Characteristics of Effective and Narcissistic Leadership Summary Read the uploaded file and write a summary of 3 pages of the traits that characterized effective and narcissistic leadership The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617 – 633
www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
Narcissistic leadership
Seth A. Rosenthal ⁎, Todd L. Pittinsky
Center for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 J.F.K. Street,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02155, United States
Abstract
Narcissism—a personality trait encompassing grandiosity, arrogance, self-absorption, entitlement, fragile self-esteem, and
hostility—is an attribute of many powerful leaders. Narcissistic leaders have grandiose belief systems and leadership styles, and are
generally motivated by their needs for power and admiration rather than empathetic concern for the constituents and institutions
they lead. However, narcissists also possess the charisma and grand vision that are vital to effective leadership. We review and
critically assess the theoretical and research literature on narcissistic leaders in order to understand the potential positive and
negative consequences of their leadership, the trajectories of their leadership, and the relationship of narcissism to established
models of leadership. We conclude that the study of narcissistic leaders is inherently limited in scope, and propose a new definition
of narcissistic leadership in order to reframe the discussion and better incorporate the topic of narcissism into the field of leadership
studies.
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Narcissism; Narcissistic leaders; Narcissistic leadership; Literature review
“It is probably not an exaggeration to state that if individuals with significant narcissistic characteristics were
stripped from the ranks of public figures, the ranks would be perilously thinned.” Jerrold M. Post (1993, p. 99).
“The big danger is one of hubris. There’s a tendency…to think you’re invulnerable. You’re not just king of the
mountain, you’ve mastered the mountain. That can often lead to mistakes of excessive pride.” David R. Gergen
(Bumiller, 2004).
“I’m an egomaniacal leader of men.” Jon Bon Jovi (Morrison, 2006).
1. Introduction
It is clear that a significant number of world leaders have grandiose belief systems and leadership styles. Often, the
“psychohistories” of these leaders connect both the leaders’ assent to power and their ultimate (and seemingly
inevitable) downfall to their narcissistic grandiosity. Although not every author employs the term “narcissistic” to
describe the leader in question, they consistently depict individuals whose aspirations, judgments, and decisions, both
good and bad, are driven by unyielding arrogance and self-absorption. The pantheon of purportedly narcissistic leaders
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 617 496 6309; fax: +1 617 496 3337.
E-mail address: seth_rosenthal@ksg.harvard.edu (S.A. Rosenthal).
1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005
618
S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633
ranges from the great tyrants of recent history, including Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Saddam Hussein (Glad, 2002), to
lesser-known malevolent leaders such as the founder of the American Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell (Miliora,
1995) and cult leader Jim Jones (Zee, 1980); great historical figures such as Alexander Hamilton (Chernow, 2004); a
diverse group of business leaders, including Steve Jobs (Robins & Paulhus, 2001), Michael Eisner (Sankowsky, 1995),
David Geffen (Kramer, 2003), and Kenneth Lay (Kramer, 2003); and an eclectic and sometimes surprising list of current
political leaders such as Benjamin Netanyahu (Kimhi, 2001), John McCain (Renshon, 2001), George W. Bush
(Krugman, 2005; Suskind, 2004), and both Jimmy Carter and his mother Lillian (Glad & Whitmore, 1991).
Even though many of these leaders share a history of ignominious downfalls, the jury is still out on the ultimate
success or failure of a number of them. Instead, what truly ties them together is that their leadership is driven by their
own personal egotistical needs for power and admiration (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1997), rather than by an empathetic
concern for the constituents they lead (Conger, 1997). Accordingly, a key motivation leading narcissists to seek
leadership positions in the first place is the desire to garner the power they need to “structure an external world” that
supports their grandiose needs and visions (Glad, 2002, p. 25). Taking these egocentric motivations into account can
help us make sense of particular leaders’ seemingly incomprehensible decisions and actions. On the other hand, failing
to understand that some leaders are not psychologically equipped to make rational strategic decisions can be risky, and,
when those leaders are adversaries, even perilous (White, 1991, 1994).
To date, the scholarly discussion on narcissism and leaders has largely centered on narcissism as a personality trait,
and argued the overall advantage or disadvantage it confers to leaders and their constituents. We believe that
understanding the role of narcissism in leadership, and assessing the ramifications of narcissistic leaders, requires a
more nuanced approach. Toward that end, in this article we outline the debate about the negative and positive aspects of
narcissistic leaders, review research that moves beyond that simple debate, and suggest a way to reframe the discussion
about narcissistic leaders that moves beyond the constraints of a trait approach to leadership.
2. Background
2.1. Narcissism: history and current status
To understand the application of narcissism to the study of leadership, it is useful to review its origins and
development as a psychological construct. Derived from the Greek myth of Narcissus, a young man fated to fall in love
exclusively with the perfection of his own reflection, the term “narcissism” was first coined by Havelock Ellis (1898)
to describe a clinical condition of “perverse” self-love (i.e., auto-eroticism). Freud (1931/1950) later suggested that
there is a specific narcissistic personality type characterized by outwardly unflappable strength, confidence, and
sometimes arrogance. Horney (1939) elaborated on this idea by suggesting that the personality traits exhibited by
narcissists—self-inflation, self-admiration, and the expectation of admiration from others—are based on qualities that
the narcissist does not actually possess.
Subsequently, Otto Kernberg and Heinz Kohut advanced the theory that narcissism constitutes a personality disorder.
Kernberg (1967, 1989) described individuals who presented an unusual degree of self-reference in their interactions, a
seeming contradiction between an inflated self-concept and inordinate need for tribute from others, shallow emotional
lives, envy, vacillating extremes of idealization and devaluation of others, exploitativeness, a charming and engaging
presence that conceals an underlying coldness and ruthlessness, and a lack of empathy. Narcissists’ haughty and
grandiose behaviors were interpreted to be defenses against “oral rage,” a pathological process in psychosexual
development and an expression of vengeful feelings toward either coldly indifferent or aggressively rejecting parents.
In contrast, Kohut (1966) suggested that narcissism is not necessarily pathological, but has an independent
developmental sequence that stretches from infancy to adulthood. In its healthy form, mature narcissism produces
behaviors such as humor and creativity. However, pathological narcissism occurs when one is unable to integrate the
idealized beliefs one has about oneself with the realities of one’s inadequacies. Pathological narcissists spend the
balance of their lives seeking recognition from idealized parental substitutes as an emotional salve against their own
shortcomings.
According to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), to qualify for a diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality
Disorder, an individual must exhibit a “pervasive pattern of grandiosity,” in fantasy or behavior, along with a “need for
admiration and lack of empathy” (APA, 2000, p. 717). These attributes must be present in a variety of contexts and
must include at least five of the criteria summarized in Table 1.
S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633
619
Table 1
Summary of diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder (APA, 2000)
Criterion
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Grandiose sense of self-importance
Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success or power
Belief in “special” or unique status (including fixation on associating with high-status people or institutions)
Requirement for excessive admiration
Unreasonable sense and expectations of entitlement
Interpersonal exploitativeness
Lack of empathy
Envy
Arrogant behaviors or attitudes
There are two notable omissions from this formulation of narcissism that are germane to the discussion of narcissism
and leadership. First, hostility and fragility of self-esteem, which can present significant problems in a leadership
context, are mentioned in passing, but are not included among the diagnostic criteria. Second, and especially pertinent,
Freud’s and Kohut’s idea that narcissism is a healthy and essential process in normal development is abandoned in
favor of the idea that narcissism reflects purely pathological processes, foreshadowing the debate about whether
narcissism is a net positive or negative leader attribute.
2.2. Narcissists and leadership: the debate
To date, the literature on narcissism and leadership has been largely devoted to answering one overarching question:
Is it good or bad for a leader to be a narcissist? The permutations of this question are varied, ranging from whether
certain narcissistic traits are positive leadership characteristics while others are negative, to whether narcissism is
necessary to provide the drive and vision needed to attain a leadership position, to whether all narcissistic leaders are
ultimately doomed to fail. But what ties the preponderance of the theory and research together (including research by
the current authors; Pittinsky & Rosenthal, in preparation) is that they focus on the effects of leaders’ narcissistic traits—if
a leader or leaders have “x” amount of trait “y” (in this case, narcissism), this results in outcome “z.” Because most
scholars in this area adopt a trait approach for their analyses, the discussion predictably leads to a debate of the relative
merits of narcissism in leaders.
2.3. The downside of narcissistic leaders
As might be expected from a term laden with negative connotations (i.e., “narcissism”), there is a significant focus in
the literature on the downside of narcissistic leaders. As discussed earlier, the visions, plans, and actions of narcissistic
leaders are synonymous with their own psychological needs (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1997). For instance, because of
their need for recognition, narcissists are more likely than others to self-promote and self-nominate (Hogan, Raskin, &
Fazzini, 1990) and to employ their skills in “deception, manipulation, and intimidation” (Glad, 2002, p. 1) in order to
secure leadership positions, even those for which they are underqualified (Hogan et al., 1990).
Although the quest for personal glory can sometimes motivate a narcissistic leader in the direction of positive bold
and transformative innovation (Maccoby, 2000, 2004), even at their best, narcissistic leaders are bound to leave
damaged systems and relationships in their wake. Narcissists are notoriously poor, overinvolved, and abusive managers
(Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). Narcissistic leaders resist advisers’ suggestions, take more credit for successes than
they are due, and blame others for their own failures and shortcomings (Hogan et al., 1990). They are also highly prone
to “lapses in professional judgment [and] personal conduct” (Kramer, 2003, p. 58). However, because of their drive and
grandiosity, narcissists make their poor judgments and decisions with greater certainty and confidence, and thus with
greater influence, than do less narcissistic leaders (Hogan et al., 1990).
To fully understand and appreciate the negative consequences of narcissism in leaders, it is useful to consider the
psychological components that underlie narcissists’ behavior. An exploratory list of the (highly interrelated) psychological
underpinnings of narcissistic leaders might include arrogance, feelings of inferiority, an insatiable need for recognition and
superiority, hypersensitivity and anger, lack of empathy, amorality, irrationality and inflexiblity, and paranoia.
620
S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633
2.3.1. Arrogance
The archetypal narcissistic trait, and the one that is often the most evident to others, is arrogance (APA, 2000).
Although arrogance is sometimes touted as a necessary driving force behind the grand vision and insatiable drive of
great leaders (e.g., Maccoby, 2000, 2004), more often, it is seen as an impediment to successful leadership. Narcissistic
arrogance is clearly associated with difficulties in interpersonal relationships (Paulhus, 1998; Ronningstam, 2005),
which in itself can be detrimental to successful leadership (Spector, 2003). Narcissistic arrogance has also been blamed
as the root cause of a lack of reality testing (Kets de Vries, 1990), which in turn can lead to failures based on
complacency, inflexibility, and shortsightedness—ignoring important input such as wise counsel, environmental
changes (such as changes in markets), and threats from competitors (Ma & Karri, 2005). Arrogant complacency has
been blamed for such major business crises as the loss of marketshare by the major U.S. automakers to Japanese
companies, K-Mart’s loss of marketshare to Wal-Mart, and the three major U.S. television networks’ loss of
marketshare to Fox and the cable networks (Ma & Karri, 2005).
2.3.2. Feelings of inferiority
Although narcissists appear arrogant “on the outside,” theory and research suggest that their grandiose ideas and
behaviors may actually be a defense against deep-seated negative feelings about the self (Jordan, Spencer, Zanna,
Hoshino-Browne, & Correll, 2003; Kernberg, 1989; Kohut, 1966; Rosenthal, 2005; Zeigler-Hill, 2006). This idea has
been applied to narcissistic leaders, whose attitudes and actions are often attributed to their feelings of emptiness and
inferiority (Glad, 2002; Harwood, 2003). These negative feelings are so pervasive that even the defensive pattern of
taking excessive credit for successes and blaming others for failures can only temporarily moderate them, but can never
alleviate them entirely (Campbell, Foster, & Brunell, 2004; Glad, 2002; Stucke, 2003). Narcissistic leaders constantly
self-aggrandize in an attempt to “defend maniacally against a feeling of emptiness or narcissistic hurt” (Harwood, 2003,
p. 124).
However, even when idealized by flattering sycophants and imbued with unquestionable authority (Harwood, 2003;
Sheng, 2001), narcissists still do not have the ability to sustain positive feelings about themselves (Morf, Weir, &
Davidov, 2000). Because of this, the slightest mishap or misstep by a follower can provoke dangerously exaggerated
reactions. For instance, Sheng (2001) recounts how Mao Zedong, in his negotiations with the Soviet Union’s Nikita
Khrushchev, insisted that his proposals be accepted without question, and considered any counterproposals by the
Soviets to be deep personal affronts. Sheng concludes that Mao’s personal narcissism, driven by feelings of inferiority,
was one of the major forces that drove the dangerous wedge between China and the Soviet Union by the early 1960s.
2.3.3. Insatiable need for recognition and superiority
For narcissists, the primary mode of coping with omnipresent feelings of inferiority is an unrelenting quest to gain
recognition and prove their superiority (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001a). As noted earlier, even absolute power cannot
match narcissists’ grandiose expectations (Horowitz & Arthur, 1988). However, rather than give up the pursuit,
narcissists engage in a chronic, all-encompassing quest for recognition and superiority (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001a,b).
Narcissists in positions of power have an especially diverse assortment of means by which they can prove their
potency—they craft their goals, beliefs, and rhetoric around their impact and recognition rather than their meaning
(Post, 1993), they demand unquestioning devotion and loyalty from followers (Harwood, 2003), they “embark on
grandiose projects and indulge in conspicuous consumption” (Horowitz & Arthur, 1988, p. 141), and at their worst,
leaders, such as Saddam Hussein, turn to sadism and destructiveness (Glad, 2002; Post & Baram, 2003).
2.3.4. Hypersensitivity and anger
Because narcissists often draw on feelings of superiority to overcome a sense of inferiority, in situations where this
grandiosity itself is threatened, they are likely to react with extreme hypersensitivity and anger (Horowitz & Arthur,
1988; Kernberg, 1989). The threat of self-righteous, out-of-control rage is, of course, particularly ominous in a world
leader. Narcissistic leaders may be “intensely, vengefully hostile as an exaggerated response to an insult” and feel
completely justified committing horrific atrocities in response (Horowitz and Arthur, p. 136). Steinberg (1991a)
suggests that “placing foreign policy leaders in positions of humiliation may stimulate their desire for revenge, invite
retaliatory [and aggressive] behavior, and, particularly in times of crisis, run the risk of all-out war” ( p. 643). As an
example, she notes that the Cuban Missile Crisis escalated at least in part out of the individual narcissistic
hypersensitivity of both John F. Kennedy and Fidel Castro (Steinberg, 1991a,b).
S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633
621
2.3.5. Lack of empathy
As mentioned earlier, lack of empathy—the inability to understand others’ perspectives—is a hallmark of
narcissism (APA, 2000) and can be inimical to good leadership (White, 1991, 1994). Empathy is considered a key
aspect of “emotional intelligence” (Goleman, 1998)—a leadership quality as important as other, “harder” traits such as
intelligence and toughness. Research suggests that empathy is not only one of a myriad of emotional abilities crucial to
leadership, but is actually a precursor to other emotional leadership abilities (Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2006).
Research also indicates that empathy predicts perceived leadership independently of cognitive abilities such as
intelligence and the ability to perform complex tasks (Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2002). Further, some research even
suggests that empathy is not only a precursor to other emotional abilities, but also to cognitive leadership abilities such
as perspective taking and pattern recognition (i.e., accurate situational analyses), which in turn undergird positive
leadership outcomes (Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002).
Both theory and research indicate that empathy is a crucial trait for leaders. But what happens when leaders do
not possess this attribute? Because narcissistic leaders lack empathy, they are more likely than others to make
decisions guided by an idiosyncratic, self-centered view of the world and to ignore advice that conflicts with this
view. For instance, recent critiques of the Iraq War have been especially noteworthy in their assertion that the Bush
administration seems unwilling to view the world as it is, rather than as they wish it to be. Or, as former CIA
analyst Michael Scheuer (writing under the pseudonym Anonymous, 2004) puts it, the Bush administration saw
Iraq through “lenses tinted by hubris, not reality” (p. xvii). He portrays U.S. leadership as a narcissistic entity
lacking in empathy, stating that “because of the perva…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
