working (Eskandarpour & Mohammadzadeh, 2016). Extroverted traits such as charm, enthusiasm, and outgoingness are expected from leaders (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012). According to Forouzande et al. (2010), extroverts thrive in busy environments and tend to make quick decisions.
Moreover, they engage in strong networking that can benefit business. They also enjoy making new acquaintances and can form shallow relationships with many people (Forouzande et al., 2010). Zopiatis & Constanti (2012) found that extroverted leaders achieve greater success when they lead passive employees and feel threatened by proactive ones.
3. Methodology
The study occurred in Saudi Arabia, targeting the general population across the various provinces. Due to this, both employed and non-employed individuals participated. However, one limitation is that this study did not focus on the type of employment (employee or leadership position), and the sectors did not receive consideration, which should have been the case since it was mentioned earlier that introverts also occupy what is deemed extrovert professions such as journalism, marketing, and public relations. This opens an avenue for further studies of how different personality types (introverts and extroverts) perform in different sectors viewed as introverted or extroverted. The research would relate to the current study but focus on the ability of different personality traits to thrive in sectors not viewed as good for them.
3.1. Type of Research and Reasoning
The study employs quantitative methods to measure the participants’ self-reports of their personality traits, behavior, and practices. Moreover, a hypothesis was framed that needed testing. For these reasons, the study employed descriptive and inferential statistics to summarize data and establish patterns of the general population (descriptive), make data predictions, and measure the reliability of the conclusion about the population (inferential), respectively.
3.2. Participants
In total, the study successfully engaged 169 respondents, while the initial target was 200 respondents. The pie charts and bar graphs below display the percentage of different demographic groups regarding gender, age, employment status, age group, and personality type. The provinces from which the participants were drawn are also shown in Figures 1-5.
Figure 1. Percentage of each gender participant.
Figure 2. Percentage of personality types.
Figure 3. Percentage of employment status.
Figure 4. Graph of the age groups.
Figure 5. Graph of the provinces where the data was collected.
Table 1. Detailed summary of the variables.
Variable |
Attribute |
Total |
Gender |
Female |
105 |
|
Male |
64 |
|
N |
169 |
Personality Types |
Introversion |
44 |
|
Extroversion |
125 |
|
N |
169 |
Employment Status |
Employed |
110 |
|
Non-Employed |
59 |
|
N |
169 |
Age Group |
20 years and below |
10 |
|
21 - 30 years |
40 |
|
31 - 40 years |
51 |
|
41 - 50 years |
35 |
|
51 - 60 years |
26 |
|
60 years and more |
7 |
|
N |
169 |
Province |
Makkah Province |
37 |
|
Al-Qassim Province |
15 |
|
Medina Province |
13 |
|
Riyadh Province |
18 |
|
Eastern Province |
23 |
|
Asir Province |
19 |
|
Northern Borders Region |
8 |
|
Tabuk Province |
13 |
|
Ḥa’il Province |
7 |
|
Al-Jawf Province |
5 |
|
Jazan Province |
3 |
|
Al-Bahah Province |
6 |
|
Najran Province |
2 |
|
N |
169 |
Based on the pie charts and bar graphs above, the largest population in terms of gender consists of females. The extroverted participants represent an extremely high percentage compared to the introverted participants, likely influencing the results considerably. The employed individuals make up a higher percentage while the middle-aged group of 21 - 50 years has a higher population (they also represent the highest employed population). At the same time, discrepancies appeared in the ratio of the variables, where some were extremely higher than others, and the most important aspects were met, for example, the employed population being higher than the non-employed. This limitation of the sampling method occurred because the study targeted a specific group such as the employed. Such action would have garnered the anticipated results. Table 1 presents detailed information on all the variables of the population that participated.
3.3. Data Collection
Data collection involved a structured questionnaire titled “Introvert and Extrovert Personality Scale”, shown in the appendix. This questionnaire measures an individual’s personality as required for this study. Also, some items contained statements about performance, as noted in Table 2. Thus, it was possible to measure personality types and gauge how these personality types perform in the workplace. Prospective respondents were sought through social media. The aim of the study was communicated to them beforehand. Data was collected between 1st June 2024 and 7th July 2024.
Table 2. Personality type (introverts and extroverts) by gender.
|
Degree of Freedom |
t-Value |
p-Value |
Males vs. Females N = 169 |
167 |
−3.473 |
0.00065 |
3.4. Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using statistical software for both descriptive and inferential analyses. Table 3 displays the results of the descriptive analyses. For the inferential analysis, a t-test was used for the independent variable to determine the differences between two variables of different demographics: introverts vs. extroverts, females vs. males, and young vs. old. In the latter’s case, the different age groups were grouped into two—those 40 years and below and those 41 years and above.
Table 3. Descriptive summary of survey items.
Code |
Statements |
Mean |
Mode |
Median |
Standard deviation |
Variance |
Q1 |
I do my best work on my own. |
4.65 |
5 |
5 |
0.72 |
0.51 |
Q2 |
I don’t enjoy multi-tasking. |
3.86 |
4 |
4 |
0.53 |
0.28 |
Q3 |
I enjoy solitude. |
3.04 |
3 |
3 |
0.73 |
0.53 |
Q4 |
People tell me that I’m a good listener. |
2.66 |
2 |
2 |
1.06 |
1.12 |
Q5 |
I’m not a big risk-taker. |
2.60 |
3 |
3 |
1.25 |
1.55 |
Q6 |
I prefer not to show or discuss my work with others until it is finished. |
3.14 |
2 |
3 |
0.98 |
0.96 |
Q7 |
I dislike conflict. |
3.63 |
3 |
4 |
0.80 |
0.64 |
Q8 |
I can concentrate easily. |
3.56 |
4 |
4 |
0.87 |
0.75 |
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Analysis
The descriptive analyses concluded about the distribution of the data. As can be seen, there is a small variance for questions addressing questions of multi-tasking, solitude, conflict, and concentration (Q2, Q3, Q6, Q7, and Q8) meaning that participants neither agree nor disagree. Most participants prefer to work alone based on Q1. It is worth noting that Q1 and Q3 differ as the former focuses on individual work, while the latter focuses on a state of solitude (See Table 3).
Most of the participants prefer to work on their own based on Q1, highlighting that introversion and extroversion do not factor into work preference. However, one would expect that extroverted people prefer to work with others or in teams (extroverts comprise 98% of the participants). The response to Q5 is also notable, given that most respondents are unsure whether they are big risk-takers. Salameh et al. (2022) found that extroverted people exhibit high levels of risk-taking. Similarly, Costa et al. (1984) found that people who exhibit extroversion characteristics are positively associated with risk-taking in the business world. Item Q4, which measures the listening skill of the participants, had a mean score of 2.66, denoting disagreement with the statement. This is expected given the high number of extrovert participants. Taylor (2020) notes that introverts listen better than extroverts.
4.2. Inferential Statistics
T-test was used to correct the bias and strengthen the results by comparing the mean of two groups. The groups were balanced out using similar number of participants, for instance, 64 males and 64 females since the number of females is 105. To determine whether introversion or extroversion varies by gender, personality type was assessed. This study did not make an assumption, but different studies have reported different findings, some suggesting that females are more extroverted (Costa et al., 1984; Tychmanowicz et al., 2019). It is noteworthy that culture can influence personalities, and this study conducted in Saudi Arabia can provide insight into this aspect. Second, the research aims to establish whether personality is intrinsic and not influenced by the environment—using a T-test for two independent means with a two-tailed hypothesis. The Cronbach alpha was set at 0.05.
Based on the result above, the difference between the two means is statistically significant at p < 0.05. This suggests that the two population means are unequal. The study concludes that females are more extroverted than males. The main limitation is the unequal variance and the reduction in the degrees of freedom, which is a disadvantage for an independent t-test. The personality population shows that extroverted respondents are more compared to introverted respondents, so one can conclude that. For example, for males, introverts were 26 and extroverts were 38; for females, introverts were 18, while extroverts were 87.
Second, the study determined the number of introverted and extroverted participants by age group. The aim was to measure whether introversion or extroversion changes as one ages or whether it is intrinsic (See Table 4).
Table 4. Personality type by age groups.
|
Degree of Freedom |
t-Value |
p-Value |
Young (40 years and below) vs. Old (41 years and above) N = 169 |
167 |
0.105 |
0.9163 |
The difference between the two means does not show statistical significance at p < 0.05. This suggests that the variance between the two groups on the outcome variable is homogeneous. As such, age does not affect personality type.
The third plan involved measuring communication differences and performance among the participants in terms of personality type (introversion and extroversion) through the five items in Table 5. They completed a self-report/assessment of their performance based on their personality type.
Table 5. Selected statements of the item to be measured in inferential analysis.
Measure |
Item |
Statement |
Communication Difference |
Q3 |
I enjoy solitude. |
|
Q4 |
People tell me that I’m a good listener. |
|
Q7 |
I dislike conflict. |
Performance |
Q1 |
I do my best work on my own. |
|
Q6 |
I prefer not to show or discuss my work with others until it is finished. |
Communication difference
Q3: I enjoy solitude (See Table 6).
Table 6. Results of communication differences.
|
Degree of Freedom |
t-Value |
p-Value |
Personality Types Introversion vs. Extroversion N = 169 |
167 |
4.080 |
0.00007 |
The difference between the two means is statistically significant at p < 0.05, suggesting the two means are not equal. This indicates a difference between how introverts and extroverts enjoy solitude.
Q4: People tell me that I’m a good listener (See Table 7).
Table 7. Results of “people tell me I am a good listener”.
|
Degree of Freedom |
t-Value |
p-Value |
Personality Types Introversion vs. Extroversion N = 169 |
167 |
5.969 |
0.00001 |
The difference between the two means is statistically significant at p < 0.05, suggesting the two means are not equal. This means there is a difference between how introverted and extroverted individuals listen (active listening).
Q7: I dislike conflict (See Table 8).
Table 8. Results of “I dislike conflict”.
|
Degree of Freedom |
t-Value |
p-Value |
Personality Types Introversion vs. Extroversion N = 169 |
167 |
3.729 |
0.00026 |
The difference between the two means is statistically significant at p < 0.05, suggesting the two means are not equal. This means that introverted and extroverted individuals dislike conflict differently.
Performance
Q1: I do my best work on my own (See Table 9).
Table 9. Results of “I do my best work on my own”.
|
Degree of Freedom |
t-Value |
p-Value |
Personality Types Introversion vs. Extroversion N = 169 |
167 |
−1.382 |
0.169 |
The difference between the two means is not statistically significant at p < .05. This suggests that introverted and extroverted individuals do their best work independently.
Q6: I prefer not to show or discuss my work with others until it is finished (See Table 10).
Table 10. Results of “I prefer not to show or discuss my work”.
|
Degree of Freedom |
t-Value |
p-Value |
Personality Types Introversion vs. Extroversion N = 169 |
167 |
3.507 |
0.00058 |
The difference between the two means is statistically significant at p < 0.05, suggesting that the two means are not equal. This means that introverted and extroverted individuals prefer to show or discuss their work with others until it is finished in different ways.
In terms of a communication difference, the results for Q3, Q4, and Q7 showed statistically different outcomes at p < 0.05. Thus, there is a difference in introvert and extrovert communication in the workplace that affects the performance of either personality.
Regarding performance, the study found the result for Q6 significant at p < .05, also in favor of a difference in introvert and extrovert communication in the workplace.
5. Discussion
Based on the results, the hypothesis stating that there is no communication difference between introverts and extroverts is rejected. The alternative hypothesis that workplace communication differs between the two personality types, affecting their performances, is accepted. But even as the alternative hypothesis is accepted, one of the results shows a discrepancy of expectation (Q1) for instance, extroverts prefer to work alone as opposed to others. Scholars have hypothesized that these two personality traits exist at opposite ends of the same continuum (Herbert et al., 2023; Petric, 2022). Some have also argued that, while individuals can fall on either spectrum, they can also showcase some tendencies of the opposite personality (Raja, Akhtar, & Hussein, 2021; Taylor, 2020). This can explain why extroverts prefer to work alone as opposed to teams. This specific finding affects the hypothesis and overall conclusion to show that personalities can vary in situations such as social environments where people interact with others and work environments where people focus on tasks. It also supports the idea that personalities fall on a continuum and are not explicit or fixed opposites.
The first two analyses evaluated gender and age groups to determine if they influence personality type. This study found that the two means were unequal in gender and that females exhibited more introversion than males (Costa et al., 1984; Tychmanowicz et al., 2019). As mentioned earlier, some studies found females talk more to express their feelings. This study supported what such studies had already established. However, it is important to note that women comprised the highest gender in this study, which could have influenced the results. Second, the study sought to determine whether people can change their personality type (introversion and extroversion) as they age, or whether this was an intrinsic state that could not change. The study found the means between the two personality types not to be statistically different, suggesting that age group does not affect personality type. The personality stability theory developed by Costa and McCrae supports this and suggesting a person’s personality is stable after the age of 30 (as cited by (Ardelt, 2000)). More explicitly, the concept argues that an individual’s personality at age 30 predicts his or her personality at age 80 (as cited by (Ardelt, 2000)). This shows that people’s personalities are stable over their life span. Their studies follow their subjects over a relatively short time and studies with retest intervals of 20 years or more find less personality stability (Ardelt, 2000). Some studies argue personalities can change over time depending on the stability of the social environment (Ardelt, 2000). This shows a correlation between personality change and stability and change in the social environment. Thus, researchers can conduct further studies of age and personality to determine if age affects personality depending on the stability of the social environment since the latter is not considered in the study.
The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality framework contends that the construct of personality includes basic tendencies that are either biologically based or characteristically adapted drawing from dynamic interactions between basic tendencies and experience (Anaya & Pérez-Edgar, 2019). The five basic tendencies of personality include neuroticism, extraversion/introversion, agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness (Anaya & Pérez-Edgar, 2019). Thus, a person can be extroverted biologically but be conscientious, with a tendency to control impulses with social order such as following rules and norms (an adaptation to the external environment). Therefore, an extroverted person can prefer to work alone because of being used to such situations and not because that is his personality.
The third part of the analysis investigated personality types on five questionnaire items categorized as communication differences and performance. Except for Q1, which dealt with performance, “I do my best work on my own”, all the other items of work difference and the performance had a statistically significant means to reject the hypothesis. This shows that for workplace communication differences and performance, introverted and extroverted individuals differ. The findings show that both introverts and extroverts prefer to work alone, but normally, introverted individuals work best independently compared to extroverted individuals (Forouzande et al., 2010; Hudson & Ferguson, 2016; Osborn, 2015). This finding gives credence to introverts who are overlooked most of the time, as noted in the literature review. Blevins et al. (2021) found that Sigmund Freud may be responsible for a positive connotation of extraversion and a negative connotation of introversion when he depicted that extraversion represents a sign of maturity and introversion a sign of arrested development and neurosis. Therefore, the conceptual foundation throughout the years among psychologists such as Eysenck and his contemporaries in the 1970s who explicated gregariousness and the need for stimulation when studying extraversion could have caused introversion to be increasingly associated with negative dimensions such as withdrawal and social awkwardness (Blevins et al., 2021). This progression continued while there was no earlier preference for introversion and extraversion.
The study findings support the idea that workplace communication differences affect performance between introverted and extroverted individuals based on their behavior at work. One item in the questionnaire analyzed-Q4, “People tell me I’m a good listener”, divulges how workplace communication differences and performance can be the case. The literature review noted that introverted people are good listeners, and in this study, the descriptive analyses of Q4 had a mean of 2.66 to show that extroverted people are not good listeners but talkers (the study had a high population of extroverted respondents). Studies by Dannar (2016) and Taylor (2020) found introverted people are good listeners who encourage and support others to bring out their best. Also, introverted people seldom take credit for their accomplishments and refuse to micromanage, allowing others to shine in their work (Taylor, 2020). This behavior can be good for an organization since people like to be noticed and acknowledged, which is likely to happen in settings with introverted individuals. One study in the literature review showed that extroverted leaders are more successful when they lead passive employees and feel threatened by proactive ones (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012).
Further study should be done to establish whether introverted people can work best on their own since the presumption is that they work best in active and vibrant environments. Also, such a study would have to distinguish between what an active and vibrant environment means; for instance, do people talk more, are they working as a team, or are teams allowed to work as individuals? Therefore, specifying the environment can provide specific findings for the research questions.
6. Conclusion and Limitation
In summary, workplace communication differences that affect performance exist between introverted and extroverted people. This is not a weakness but a strength to combine the advantages of introverted and extroverted individuals working for the organization. One thing to note is that personality type cannot change because it is intrinsic. Introverts are creative (Herbert et al., 2023) and extroverts are persuasive and have networking skills (Forouzande et al., 2010). These positive traits should be utilized for the benefit of the organization. However, the organization would have to plan policies that make this possible by understanding how introverts and extroverts behave. Also, organizations should consider both introverts and extroverts to ensure workplace diversity. As noted earlier, bias towards certain personality types—mostly introversion—exists in the workplace (Herbert et al., 2023). This is because we live in an extroverted world that expects everyone to possess extroverted traits. However, the study has shown that introverted people can work in professions considered extroverted, such as journalism, public relations, and marketing, and still thrive because they bring in creativity. Therefore, organizations can balance out the work setting to accommodate both introverts and extroverts to enable them to realize their potential.
This study, like many others, had its limitations. The researchers did not balance the respondents for critical demographic variables, such as gender, gender, employment status, and personality types. This imbalance influenced the results subjectively especially in the area of personality traits since 98% of the participants were extroverted. A balanced outcome of each variable could have yielded different results. Another limitation is that the study did not consider some factors that would influence people’s personality and ultimately their responses. For instance, the study found that people’s personalities are not affected by age. Normally, this would be taken as precise and even be supported by a theory such as personality stability theory. However, the study did not consider a stable social environment that influences people’s personalities in the long term and how this can change with drastic changes. This opens doors for further research on age and personality to determine if age affects personality depending on the stability of a social environment. Also, the study had a limitation in the type of analyses, t-test for independent means with unequal variances. Since the study used this analysis, it experienced sensitivity to sample size that reduced the degrees of freedom. Lastly, few studies exist on the same or related topic in Arab countries, as many are from Western countries. Thus, it was difficult to compare with others in the region.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks all the participants for their valuable contributions to this study.