My personal experience backs up this thesis. I've observed that (for better and for worse), the culture of an organization is profoundly shaped by the dominant personality in the leadership team.
I have also in the past found myself being led by a deeply unethical individual, resulting (along with everyone else in the organization) in the difficult situation where we have had to collectively somehow drag the organization back out from under the lies (and perhaps fraud) committed by that single unethical leader.
This is a serious issue, and not something that we should take lightly. Not only have I experienced serious health repercussions from this episode in my life, but I have also seen other victims within the organization suffer emotional and psychological problems over the following years.
Creating a functioning, productive and healthy organization is such a critical activity - for all of us. It is something which by now we should know how to approach systematically and reliably, and yet I don't yet see (or perhaps am simply not aware) of a state-of-the art approach to this, or even a useful set of metrics by which we can judge success.
Their exploitative, self-absorbed behavior sets them apart from the charismatic, “transformational” leaders they are often confused with.
OK.
So, was Steve Jobs a transformational leader or a narcissistic leader?
We all hate narcissists when we have to deal with them, and perhaps we hate our own narcissism. But look at the incentives: CEOs are often terrible people because, to become CEO, you have to battle your way to the top in an increasingly machiavellian up-or-out pyramid and make awful decisions in the interest of the business (I've had to fire someone, it is horrible.) So we shouldn't be surprised to find many sociopaths there.
The offered solutions don't address incentives, and rely on the board, which is filled with the same type of people who are in the C-Suite. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We are all aware that sociopaths are bad. Tell us something we don't know, Berkeley.
There are CEOs that are narcissistic, and there are CEOs that have NPD. The first will be awful to work with, and the latter will destroy your life if you hang around long enough. This is from first hand experience.
I placed myself in-between a NPD CEO and the rest of the company I was at in an effort to fix the company culture which was toxic when I started. It took a year but it worked. I put in a lot of effort to make it a nice place to work at. I left after 2 years, and within 6 months the entire management staff had quit or was fired after I left.
People with NPD don't know they are monsters. They take credit and place blame without exception. They view everyone as beneath them and treat everyone as disposable. This guy said out loud that he doesn't like win-win deals - it must be win-lose. Taking something away from another person made him feel better about himself.
It is hard to overstate how bad working for someone who meets the diagnostic criteria for NPD or BPD can be. There is a big, scary gap between someone being a bit egotistical, and someone who has NPD. Even being in a non-hierarchical relationship with someone with NPD can be capital B bad.
Personality disorders leave a huge wake of destruction when untreated and unrecognized. Also they are problematic and lead to a lot of hurt even when someone is recognizing the problem and working on it. Something that gets lost frequently in the dialog is the value, a seemingly critical value, that these people contribute to society even if it's at a great cost. A lot of times, especially in our current world climate as conversations about this topic grow, we otherize people who suffer from these conditions. IMO, that is dangerous. It creates a stigma and decreases the likelihood for a person with these conditions to allow themselves to see it for what it is and let it fester into constant malignant destruction of themselves and anyone near them. I personally steer clear of people with NPD/BPD. I was raised by someone with NPD and as such I can be kind of a magnet and ill equipped to set boundaries. My point is, people should educate themselves on the conditions and set boundaries and do their best not to enable, but those that can should encourage sufferers to acknowledge and integrate their disorder to reduce harm and utilize their unique minds in a way that takes other lives into account. Dialectical Behavioral Therapy does wonders. I realize it's almost being a human sacrifice to help someone with NPD or BPD transition thought patterns. I don't wish it on anyone... but someone's gotta do the work, this part of humanity isn't going to go away.
People with NPD almost never undergo any therapy for it. They literally don't see anything wrong with themselves. Quite the opposite actually, they are forever the victim of everyone else. OTOH the number of victims of narcissistic abuse seeking therapy is endless.
I agree with you... I'm just saying that people should educate themselves on the symptoms and RUN if they can't manage their boundaries. If they do have someone in their life and can lure them to therapeutic thought, that is a huge net good. What worries me about the current discourse is otherizing them like rounding them up will solve the problem. Do not work for them, do not date them, but do understand that they are humans and to otherize them is an open door for an amorphous scarlet letter that is very difficult to take back when wrongly applied.
I don't have a solution. I don't think in our society, we, have a solution. To some degree the NPD person is the exemplar ubermensch of what our society is selling us. Look at the gleeful schadenfreude and two documentaries about that Fyre festival guy. He WILL run for office at some point in the future and people will eat it up. They are a race condition of that operating within the exact terms that are fed to us all day telling us to succeed at all costs in ways that keep us all fucked.
I suspect the reason to vilify the vampire is to avoid looking at what made them and the knowledge that they'll always be a predator even when they know what not to eat. There are no good options, but I know the best option isn't making personality disordered people into untouchables. For one, they'd love that. They thrive on that and can dedicate more energy to gaming that than most people can imagine. Maybe that's how we got to now. I dunno, but I'm just advocating for some sympathy for the devil even if you stay far far away from it.
No no no, you ID'd a very important issue but dont go far enough.
You are not only right (as a CEO who def has some narcissism), but charisma \ narcissism is like crazy \ eccentric. The term changes historically post success. It becomes revisionism.
Going from 0 to 1 requires a ton of luck, but really the it's the belief that outsiders are wrong about the statistical odds from going from 0 to 1 and sticking with it till it works or you break. It takes an unreasonable personality to get there and then that unreasonable personality has to adapt to a more measured one to protect the turf. Its ironic but the sword that gets most startups early success kills it eventually.
Innovation in general is hard to do without outlier personalties in this realm.
I dont have a great solution, but I can confidently say that unreasonable people both change the world and torture loved ones.
What's narcissism really? Is it NPD or another cluster of personality disorders, or is it a much more pervasive set of examples of poor character and undeveloped virtue?
From the article: "Narcissistic leaders have personalities that are profoundly grandiose, overconfident, and dishonest, credit-stealing, and blame-throwing, according to Chatman. They are abusive to their subordinates, think they are superior, don’t listen to experts, create conflict, and believe the rules simply don’t apply to them. They can explode in rage at any sign of disagreement or disloyalty. There’s always an “I” in their conception of the team."
It reads more like a complaint and not an observation. I think the basic mistake these and other people make when they interpret the myth of Narcissus is thinking that he is in love with "himself," instead of the more incisive insight that he is preoccupied with his reflection, that is, how he imagines himself to be perceived by others. That is the crippling pathology, which manifests in bizarre behavior that is over-indexed on shaping the perfectness of that reflection. Whenever I see "narcissism," mentioned anywhere these days, it's always the same kind of complaint made by someone who identifies as feeling inferior to an imagined charismatic, glad handling, type-A personality.
Narcissism really is a pervasive problem, but mainly because it's not what most people think it is, and the roots of it are not something most people are prepared to face.
If interested, the piece has a link that goes in depth on what narcissism is. Specifically, this is in the fourth paragraph, which links to the words ‘dark side’, with a 23 page article.
This also reads like a complaint. I don’t see anything in that definition that distinguishes it from other dark triad personalities.
But I have been looking into this a lot, and I think the way to understand it is as an intense insecurity. Maybe about something that was their key to receiving acceptance and affection as children. These are people in pain; they don’t see yours. It is the most benign of the dark triad in that the others begin deliberate manipulation and harm.
Regarding this topic, I found the following paper on TNT (three nightmare traits) interesting and bringing some clarity to the issues/confusions you are mentioning:
i feel this question needs to be asked a lot more. we talk about and discuss these personality traits without any sort of clear idea of what were talking about.
Narcissism... pride... sin... it's all the same. Modern psychology has preferred to repackage and relabel the "sin" [1] that was identified thousands of years ago. But while they were busy editing out the big "G" and everything He had to say about fixing it, they ironically edited out the only Answer that can truly lead a man away from his obsession over his own reflection. Then again, imagine what would that do to the market for self-help books.
[1] Galatians 5:19-21 - "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
I don't know about that. The Old Testament has things like if kids make fun of a bald headed man, he can, out of narcissism, get god to send bears to murder them for the insult to his appearance.
> 2 Kings 2:23-24 -
23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.
Eh, I'm failing to see the narcissism. 42+ young men intentionally leave their homes to gang up and harass an old guy. Old guy calls on his Heavenly Referee to handle justice as He sees fit.
The obvious corollary to this is that if a clear narcissist is hired near the top of your organization, it’s time to polish your resume and head towards the door if you can. Chances are you’ll want to leave sooner or later if all the things described in this article happen, and it’s better to spend more of your time in a more pleasant organization not led by a narcissist.
If you’re a high skill laborer, jobs are replaceable, but your time and emotional well being are not. All of the “we’re a family all in this together, rah rah” stuff is absolute nonsense designed to convince you to ignore your own self interest for the sake of the company’s self interest. You should look out for your well being ahead of the company’s, because they will not look out for yours.
Also, you’ll never convince the board that the executive is bad. Not only do they have an immense incentive to justify their own choice, chances are that the narcissist is going to be much better at manipulating the board than you will be at persuading the board. By the time you can persuade the board that an executive is toxic, chances are the damage to the company is already done, and you’ve had to spend years of your life dealing with the fallout.
> Still, wily narcissists can sometimes evade detection until they’ve been in place for a while. Using 360-degree evaluations from a wide range of employees can help surface self-absorbed leaders, Chatman notes.
I honestly doubt this. The whole credit-stealing blame-shifting will inevitably put the blame on those with less power and status and set them up for retaliation. In all the years I've been working, I've honestly never solved a problem writing a peer review, ever. Many times, those don't even end up on a review or are shown to the person being reviewed, unless the person's manager wants it to be.
I'd also like to reference the 'fish rots from the head down' - while the meaning is true, I find this to be such a strange saying. I heard a better one that I've started to use from now on. "The house leaks from the roof on down"
What side is down on a fish anyway? And do they actually rot that way? Seems suspect to me. Perhaps an experiment is in order.
> What side is down on a fish anyway? And do they actually rot that way? Seems suspect to me. Perhaps an experiment is in order.
From experience, chopping off the head can keep the rest fresh a bit longer (gutting the fish helps more, as the fish is really rotting from the inside out).
As for the direction, in a couple of other languages I'm familiar with the saying is more literally "the fish rots from the head" (Russian) or "the fish stinks from the head" (Hebrew), with directionality implied rather than explicit.
Sort of like "burning the candle from both ends" versus "burning the candle from both ends inward", I guess.
“Shit rolls downhill” implies that sympathetic underlings are dealing with the higher-ups mess, while “fish rots from the head” implies that underlings are bad people because the leaders are bad people.
> profoundly grandiose, overconfident, and dishonest, credit-stealing, and blame-throwing, according to Chatman. They are abusive to their subordinates, think they are superior, don’t listen to experts, create conflict, and believe the rules simply don’t apply to them
How do you objectively study such a thing? How do you tell when credit is stolen or blame underserved as an outside researcher? How do you determine who is abusive, but for those that do it out in the open (such that Bill Gates is a counterexample); how can you talk about what people believe?
Initially, I learned by experiencing working with such leaders first-hand. After some time, I noticed repeating patterns in their behavior and I started to ask if there is any scientific explanation behind these patterns.
After much search for answers, I stumbled upon the timely publication of "The Laws of Human Nature" by Robert Green in 2018. It opened my eyes to the toxic narcissism around us.
I started to read articles, quora discussions, books, selected research papers on the topic. Working with those leaders and coworkers in my day job helped me to digest the content and reinforce my understanding of how they think and act. At first it was difficult not to be emotionally affected in the "Devaluation" phase (Lookup "narcissistic abuse cycle" on Google Images) but as time passes, I approached the problem as rationally as I can, I learned not to take it personally aka Grey Rock Method.
To help you folks to quickly get started, assuming you can only read one book, I highly recommend "Don't You Know Who I Am?: How to Stay Sane in an Era of Narcissism, Entitlement, and Incivility" by Dr. Ramani Durvasula. It was published in the late 2019 and in my opinion, the best book by a licensed clinical psychologist.
The "The Laws of Human Nature" book is more of a heavy-read as it covers not just toxic narcissism.
For those who prefer more practical book and especially if you do not have the means to leave toxic relationships and workplaces, I recommend "How to Handle a Narcissist: Understanding and Dealing with a Range of Narcissistic Personalities" book by Theresa Jackson.
To add to the article, the overconfidence mentioned is actually just a fake display of what the narcissistic leaders want the world to perceive them. Behind the fake display is pathological insecurity or low self-esteem. The fake display is a form of defense mechanism. Those leaders are addicted to having "audiences" for their reality show or drama in which they are the center of everything.
You measure the credit of what people claim against who does what work. It’s not the same but a very similar phenomenon is measuring for examples of Dunning-Kruger.
But how do you know "what people claim against who does what work" unless in the most shameless examples: anyone trying to steal credit may be in a better position to do so without counter evidence.
> When they see leaders take credit for every success and blame others for every failure, employees’ morale sinks and their self-confidence wilts.
I've seen this first-hand. It was very sad to see someone spend so much energy yet reap so much damage. They don't do it out of malice, they simply don't notice it and are resistant to criticism which they perceive as personal attacks.
Developers stalled in their skills, communication between departments ceased and people started leaving. Within a few month the entire development team was gone.
"Narcissists infect the culture through the policies and practices that they directly influence, or—more often—that they fail to institute. They often choose not to put in place strong policies governing ethical behavior, conflicts of interest, and pay equity between men and women, as well as practices that promote teamwork and encourage people to treat others with civility and respect. On the flip side, they also frequently fail to sanction employees when they violate these shared norms. In effect, people get rewarded for less ethical, less collaborative behaviors, Chatman says."
That is true for some narcissists. Now there is a new breed of narcissists that use all of the above to strengthen their positions in companies without doing real work. And they are more ruthless than their predecessors, who often at least had a sense of humor.
I have also in the past found myself being led by a deeply unethical individual, resulting (along with everyone else in the organization) in the difficult situation where we have had to collectively somehow drag the organization back out from under the lies (and perhaps fraud) committed by that single unethical leader.
This is a serious issue, and not something that we should take lightly. Not only have I experienced serious health repercussions from this episode in my life, but I have also seen other victims within the organization suffer emotional and psychological problems over the following years.
Creating a functioning, productive and healthy organization is such a critical activity - for all of us. It is something which by now we should know how to approach systematically and reliably, and yet I don't yet see (or perhaps am simply not aware) of a state-of-the art approach to this, or even a useful set of metrics by which we can judge success.