History is full of examples of powerful, socially shy leaders. U.S. Presidents James Madison, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon come to mind. The beloved American investor Warren Buffett is shy yet highly effective in business and public life.
Continue Reading Below
In our work with leaders, we have found many effective sales executives may spend
their professional time meeting new people, but they consider it "work."
The Shyness Continuum
Forty percent of the U.S. population defines itself as "shy." In reality, "shy" is a behavioral continuum.
Try this exercise:
Using a scale of 0 ("not shy") to 10 ("antisocial"), assign a number to how shy you think you are. After assigning yourself a number, approach three people who know you well. Ask them to assign a number to you using the same scale.
If the number you gave yourself is higher than the number assigned to you by people who know you, perhaps you are using a pattern of thought called "generalization logic."
Stanford University Professor Emeritus Philip Zimbardo conducted pioneering research on how shy people think, and he found that many inappropriately use generalization logic while not using enough "situation-specific logic." (1)
For example, in one experiment, causal attributions of shy students were compared with causal attributions of control students in ten different situations. Significant differences between the two groups emerged when they were asked to explain the outcomes of situations. (2) As it turns out, the higher one is on the shyness continuum, the more likely one is to explain things in terms of generalization logic.
An Example of Generalization Logic
Two-year-old Jennifer goes with her mother to visit one of her mother's friends. Jennifer is hugging mother's skirts and avoiding eye contact with the friend. Mother says to her friend, "I'm sorry, but Jennifer is shy."
The mother's explanation is an example of generalization logic. It extrapolates behavior from one situation and then predicts similar behavior in nearly all situations.
On the higher end of the shyness scale – say people who rank at 5+ – people's cognitive frameworks bias them to draw conclusions based on generalization logic. Sometimes, the generalization logic is useful. Sometimes, it is not.
We see it all the time in our practice when candidates make statements like, "I'm bad at networking" or "I can't do cold calling."
Let's revisit the situation with Jennifer and her mother. Suppose her mother now says the following: "I'm sorry, but Jennifer tends to be shy when first meeting strangers. I'm sure she will act differently once she gets to know you."
Notice that this logic focuses on situational context. It avoids generalization. It explicitly states that a change in conditions would change Jennifer's behavior.
The first explanation – the one based on generalization logic – offers no hope of change, but the second explanation focuses specifically on change.
Effective leaders should be able to use both situational logic and generalization logic. But as you move up in the shyness continuum, your pattern of logic might be unbalanced in favor of generalization logic, and you may be unaware that your logic is unbalanced. This lack of awareness may bias your decisions in ways that harm your career and your organization.
Overuse of Generalization Logic Can Be Dangerous
A recruiter calls a chief financial officer (CFO) about an opportunity that would require relocation from Boston to Tulsa, Oklahoma. One CFO who is lower on the shyness continuum might employ situational logic in the following manner:
"The job interview itself is worth my time, if only for interview practice. I am not interested in moving to Tulsa. But who knows? Perhaps the firm will have an opportunity that is too good to pass up. I've never been to Tulsa. I should not judge it until I see it. I will never know unless I give it a try. After all, it is only a job interview. My family might enjoy a change of scenery, or they might not. Let's cross that bridge if and when we need to cross it."
A CFO who is 5+ on the shyness scale might have the following logic pattern:
"What happens if I get an offer? My spouse would never move to Tulsa. My children will be angry at me. I will alienate my children, and my spouse will divorce me. I will end up living alone in a cheap motel in Tulsa. I will have all my meals at the local Burger King! Is that any way to live??!! I will not go to Tulsa for a job interview."
Using Generalization Logic in Evaluating Subordinates
This same type of generalization logic can also reduce your effectiveness in evaluating people who report to you.
For example, someone complains that an associate on your team was rude to a customer. The 5+ shy boss might have a cognitive bias about leaping to the conclusion that this subordinate is "not a team player." The 5+ shy boss might discount the subordinate's explanations about the unusual context of the situation as "rationalizations."
Someone with a logical framework based more in situational logic might be inclined not to take action until a pattern of rudeness emerges.
Generalization Logic Can Be of Value in Moderation
Generalized logic is a great skill to have because it assumes that lessons from one event are easily transferred to other events. Attorneys use generalization logic when looking to apply case law. Physicians use generalization logic in applying findings from one patient to a new patient.
As with any pattern of thought, however, effective leaders must be deliberate about how often they employ generalization logic. They must see the limitations of generalization logic.
If you are on the 5+ side of the shyness continuum, generalization logic might be such a routine way of looking at the world that you may inappropriately discount situational explanations. And that discounting could limit future growth opportunities for you.
Join the Conversation: Does Being Shy Make It Hard to Advance in Your Career?
This article was adapted from Navigating the Waterfall: Your Job Search and Career Management Guide, produced by Stybel, Peabody Associates, an Arbora Global Company.
1. Zimbardo, P. G. (1986). "The Stanford Shyness Project." Shyness (pp. 17-25). Springer US
2. Teglasi, H., Hoffman, M. A. (1982). "Causal Attributions of Shy Subjects." Journal of Research in Personality, 16(3), 376-385.
3. Goldsmith, M. (2008). What Got You Here Won't Get You There: How Successful People Become Even More Successful. Profile Books.