NARCISSISM IN PRACTICE – PART II

Power & Portrayal

introduction

In Part I we looked at what we know about how narcissism is currently defined and understood, where it might come from and how it might play out in relationships, and reflected on the extent to which a narcissist might be, or be experienced as ‘mad, bad or dangerous’.

In this article we pursue the ‘bad’ and ‘dangerous’ potential of narcissism in our society. We look at some of the effects of narcissists need for self-promotion, both in terms of how this plays out in modern media and in leadership situations, both of which have huge potential to affect our lives. 

The PLatform

Just as a tantrum needs an audience, a narcissist needs a stage

The increase in social-media use and the sheer range and variety of unregulated social media platforms has given rise to huge opportunities for the spread of misinformation. Add narcissism into the mix and you get a potentially toxic brew of deliberate misinformation, sometimes colloquially known as ‘fake news’. Narcissism, especially grandiose narcissism, involves creating or taking any opportunity for self-enhancement and self-promotion, and it generally also involves self-enhancement at the expense of others – that is, demonstrations of superiority (and, remember, narcissism is a zero-sum game). For example, a narcissist online may want to be seen as the most beautiful, having the most fun, being the cleverest, meeting the most important people and so on. In this way, they’present themself as ‘the best' and this in turn makes you, the viewer, feel inferior. They will pursue this aim, even if that means grossly exaggerating, telling half-truths or even outright lies. In the era of doctored images, sophisticated counter-‘fake-news’ campaigns, general political disengagement and short-term ‘viewer’ memory, it’s a playground for the narcissist and their entourage.

An online narcissist believes that it is only their opinion or perception of an event which counts. Indeed, such is the epidemic of narcissism combined with social-media use that it perpetuates the idea that only opinion, not fact, matters.

A further twist on the relationship between narcissism and social media is one that Donald Trump turned into a fundamental of modern life: the accusation that anything that is perceived to be a negative opinion relating to the narcissist him- or herself is ‘fake news’. The tone was set for this at the beginning of Trump’s presidency when he accused the media of misreporting the numbers attending his inauguration – Trump claimed they were far greater. His Twitter account appeared to exist only to perpetuate accusations of fake news against anyone he felt is being less than adulatory about him. This is when narcissism can turn from something unpleasant and distasteful to something dangerous – when it is combined with power and a platform.  Its not new, but it is propaganda nevertheless.  Self-serving yes.  Not quite as orchestrated and organized as might be seen in China, North Korea or Russia, but propaganda nevertheless. Regulated.  No.

The Leader

Ideas of leadership – the great disrupters

We think of narcissists as being driven by a strong desire to assume power, to ascend and secure positions of influence; of being skilled at self-presentation and appearing high in self-belief. To many, in a wide range of settings and at first glance, this looks and feels like leadership. But are narcissistic leaders effective? We know that they are often disruptive, but in what contexts might otherwise dangerous narcissists achieve positive results? If we consider different leadership roles and settings, can we identify a pattern as to when and where narcissistic leadership becomes more problematic, or indeed where it is helpful? Where narcissism is more dangerous and problematic, what is the cost? What can be done to safeguard against some of these risks?

One of the challenges in addressing this topic is that neither leadership nor effectiveness is a concept that carries any ubiquitous definition. The myriad influences on the ideas any one person may hold about what constitutes effective leadership intersect with industry-specific practices and expectations, organisational maturity, strategic ambitions and so on, coupled with broader macro-market dynamics (such as ownership structure, socio-economic trends, political shifts and so on). Imagining the relationships between these variables, it is not hard to imagine contexts where narcissistic leadership has its merits and value. Equally, it’s easy to imagine a number of places where such leadership is likely to be disruptive and ineffective. Consequently, attempting to land on any singular answer to the question of the effectiveness of narcissistic leadership is perhaps asking the unanswerable.  The question might more usefully be asked what organisational impact does narcissistic leadership have, where might noteworthy risks lie and what can be done to mitigate these.

Disruption and chaos – the Narcissist’s trade craft

The punchline here is clear, as is the evidence. Whatever the explanation for the development of narcissism, the need to promote, enhance and advance oneself drives the Narcissist’s behavior and activity in order to establish power, significance and status.  The narcissist’s preoccupation with addressing these needs is so compelling and absorbing that there is little space for others or other goals. While it may appear that the narcissist is being co-operative or working towards some common goal, at some level this will more than likely simply be a reflection of the fact that these other goals happen to be momentarily aligned with their own. For as long as there is alignment, the narcissistic leader will pull in the right direction. However, the minute the goals become out of alignment, their own goals will trump any and all others. This tends to mean that narcissistic behaviours exist in short-term cycles that are often turbulent, dynamic and disruptive. Where there is alignment with the organisation’s goals then there is hope that the Narcissistic leader will have a beneficial impact.  It is something of a truism to point out that aligned interests make for better outcomes.  It is the reverse however where it becomes problematic in the case of a Narcissistic leader.  Their game is a zero-sum game, a win-lose strategy.  Their game is disruptive, antagonistic, relationally unsafe and chaotic and so the organisation is at risk of becoming one more casualty.

We see this short-term cycle in corporate activity, as catalysed by CEOs. Much of the research in the area of C-suite leadership effectiveness and narcissism rests on somewhat tenuous criteria – for example, use of the pronoun (I versus we) in corporate communications, salary differentials and so on. However, these challenges aside, the research points clearly to certain recognisably narcissistic patterns of behaviour reflective of a drive for visibility, affirmation and so on. We see narcissistic CEOs taking more aggressive and riskier merger and acquisitions strategies; they make more acquisitions, offering higher prices in the belief that they will be better able than their predecessor to drive post-acquisition value benefits. Equally, there is evidence to suggest that they regard their own organisations to be under-valued and so they are more reluctant to go to their equity markets and raise capital, and therefore can find themselves over-reliant on cash. There is something in the narcissist’s belief that they are special, that they have super-human skills and that they are not constrained by normal rules that appear to set them free to take greater risks. This manifests in ways ranging from the micro (such as, industrial safety cultures being downplayed, leading to higher rates of industrial accidents) to the macro (such as ‘creative’ accounting practices (one’s mind might go to the case of Enron!), using mergers and acquisitions to adjust market performance expectations and so on). The risk here is, of course, that challenge, dissension, reality and so on are not welcome, and are in fact seen as acts of disloyalty. The result is that ordinary rational, objective checks and balances are not in place. Economically this appears to result in more extreme and volatile organisational performance. There is a high level of strategic dynamism; marketplaces change, service/product/pricing models are disrupted. Organisational performance follows an equally turbulent pattern – great swings up and down, highs and lows. The narcissistic CEO is adept at navigating this chaos, and ultimately profiting from the highs.

Interestingly, though, when we track the overall performance of a narcissist-led organisation over five or more years, and compare it with the smoother performance of a steadier business (ones not in the grip of a Narcissistic leader), any performance differential disappears. Evened out over any mid-term timeframe, the narcissist and the non-narcissist lead broadly equivalent business performance. The question here might be whether anyone is actually seeking market dynamism and disruption. Whether the risk of the downside is offset by the prospect of the upside, whether the risk of not dramatically resetting market expectations of performance with a quasi-credible business transformation or mergers and acquisitions story is too great – or indeed whether these pursuits are simply the indulgences of a narcissistic leader. Strategy needs to trump personal preferences.

The vulnerable narcissist is likely to be more indecisive and risk averse, and perhaps less likely to find themselves in leadership positions as a result.  It is the grandiose narcissist who presents the greatest risk to business. Given that risk, it is puzzling that so much of the CEO selection process happens behind closed doors. Narcissists are so adept at managing the impression they make, a series of poorly structured, informal interviews are a very weak way to choose a leader. No doubt much will be made of track record – one almost certainly littered with claimed but hard-to-attribute successes and with a great many transformational initiatives that the candidate has set in motion, but that have yet fully to reveal their value. Quite quickly it becomes about the coherence of the CEO candidate’s story. We would argue for the need for far closer scrutiny of what an organisation needs in its next CEO and a far more penetrating analysis of the leadership profile, risk markers and, if any, narcissistic tendencies of that person.

The gender distribution of narcissistic leaders links to this. The estimations are beset with procedural challenges, but our best estimate is that in the general population, narcissism affects men and women equally.  However, narcissism is disproportionately a male phenomenon in CEO populations. Even accounting for the gross underrepresentation of women in CEO roles, narcissism appears to be overwhelmingly a condition of male leaders.  It is suggested that en route to senior leadership there are oft-occurring gender differences in behaviours that we encourage and nurture. In short, female leaders are ‘expected’ and encouraged to be collaborative and conciliatory, while male leaders are encouraged and/or tolerated for being borderline narcissistic – aggressive, ambitious, self-orientated. Female leaders are often criticised and stalled in their careers for showing these very same behaviours.

Whether by dint of character, preference or expectation, we see that female senior leaders work more collaboratively and with less ego. When women are in charge, planning is generally a much more collegiate and collaborative process. Generally a company will adopt less risky proposals under the leadership of a woman, although it is unknown whether this is a product of a less egotistical attitude or as a result of greater consultation and input. Female leaders operate with restricted degrees of freedom and this serves to limit excessive risk-taking, but also puts limits on the extent to which the female leader will secure support for her innovative strategies. The evidence suggests that female CEOs drive their organisations towards stability, have greater ethical inclination, are more compliant and are far more deeply committed to fairness and transparency in business practices. Even narcissistic female CEOs appear to put their organisations at less risk. Is this perhaps what leads to the trend for female CEOs to most commonly become appointed to organisations in crisis?

Blissful denial of reality

Our final observation on leadership, narcissism and organisational effectiveness relates to entrepreneurialism. Clearly boldness, risk-taking, disruption, vision and so on are important facets of entrepreneurialism. But just as entrepreneurialism needs sound ideas, it also needs execution, and, critically, a test-and-learn mindset. Research suggests that both, in particular the latter, expose narcissistic entrepreneurs to an increased likelihood of failure. Their fundamental aversion to reality, to feedback and learning, and to reflection, and their inclination to attribute failure to personally convenient sources, leaves them unable to learn from past failures and therefore unlikely candidates for entrepreneurial success.  Whilst bold, driven and self-confident they lack learning agility and therefore are greatly at risk of failing to learn critical lessons and/or failing to be grounded in reality.

Clearly narcissism doesn’t materialise overnight; it exists in certain personalities and then context allows it to take root and flourish. You get the behaviours you reward. What are chosen as the markers of future potential could well have the unintended consequence of nurturing future narcissistic leaders.  Organisations must critically examine the criteria that they are using to select future leaders and give some thought to any potential unintended consequences of those criteria’.  The largest puppy in the litter (that is, the one who has often been most aggressive in getting first to the food bowl) doesn’t necessarily make the best pet – looks can be deceiving.

tendencies and with this, avoid the risk of becoming overly influenced by the Narcissist’s skilful impression management and story-telling

- Female leaders need to be properly supported to develop the skills and experiences to equip them to lead bold, disruptive market strategies and to do so assertively, confidently, bravely, without fear of being judged or curtailed by their male-counterparts.  There is only organisational benefit from building a diverse pipeline of future leaders equipped to tackle all manner of market dynamics

- ‘Show me the reward and I’ll predict the behaviour’ as the adage goes.  There is too much evidence suggesting that many facets of Narcissistic behaviour are reinforced and encouraged throughout a leader’s career journey.  More care could be put to supporting those who might not obviously appear leaderlike at first glance, but who equally possess the intellectual and interpersonal potential to lead.  Helping these folk navigate the narcissists in their midst might be one such skill area to be supported.  Equally, rooting out ‘infant’ narcissists and supporting their development back towards more productive modes of leadership.