Post No.: 0716
Furrywisepuppy says:
A mythology persists that says that bold, visionary leaders need to be narcissistic to have the self-confidence to launch innovative and incredibly risky ventures – but you can be confident and creative without the egotism and without exploiting, harassing or bullying others. Besides, we shouldn’t be overconfident and insensitive to risk.
But I guess narcissistic leaders are masters at stealing all the credit, or at least grabbing all the limelight, for themselves and at disseminating their own self-promoting propaganda – and that’s why much of the lay public believe in that myth! Post No.: 0713 explained the ‘lone hero myth’.
Narcissistic, Machiavellian politicians lead to a more polarised and divided nation and a decline in trust in the community. It’s a similar case in business. Narcissistic leaders can infect their organisational culture by embedding policies and practices that reward employees for enacting self-centred and unethical behaviours. Overconfidence leads to taking overly risky gambles too, especially if it’s with other people’s money! Leaders who have personalities that encourage cooperation, meanwhile, logically foster more cooperation. The leaders who you’ll want to give your all for genuinely care about you (like legendary Liverpool FC manager big dog Jürgen Klopp). Nice people don’t come last because ‘nice’ shouldn’t be confused with ‘weak’ or ‘craven’. And ‘humble’ shouldn’t be confused with ‘clueless’.
Power is bestowed to individuals by groups. Your capacity to influence others depends on their trust in you. And those who give the most to others are actually more likely to rise to the top – as long as their contributions are recognised. However, (the feeling of) power corrupts. People who slowly rise to the top through merit did so through empathy, generosity, showing respect and being good team players – but once in a position of high power, many tend to gradually shift to become more self-focused, impulsive, less humble, less empathic and less grateful (especially towards those much lower in the hierarchy), less compassionate (such as towards those who express suffering in their lives) and will greedily exploit resources for their own individual benefit. Unethical or illegal behaviours like strategic lies, coercion, corruption or engaging in sexually inappropriate behaviours rise. We’ve seen these kinds of behaviours from members in governments, monarchies, religious institutions, corporations and other organisations, including cults.
This again erroneously gives society the impression that it’s narcissistic, ruthless and/or psychopathic personalities that make great leaders – because they’re often the type of people we see at the top. But if such people were really so great as leaders then why do so many employees detest their narcissistic bosses and would throw them under the bus if given the chance, figuratively speaking (or perhaps even literally!) Society has confused correlation with causation here.
Those who got to the top without merit can be heaps worse! In experiments, people who are randomly (i.e. arbitrarily) assigned a position of power are more likely to take the extra cookie from a plate of cookies all for themselves. According to one study, those driving expensive cars are more likely to fail to stop at pedestrian crossings even though it’s the law.
The power we feel can change from moment to moment depending on the context (e.g. when we’re as a teacher at work compared to when we’re with the spouse at home) so it’s malleable. This means we can dampen our narcissistic arrogance and power trips. We need to be mindful of our own attitudes in case they venture into feelings of omnipotence and self-absorption. (A mild and manageable form of ‘impostor syndrome’ might therefore actually help to keep us grounded?) We need to watch out for moments of everyday incivility like interrupting others when they’re speaking and not really paying attention to them, because these are subtle signs of the abuse of power. When employees feel disrespected, they lose concentration and motivation. These behaviours will likely become culturally reciprocated within the organisation too. Revenge will be taken in front of and behind people’s backs.
Ruling primarily with fear can be one’s downfall because your staff might be afraid to tell you what you may not wish to hear when you need to know those things to prevent a catastrophe or to avoid enacting an unworkable plan. (A free press is also required to tell government leaders things they might not wish to hear.)
One’s rudeness mightn’t be out of malice but ignorance, so learn about your biases. Remain generous, humble and be open to feedback. You can be humble and simultaneously ambitious, competitive and able to make tough or big decisions – humility is the optimal space between hubris and a lack of self-esteem.
Share, collaborate and show respect to all. Appreciate the strengths and contributions of others. Be frank about your own strengths and weaknesses. We know this is possible because not all leaders are narcissistic, or abuse their power or are despised behind their backs. Some will use their power via benevolent behaviours to advance the greater good and empower others, and these leaders will stay in power for longer and also won’t later disgrace themselves somehow.
So it’s naïve businesspeople who think that leaders need to be emotionless, distant and cold when people skills are key because you are leading people. (Business, work or making money is just a minor subset of life as a whole too so don’t be a 24/7 corporate droid. Change your tone when you’re at home or with friends.)
Leaders who free us, inspire us and make us happy bring out the best in us compared to those who fill us with dread or irritation. We know this as employees so we ought to know it and remember it as employers. Don’t treat employees as disposable – don’t forget the humanity when the emphasis is on efficiency, costs and productivity. Cutting costs by cutting staff numbers and asking fewer people to do more work will eventually drive the top talent away – prioritise employee development instead. Focus on the entire team more than only particular individuals. Focus on the teamwork rather than the status of only some individuals. Set it up so that, and emphasise that, we win and lose together.
Hierarchies aren’t inherently problematic here – it’s the narcissistic power trips. (Holacracies, which have been heralded as an alternative to hierarchies, have not been that successful. Besides, shouldn’t the customers arguably be at the top?) The keys are promoting people based on their expertise rather than their perceived dominance, loudness, attractiveness, seniority or cronyism. It’s albeit important to understand that being good at a particular task is necessary but not alone sufficient to automatically qualify one to become promoted to the position of leading others who do that task – because leadership is a separate, though trainable, set of interpersonal skills in itself.
Give employees areas of ownership – their own domains they’re responsible for. Hierarchies that form triangles, where the lower levels get progressively larger, mean that what employees lack in vertical power, they can make up for in collective horizontal power. (It’s like the balance of a sustainable food chain.) People can offer social support to each other, and they’ll focus less on status, when others are at the same level as them. And reduce the distance between the top and bottom of the hierarchy, both objectively and according to people’s perceptions. (Peculiarly, adding a second-in-command who liaises between the top leader and everyone else to the bottom helps to flatten the perception of a large hierarchy.) Reduce visible symbols of power like rooms that only the top brass can enter. Have accessible leaders who’ll listen to those who have the most fluffy expertise in their domains. Good leaders listen to all; although that doesn’t mean incorporating everybody’s viewpoint – a leader must ultimately make decisions that best serve the team.
Hiring for ‘cultural fit’ is in some ways essential. But it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to exclude hiring for diversity (e.g. overlooking those who come from a different background or dress differently to those already in the firm). In fact, consider hiring for diversity, then try to align the organisation’s values to the core values of your employees and customers if possible; and check this alignment periodically. The behaviours of those higher up in hierarchies, whether rightly or wrongly, are contagiously copied by those below – so leaders should model these core values and lead by a good example. These values must be reflected in the quotidian activities of the organisation rather than merely during grand annual events.
The markets and electorate are full of diverse people in terms of their upbringings, ethnicities, cultures, religious orientations, sexual orientations, (dis)abilities, ages and expertises, etc. – so if you reflect that diversity in your organisation or institution then you’ll logically be better positioned to understand and serve what the people want! Diverse views are an asset for innovation too. When you’re stuck trying to solve a problem, the answer might be blatantly obvious to someone who has a different set of life experiences to you. So embrace everybody’s unique contributions.
So diversity is beneficial for organisations since it decreases insular thinking and increases creativity. But something to watch out for is that we’re slightly less accurate at empathising with people from other cultures we’re personally less familiar with. Too often, we’re susceptible to stereotyping outgroup members. Part of the answer is to get more familiar with people from different cultural backgrounds than ours.
Yet personal experience isn’t always enough because, for instance, the same anatomical facial expression from a man can be judged as more aggressive than from a woman, even though women are quite familiar with men and men are quite familiar with women. We all therefore also need more education about our implicit biases and to consciously and intentionally try to combat them. Deliberate and consistent systemic steps to address prejudice and counter discrimination are also crucial, like perhaps positive action or affirmative action.
Diverse groups may not harmonise as well – but emphasising the group’s shared fate, and mostly rewarding entire teams rather than only individual members, can solve this.
In creative industries, intrinsic motivation, or doing something for the love of it or its own sake, cultivates the best creativity – and this can be supported through supplying workers with the freedom and whatever else they’ll need to test their ideas, by highlighting a sense of meaning and making progress in their work, and by encouraging them to see failures as learning opportunities. Extrinsic motivators, like expected evaluations of their output or being constantly watched, generally kill creativity; although unexpected external rewards can boost creativity the next time creativity is called for. Understand that some people thrive under competition while many others don’t.
Encourage healthy risk taking. We should always care about making mistakes (otherwise where’s our morality?) but we should tolerate competent mistakes – those that result from trying worthwhile experimental ideas and not from flawed execution. As long as the method is ethical and cost-effective – allow workers to reach a particular result however they like. Ideas could be reviewed anonymously so that they’re evaluated on their merits alone rather than on the reputations of their originators. ‘Fail fast’ so that the organisation can learn from those failures faster, when the costs are lower because the idea hasn’t been scaled up yet. Avoid the ‘not invented here syndrome’ by being open to outside ideas too.
Some of the questions we hear from others that we assume are dumb or roll our eyes to will turn out to be not so stupid at all but insightful – if only we had the insight ourselves to realise they were. So practise curiosity and intellectual humility. And unless a question has an objective answer and you categorically know what that correct answer is – don’t categorically dismiss someone else’s answer.
Woof. What do you think about whether visionary leaders need to be narcissistic and egomaniacal? Please tell us by replying to the tweet linked to the Twitter comment button just below.
Comment on this post by replying to this tweet:
