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: [email protected] (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 pervasive imperial hubris that dominates the minds of our political, academic, social, media, and military elites, America is unable … to believe the Islamic world fails to understand the benign intent of U.S. foreign policy and its implementation” (p. 166). Even conservative columnist and Iraq War supporter David Brooks (2004) describes a narcissistic lack of empathy (although he calls it idealism rather than narcissism) when he says that “there was, above all, a failure to understand the effect our power would have on other people around the world. We were so sure we were using our might for noble purposes, we assumed that sooner or later, everybody else would see that as well….We expected to be universally admired when it was all over” (p. A23). 2.3.6. Amorality As noted above, when enraged, narcissistic leaders may not hesitate to commit appallingly violent and gruesome acts (Horowitz & Arthur, 1988). And such behavior is not only aimed at the narcissistic leaders' enemies. Glad (2002) suggests that narcissistic leaders can turn on their supporters in much the same way—narcissistic leaders demand the impossible of their supporters, and when they (inevitably) do not get everything they ask for, they conclude that their supporters have forfeited their right to exist. Such behavior may be used strategically by the leader to take and hold power (e.g., Saddam Hussein's notorious purging of Baath Party members in 1979). However, less rational use of such behaviors may be a route to a leader's ultimate downfall. This happens because, [as the leader] moves toward absolute power, he is also apt to cross moral and geographical boundaries in ways that place him in a vulnerable position. Thus, he may engage in cruelties that serve no political purpose, challenge the conventional morality in ways that undermine his base, engage in faulty reality testing, and overreach himself in foreign engagements in ways that invite new challenges to his rule (Glad, 2002, pp. 1–2). 2.3.7. Irrationality and inflexibility Like all of the personality disorders in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (APA, 2000), narcissism can be seen as an enduringly inflexible pattern of thinking and behavior. Glad (2002) contrasts narcissism with Machiavellianism (i.e., expedient leadership characterized by deceit and cunning) and realpolitik (i.e., political leadership based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations). Machiavellian leaders, and those who practice realpolitik, are rational actors capable of flexibility in their thinking and behavior—they use cruelty to consolidate power, and then moderate their behavior, “avoiding carelessness born of overconfidence and unbearable harshness born of excessive distrust” (Glad, 2002, p. 12). This contrasts with narcissists, whose “fantasies, grounded as they are on transient wishes and fears, provide poor guides to [rational] action[s]” such as maintaining power (Glad, 2002, p. 28). “The vision in essence becomes so much a part of the leader's personality that he or she is unwilling or unable to consider information to the contrary” (Conger, 1997, p. 219). Hitler, for instance, made poor military

622

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

decisions in part because he was “loathe to use even the information available to him, he relied instead on his inspirations, which were shaped by his deep contempt for and underestimation of other people” (Glad, 2002, p. 30). Research confirms that, although statistically related, narcissism and Machiavellianism are distinct traits (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). 2.3.8. Paranoia Finally, another trait shared by narcissistic leaders is their paranoia (Glad, 2002; Sheng, 2001). A narcissistic leader is “apt to create enemies where there had been none” (Glad, 2002, p. 30). Although it is rational, of course, for a leader surrounded by acquiescent sycophants to be wary of their true intentions, narcissistic leaders go beyond rationality, often distrusting, rejecting, and even destroying their most loyal supporters. For instance, Saddam Hussein purportedly believed that he knew which of his supporters were conspiring against him before the supporters even knew it themselves (Glad, 2002). 2.4. The upside of narcissistic leaders Given the many infamous examples of narcissism in leaders, one might wonder how any strong case could be made for an upside. However, the prevalence of narcissistic leaders in all sectors of society and throughout the world suggests that there must be some positive aspects of narcissistic leaders as well. Notably, as several scholars have observed, the air of supreme confidence and dominance that are hallmarks of narcissism are in some cases exactly what inspire a group of followers (e.g., the voters, a board of directors) to select a narcissist to lead them (Gladwell, 2002; Hogan et al., 1994; Post, 1986). Further pursuing this dynamic, Post (1986, 1993) argues that there are certain types of narcissistic leaders who, when matched with the appropriate followers in a particular historical context (i.e., during a societal crisis), are not only constructive, but a necessity. At such times, when a “mirror-hungry” narcissistic leader finds a group of “ideal-hungry” followers, that leader is in an ideal position to resolve the “splits in a wounded society” (Post, 1986, p. 686). Volkan & Itzkowitz (1984) present Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, as a prime example of such a leader. Although he shared many attributes with more destructive narcissistic leaders (e.g., grandiosity, self-absorption, and paranoia), Atatürk marshaled his love for his nation, his visionary perspective, the Turkish people's collective desperation for a savior, and the “fit” between his persona and culture, to lead Turkey to become an independent, modern nation against great odds. In comparison, there are clearly situations that call for the kind of great vision and dramatic action likely to be spurred by a narcissistic leader, but are not met by one. For instance, when two of the AFL-CIO's main component unions voted to break away from the parent organization, union president John Sweeney was criticized for creating a leadership vacuum by focusing too much on consensus-building and a “business-as-usual” approach (Greenhouse, 2005). Clearly, this was a moment that could have benefited from a stronger, more driven leader with tremendous charisma, creativity, and power. However, even when a strong, driven leader does arise to meet a similarly critical situation, such historical moments can be transient. For instance, Post (1993) notes that Churchill's rapid fall after World War II highlights that the needs of followers for a “larger-than-life” leader are often historically bound and intimately connected to crises. In contrast to Post (1986, 1993) and others, who cautiously suggest that narcissistic leaders may not be exclusively toxic, consultant and psychoanalyst Michael Maccoby (2000, 2004) strongly advocates and extols the virtues of narcissistic leaders. He suggests that today's hectic and chaotic world necessitates leaders who, rather than playing the role of solid foundation to institutions that change at a glacial pace, are grand visionaries and innovators. These leaders, whom he dubs “productive narcissists,” do not try to understand the future, they shape it. They are transformative CEOs who are PR-hungry superstars with stimulating personalities (e.g., Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jack Welch). They are driven to gain power and glory, and work aggressively to be admired rather than loved. Maccoby (2000) lists two strengths particular to productive narcissists that make them ideal leaders for our times: They are visionaries, and they can inspire great numbers of followers. Productive narcissists are “not only risk takers willing to get the job done but also charmers who can convert the masses with their rhetoric” ( p. 70) to help shape our “public and personal agendas” (p. 69). As visionaries, narcissistic leaders always see the big picture, and tend to leave the analyzing and minutia to others. When they do not like the rules, they ignore, or even change them. Their visions are grand ones, because they are inspired by a personal need for power, glory, and a legacy. And through these grand

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

623

visions, coupled with great charisma, they gain devoted followers. In turn, the followers fulfill the narcissistic leaders' need for admiration, further bolstering the leaders' confidence and conviction in their visions. However, even Maccoby is cautious in enumerating the virtues of narcissistic leaders. Although he lists two particular strengths of narcissistic leaders, he accompanies them with a list of five weaknesses that echo the problems noted in the preceding section (i.e., narcissists are hypersensitive to criticism, poor listeners, lacking in empathy, unwilling or unable to mentor or be mentored, and intensely competitive; Maccoby, 2000). He suggests that for narcissistic leaders to be successful, the leader's narcissism must be constrained by self-knowledge, and by restraining anchors within the organization. With this optimal set of circumstances, productive narcissistic leaders' personal visions for the future can become reality, bringing forth great innovation and advancement. 2.5. Debating the definitions: narcissism versus self-esteem and self-confidence One potential explanation for the conflicting views about the effects of leaders' narcissism is that different authors may be relying on different definitions of narcissism to reach their conclusions. For instance, in some of his more positive comments about narcissistic leaders, Post (1993) suggests that “at one level, narcissism is nothing more than extreme self-confidence” (pp. 99–100). This idea is supported by recent non-leadership-oriented narcissism research programs (e.g., Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003; Campbell, 2001). Further, Maccoby (2000) asserts that all people need to be at least somewhat narcissistic in order “survive or assert our needs” (p. 71). This accords with Kohut's (1966) notion that narcissism is an independent and potentially healthy process in normal development. And, as summarized earlier, there are multiple frameworks for understanding narcissistic leaders that highlight constructive variants of the trait, including “productive” narcissism (Maccoby, 2000, 2004), “constructive” narcissism (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1997), “charismatic” narcissism (Post, 1993), and “reparative” narcissism (Volkan & Itzkowitz, 1984). However, a crucial first step in studying narcissism is differentiating the grandiosity that is its hallmark from normal self-esteem and self-confidence (Rosenthal, 2005)—a complicated task because most theory and research do not make it a high priority. It is clear however that most of the more optimistic theories about the relationship between narcissism and leadership are based on an overly inclusive definition of narcissism that contains elements of nongrandiose positive feelings about the self (i.e., normal high self-esteem and confidence). For example, Maccoby (2000) suggests that “productive narcissists have perspective and are able to detach themselves and laugh at their irrational needs…. A sense of humor helps them maintain enough perspective and humility to keep on learning” ( p. 77). Kets de Vries & Miller (1997) describe constructive narcissists as confident, thoughtful, and realistic, rather than unstable, reactive, and selfdeceptive. Although they “enjoy being admired, they have a realistic appreciation of their abilities and limitations” (p. 211). In other words, these authors define these leaders as narcissistic based on such traits as their confidence and assertiveness, whereas it would be just as valid to rule out the possibility that these leaders are narcissistic based on their self-insight, perspective, and humility. Research suggests that the confidence, charisma, and optimism associated with productive or constructive narcissists are positive leadership traits. For instance, in a military context, such traits lead to higher leadership ratings from peers and supervisors (Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000), and confidence is one of a number of personality traits viewed by military officers as important to selecting future officers (Sümer, Sümer, Demirutku, & Çifci, 2001). Unfortunately, although it is clear that self-esteem and confidence can be positive leadership attributes (e.g., Boatwright & Egidio, 2004; Hill & Ritchie, 1977; Stake, 1983), it is less clear that they should be labeled as “narcissistic” traits to begin with. As noted earlier, there are competing, and sometimes contradictory, definitions of narcissism—some definitions include normative self-confidence (e.g., Campbell, 2001), whereas others do not (e.g., APA, 2000). This is an ongoing debate that may be nearly impossible to settle, because there are no “gold standard” criteria on which to base a definitive description of narcissism (or any other personality trait for that matter; Funder, 2001). However, it is clear that in order to understand whether the benefits that accrue to leaders with high self-esteem also apply to leaders who are narcissistic, it is imperative to somehow distinguish between the two constructs. 2.6. A balanced view Not all of the literature on narcissism and leadership is constrained to taking sides in a good vs. bad debate. Much of the current research on narcissism and leadership supports a more nuanced interpretation of its effects. For instance, a

624

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

recent field study (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2006) indicated that companies in the computer and software industry with more narcissistic CEOs were more strategically dynamic and grandiose, demonstrated more extreme performance (both good and bad), and exhibited more volatility in asset-related performance than did similar companies with less narcissistic CEOs. Likewise, a historiometric study of U.S. presidents (Deluga, 1997) suggested that some of the most and least successful presidents were highly narcissistic, whereas others of the most and least successful were not. They also found that presidential narcissism predicted charisma, creativity, war avoidance, great decisions, mean levels of overall greatness, and consensus of greatness. Adding a temporal component to the analysis of narcissistic leaders is especially informative. Based on the recognition that in most leadership contexts “the qualities needed to form a group may be different from those required to maintain it” (Hogan et al., 1994, p. 499), Hogan et al. (1990) describe leaders with “well-developed social skills and an attractive interpersonal style who, in reality, have little or no talent for management” (p. 346). These leaders can either have a “rapid rise-and-fall trajectory” (Robins & Paulhus, 2001, p. 212), or, if they maintain their power, they can be “very costly to [their] organizations” (Hogan et al., 1990, p. 343). Numerous theorists suggest that narcissists are just the type of leader most likely to falter over time. Not only does their narcissism fuel their poor decision-making, but the power they attain through their leadership fuels their narcissism, spurring a downward spiral into poor leadership (Glad, 2002). In contrast with narcissistic nonleaders, who must inevitably face life's ordinary frustrations, a narcissistic leader has the power to “construct a world that provides him with temporary relief from his internal conflicts” ( p. 27). However, this power ultimately feeds self-defeating behavior, because for a narcissist, it is never fully satisfying-it cannot fully “heal his underlying lack of self-esteem” ( p. 27). Current research accords well with the idea that narcissism is positively linked to attaining a leadership position, but not necessarily to performing well in that position, and helps integrate seemingly inconsistent findings. For instance, in some studies, narcissists receive higher leadership ratings from others than do non-narcissists (Chemers et al., 2000; Sümer et al., 2001), while in other studies, narcissists greatly overestimate their leadership performances relative to others' ratings (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006). Pittinsky & Rosenthal (in preparation) may help reconcile such contradictory findings by adding a temporal component to their study design. They found that narcissists receive higher initial leadership ratings than do non-narcissists, but this positive effect wanes over time. In their study, participants in five-member project-groups reported, in the first month of the groups' existence, that group members higher in narcissistic personality traits provided more leadership than did less narcissistic members. However, by the end of the semester (and the end of the groups' existence), narcissistic group members were no longer viewed as leaders. These findings are supported by non-leadership-oriented narcissism research—narcissists make positive first impressions because they are outgoing and entertaining, but they are routinely disliked within a short period of time (Paulhus, 1998). These data (Pittinsky & Rosenthal, in preparation) do not address why the narcissistic group members fell out of favor, at least as leaders, with their peers. However, some laboratory-based research suggests that it may be related to narcissists' overconfidence and overvaluation of their contributions to work. For instance, in their review of narcissism research relevant to workplace issues, Robins & Paulhus (2001) state that “narcissistic individuals have inflated views of themselves [compared to objective measures or others' subjective views] regardless of whether they are evaluating their task performance, personality traits, expected academic performance, behavioral acts, intelligence, or physical attractiveness” (p. 205). In other words, narcissists' inflated assessments of their abilities are not accompanied by greater actual ability (Campbell, Goodie, & Foster, 2004). For instance, narcissism is related to job satisfaction for people in sales, but not to their actual sales performance (Soyer, Rovenpor, & Kopelman, 1999). Narcissists believe that they are empathetic; however, they overestimate their social judgment skills much more than do others (Ames & Kammrath, 2004). Narcissists also make riskier decisions and are less interested in low-risk decisions than non-narcissists, and thus lose more often than do non-narcissists (Campbell, Foster et al., 2004; Campbell, Goodie et al., 2004). Unfortunately, their unrealistically optimistic predictions about future performance are not adjusted downward based on their actual poor past performance. Overall, even though narcissists routinely underperform others, they still maintain the belief that they will do better than others in the future—not necessarily a recipe for maintaining dedication and loyalty among one's collaborators or followers. Put succinctly, a narcissist is the “kind of manager who routinely over evaluates his or her performance, and that tendency is associated with poor leadership” (Hogan et al., 1994, p. 496). Ironically, many of the traits that negatively affect narcissists' abilities to lead in the long run are the same traits that propel them into positions of leadership to begin with.

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

625

3. The rise and fall of narcissistic leaders 3.1. Are there optimal conditions for the rise of narcissistic leaders? Whether narcissists succeed or fail as leaders depends not only on their personalities, but also on the circumstances in which they lead (Glad & Whitmore, 1991; Robins & Paulhus, 2001). We might expect narcissists to succeed in positions where charisma and extraversion are important (e.g., sales), or where self-absorption and grandiosity are important (e.g., science), rather than in positions that require building sustained relationships and trust (Robins & Paulhus, 2001). Narcissists are also likely to do better in situations in which their personal goals converge with those of their followers and institutions rather than situations in which their success is likely to come at the expense of those around them. Narcissists are apt to emerge, and often flourish, in times that call for a new order to be established, but they are unable to maintain the necessary stability once that new order has come to the fore (e.g., Mao—who established a new political order in a huge and powerful nation—eventually starved millions of his citizens, split with his Soviet ally at the same time he was facing conflict with the U.S. over Taiwan, and nearly destroyed China's economy; Sheng, 2001). Although narcissistic leaders may thrive in chaotic times, they may seem out of place in more tranquil times (like a “pompous buffoon”; Maccoby, 2000, p. 77). 3.2. Selection and rejection of narcissistic leaders Implicit leadership theory suggests that we choose as our leaders those people who seem most “leaderlike” (Hogan et al., 1994). This is especially true of narcissistic leaders—supporters perceive them as superhuman, blindly believe them, follow them unconditionally, and give them unqualified emotional support (Post, 1986). Narcissistic leaders are not only likely to abuse their power, but, by exploiting their own charisma, they are more likely to convince their followers to buy into the abuse and to shoulder the blame for failure (Sankowsky, 1995). As for followers who are not swayed by the narcissistic leader's charisma, they are often intimidated into subordination (Kramer, 2003). One of the more provocative theories of the rise of narcissistic leaders is that they are selected because they complement their followers' own narcissism. Narcissistic leaders are mirror-hungry (i.e., constantly seeking confirmation and admiration), whereas their followers are ideal-hungry narcissists—they are incomplete as individuals and “…experience themselves as worthwhile only so long as they can relate to individuals whom they can admire for their prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, or moral stature” (Post, 1986, p. 679). This may be especially prevalent in moments of historical threat, when people who are normally psychologically self-sufficient are made vulnerable by external events (Kohut, 1977). However, along with temporal and historical influences, there may be certain cultures characterized by the idealhungry type of narcissism that leads them to choose narcissistic leaders. For instance, Alford's (1988) interpretation of Ronald Reagan's immense popularity follows from Winter's (1987) finding that presidents are more appealing to constituents when there is congruence between the “motive profiles” of each ( p. 196). Alford (1988) suggests that at least some of Reagan's popularity is attributable to his ability to protect us from our own narcissistic humiliation. Instead of raising expectations and “enhancing our collective mastery” (p. 580), Reagan soothed our narcissistic wounds (in the face of the Iranian hostage crisis and economic stagnation), by lowering the expectations of our collective ideals and relieving us of our responsibilities to others. Demause (1992) suggests further that the U.S. not only picks its own leaders to soothe its narcissistic insecurities, but that we also create and support our own narcissistic enemies (e.g., Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega). We keep them available to “embody [our] country's shared anger” (p. 127) and our “belligerent, confrontational mood” (p. 129) when our own confidence wanes. These particular interpretations of the American psyche appear highly politicized. However, the question of what types of followers will enthusiastically choose and support narcissistic leaders is not restricted to discussions of any particular country, political party, or ideology. For instance, Sheng (2001) suggests that Mao's rise to power depended on collectively damaged and needy followers in China, a cultural and political environment very unlike that in the U.S. during Ronald Reagan's political assent. Finally, as with narcissistic leaders, narcissistic followers can also follow a temporal trajectory. “While narcissistic followers will experience obvious pleasure in seeing their beloved leaders work their way up the ranks, they will also get equal satisfaction out of seeing them brought down a notch” (Kramer, 2003, p. 63). Of course, many followers of narcissistic leaders eventually rebel against their leaders' callous and exploitative behavior, but beyond that, they

626

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

“blame their leaders for failing to live up to their own exaggerated expectations” (Kets de Vries, 1997, p. 238). In a vicious cycle, narcissistic leaders' self-loathing makes them loathe their sycophantic followers (Glad, 2002), while at the same time their own failures of leadership cause them to be loathed by those followers. 3.3. Is it possible to avoid the downfall? Regardless of the advisability of placing narcissists in leadership positions, the fact is that narcissists head numerous countries, companies, and other groups and organizations. Because of this, “the challenge … is to ensure that such leaders do not self-destruct or lead … to disaster (Maccoby, 2000, p. 71). A number of authors propose approaches to this task. As an example, Maccoby (2000) suggests that (a) narcissistic leaders need a trusted confidant who is rooted in reality, (b) the organization needs to be indoctrinated to completely accept and subordinate itself to the ideology of the leader (i.e., it becomes a “my way or the highway” organization), and (c) the leader must get intensive psychotherapy. The feasibility and effectiveness of these suggestions are questionable, however. The first and third recommendations require a confidant and a therapist, respectively, who are psychologically immune to the inevitable attacks the narcissistic leader will force them to endure (Levinson, Sabbath, & Connor, 1992). As for the second recommendation, even though a subordinated organization may be more internally peaceful, any deficiencies in its leader's abilities will be greatly magnified and lead to poorer outcomes for the organization. Other formulas for increasing the viability of narcissistic leaders are somewhat less passive and submissive than Maccoby's (2000). For instance, Kets de Vries (1997) suggests safeguards such as organizational checks and balances, honest feedback, and executive training to keep narcissistic leaders under control. Glad (2002) warns, however, that such constraints must be “clear and impersonally used” (p. 34) and nonhumiliating lest they become more destructive than constructive. Kets de Vries & Miller (1997) also recommend avoiding the problem as much as possible by reducing narcissists' influence, transferring them out of harm's way, and keeping inexperienced and insecure subordinates out of their reach. Finally, Kramer (2003) makes suggestions directly to the narcissistic leaders, entreating them to “retain a … sense of proportion and … self-awareness” (p. 64), keep their lives simple, nurture their humility, understand their weaknesses, and reflect on everything they do. However, although these suggestions may be advisable for those who wish to optimize their leadership abilities (Collins, 2001), it is far from clear that they are the types of practices to which any narcissist would be amenable. 4. Examining related leadership models There are well-established theories of leadership that are relevant to any discussion of narcissistic leaders. In the following section, we discuss two of the most closely related models, power motivation and charismatic leadership, and compare and contrast them to what is known about narcissistic leaders. 4.1. Power motivation Clearly, power is one of the great motivators for narcissistic leaders. They not only seek to accumulate power while ascending the ranks, but even when they seem to have reached the pinnacle of entrenched power, they continue to crave and seek more of it, often at great risk to themselves and their followers (Glad, 2002). At first glance, there appears to be significant overlap between the motivations and behaviors of narcissistic leaders and those of leaders with a strong power motivation. For instance, research has shown that for U.S. presidents, higher power motivation is related to charisma, communication ability, humor, combative skill, aggressiveness, exploitativeness, historians' ratings of greatness, and entry into war (Winter, 2002, 2005), a comparable profile to that found in research on narcissism in U.S. presidents (Deluga, 1997). And, similar to narcissists (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001a; Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991), leaders high in power motivation are generally more concerned with influencing others than with being liked by others (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). However, even with some apparent similarities, there are marked differences between the motivations and behaviors of narcissistic leaders and the qualities of leaders whose main influence is power motivation. For instance, leaders high in power motivation seek to acquire prestige by building their reputations in order to make an impact on others (Winter, 2004). In contrast to narcissistic leaders, leaders high in power motivation seek strength “through influence rather than individual achievement” (McClelland & Burnham, 1976, p. 120) as a means for nurturing the success of their

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

627

subordinates and institutions. They aim to make subordinates feel strong, capable, and responsible, rather than weak, incompetent, and powerless (McClelland & Burnham, 1976), as would narcissistic leaders, and they derive satisfaction from achieving these goals (Spreier, Fontaine, & Malloy, 2006). As with narcissists, leaders high in power motivation are not concerned with being liked, but unlike narcissists, they are concerned with having a positive impact on others. The key difference appears to be that, in contrast to narcissistic leaders, leaders driven by power motivation are not primarily concerned with self-aggrandizement, because their selfimage is not contingent on their performance (McClelland & Burnham, 1976) or their ability to dominate those around them (Brown & Zeigler-Hill, 2004). Rather, they are mature and secure, which keeps their egotism and personal expansiveness in check (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). This conception of power motivation actually represents a specific subtype, socialized power motivation. This contrasts with personalized power motivation, a cluster of impulses and behaviors that align more closely with those of narcissistic leaders (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). As with narcissistic leaders, leaders high in personalized power motivation are likely to have an egotistical and aggressive style, focus on maintaining their interests and strength, use their power to make others feel weak, engender personal loyalty above institutional loyalty, and lead with the ultimate goal of impressing superiors rather than managing subordinates (Spreier et al., 2006). The key difference is that for narcissistic leaders, the need for the trappings of power is ultimately motivated by egotism, whereas the theory of personalized power motivation suggests that striving for ego-enhancement is merely one of a number of important byproducts of a leader's fundamental need for personal power. 4.2. Charismatic leadership On whichever side of the good vs. bad debate about narcissistic leaders a researcher comes down, there is near unanimous agreement that charisma is a key factor in the popularity and ascendancy of such leaders (e.g., Maccoby, 2000; Sankowsky, 1995). As noted earlier, Maccoby (2000, 2004) even touts charisma as one of the most important positive traits of narcissistic leaders. As with theories of power motivation, there appears to be significant overlap— both in negative and positive aspects of leadership—between narcissistic leaders and charismatic leaders. For instance, similar to narcissism, charismatic leadership has been shown to have a harmful side (Conger, 1997; O'Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connelly, 1995). Also, like narcissism (Deluga, 1997) and power motivation (Winter, 2002, 2005), charisma is predictive of important positive aspects of performance in U.S. presidents (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991). However, unlike theories of narcissism and power motivation, most theories of charismatic leadership go beyond analyzing trait-outcome linkages in leaders in favor of a dynamic analysis of the relationship between leaders and followers. In-depth reviews of charismatic leadership can be found in Bass (1990) and Yukl (2002). In brief, this type of leadership emerges when authority is granted by devoted followers to an individual whom they consider to be exceptional and transcendent (Weber, 1924/1947). Charismatic leaders are exceptionally gifted people (both socially and intellectually) who are most likely to emerge as leaders in times of crisis when they can (a) devise radical solutions to the crisis, (b) attract followers through the power of their charisma, and (c) validate their followers' belief in them through repeated successes (Trice & Beyer, 1986). In other words, charismatic leadership operates at the intersection of the individual leader, the situation, and the followers. Charismatic relationships exist when followers identify with both the leader and the “mission,” inextricably link the leader to the mission, and feel that both the leader and the mission are tied closely to their own self-concepts (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). As with power motivation, charismatic leadership has been divided into socialized and personalized subtypes (Howell, 1988; Howell & Shamir, 2005; House & Howell, 1992), which has an important bearing on comparisons with narcissism in leaders. In a socialized charismatic relationship, followers' collective relationships with the group and its broad set of values are central (Howell & Shamir, 2005). Followers' relationships with the leader are thus mediated by the belief that the leader is a prototype of the identity and values of the group. Leaders in such a relationship are likely to build trust, go beyond their self-interest for the good of the group, be sensitive to constituents' needs, and emphasize a collective sense of mission (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Conger, Kanungo, Menon, & Mathur, 1997). In socialized relationships, leaders are restrained in their use of power, are ethical, and are collectively oriented. According to Strange & Mumford (2002), a short list of such leaders might include Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Henry Ford. There is significant overlap between socialized charismatic leadership and Maccoby's (2000, 2004) idea of productive narcissistic leaders. Both include dynamic relationships between leader and follower, and involve leaders

628

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

with great emotional appeal who have grand visions to solve pressing problems. Maccoby's work focuses more on leaders' personal traits and dependence on followers (in contrast to their dynamic relationship with followers) than does the work on socialized charismatic leadership. However, it is clear that productive narcissists would be good candidates to be socialized charismatic leaders and vice versa. Personalized charismatic leadership comes closer than its socialized counterpart to matching the preponderance of theory and research on narcissistic leaders (particularly the downside of such leaders). Unlike socialized relationships, in personalized charismatic relationships, followers identify directly with the leader based on the leader's personal attributes, rather than identifying primarily with the values and ideas that the leader represents. According to Howell & Shamir (2005), in personalized charismatic relationships, followers are likely to have a less integrated sense of self and thus to be drawn in by leaders' power, to idealize and romanticize their leaders, to obey them blindly, and to become dependent on them. A short list of personalized charismatic leaders might include Benito Mussolini, J. Edgar Hoover, and Jim Bakker (Strange & Mumford, 2002). House & Howell (1992) suggest that narcissism is one of a number of personality characteristics of personalized charismatic leaders, and that narcissistic leaders are likely to default to personalized charismatic leadership behaviors. Personalized charismatic leadership relationships are likely to lead to feelings of empowerment and influence for the leader, and to ultimately lead to harmful consequences for constituents. As with narcissistic leaders, these consequences grow from a leader's increasing “desire for absolute power and his or her delusions of omnipotence” (p. 107). Unlike narcissistic leaders, however, personalized charismatic leaders do not necessarily begin with engrained egotistical needs, but rather can internalize egocentric and self-aggrandizing desires as a reaction to the reinforcement of their followers' idealization and zealous support (House & Howell, 1992). Whether this reflects a genuine difference between the two types of leadership, or simply the tension between a leader-oriented trait-based theory and a dynamic, relational theory is an empirical question. Are there leaders who are similar in their drives, methods, and outcomes, but differ in that some are driven to act because of stable egocentric personality traits (i.e., narcissistic leaders), whereas others are driven by situational factors to become egocentric (i.e., personalized charismatic leaders)? Because the theories operate at different levels, it is difficult to compare them directly, other than to agree with House & Howell (1992) that there is a significant degree of overlap. What is missing from charismatic leadership theory (and is not even particularly evident in critiques of the theory; e.g., Yukl, 1999), is an integrated theory of the psychological motivations of charismatic leaders. There are articles that explore and describe the personality traits that motivate charismatic leaders (e.g., DeHoogh et al., 2005). However, they generally do not advance an integrated psychological theory of these motivations. As noted earlier, the question of what motivates followers of charismatic leaders has been addressed in detail (Shamir et al., 1993), but it is left to the literature on narcissistic leaders to explain the motivations of leaders who use their personal appeal for self-centered and potentially harmful ends. This abundance of trait-related theory and research in the literature on narcissistic leaders is accompanied by a discussion of the interplay between such leaders' traits, their followers' motivations, and situational factors (e.g., Alford, 1988; Glad & Whitmore, 1991; Maccoby, 2000; Post, 1986, 1993; Sheng, 2001). However, the discussion of these relationships never reaches the point of becoming an integrated theory of narcissistic leaders comparable in its comprehensiveness to the theory of charismatic leadership. Accordingly, better integrating these two perspectives—leader traits and motivations on the one hand and the dynamic interplay between leader, follower, and situation on the other—might be a particularly fruitful itinerary for future theory and research. 5. Moving beyond narcissistic leaders: toward a definition of narcissistic leadership The contrast between the harmful impact that narcissistic leaders can have on their constituents and institutions and the fact that narcissism is a key trait of some of the world's most creative and generative leaders seems to suggest that the concepts being studied need to be refined. As noted earlier, the field lacks consensus on what exactly constitutes narcissism in a leader (or in anyone else, for that matter). There is strong agreement that narcissism includes such traits as arrogance and egocentricity. However, in many cases, the conclusions reached conflict at the point at which the operational definitions of narcissism diverge. In other words, narcissism generally seems to be a negative leader trait until attributes such as humility and perspective-taking are integrated into its definition (e.g., Kets de Vries & Miller, 1997; Maccoby, 2000, 2004), at which point the positive side of narcissistic leaders begins to become evident.

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

629

In order to reconcile conflicts in the theory and research on narcissistic leaders, it is imperative to first settle on a working definition of narcissism and narcissistic leaders. One solution is for researchers to reach a consensus on whether arrogant and self-absorbed leaders who also exhibit keen self-insight, humor, and flexibility are or are not narcissistic leaders. Another approach is to develop an authoritative typology of narcissistic leaders that clearly distinguishes unmitigated narcissists from those who are able to control their narcissistic impulses when necessary (e.g., constructive narcissists, Kets de Vries & Miller, 1997; productive narcissists, Maccoby, 2000, 2004). However, a broader strategy is to reformulate the definition entirely to free it from the constraints inherent in studying narcissistic leaders from a trait perspective. Because traits are located within the individual, applying a traitbased framework to the study of leadership hinders examination of the role of followers or constituents, or other contextual elements such as leadership style, temporal trajectories, and dynamic processes. As discussed earlier, it thus limits us, ultimately, to a nearly insoluble good vs. bad debate about the virtues of the trait in question. Therefore, in order to make the study of narcissism more applicable to the field of leadership, we recommend moving beyond analyses of the merits and deficits of leaders who are narcissistic. As a first step toward accomplishing this, we propose a definition of narcissistic leadership, which more closely parallels definitions of other types of leadership (e.g., charismatic leadership, transformational leadership), as well as functional, rather than trait- or drive-oriented definitions of narcissism (Stolorow, 1975), because it is defined by leaders' motives and the outcomes of their leadership (in contrast to the study of narcissistic leaders, which relies on enumerating their traits in order to describe their motives and predict their leadership outcomes). Accordingly, we propose the following definition: Narcissistic leadership occurs when leaders' actions are principally motivated by their own egomaniacal needs and beliefs, superseding the needs and interests of the constituents and institutions they lead. We define egomaniacal needs and beliefs to include many of the patterns pervasive in narcissistic personality —grandiose sense of self-importance, preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success and power, excessive need for admiration, entitlement, lack of empathy, envy, inferiority, and hypersensitivity (APA, 2000). What is critical about this definition, and what differentiates it from simply describing narcissistic leaders, is that it is sensitive to the context in which the leadership takes place—as with theories of power motivation, narcissistic leadership considers leaders' psychological motivations; and as with charismatic leadership, narcissistic leadership takes situational factors and follower perceptions into account. Unlike the study of narcissistic leaders, it is not directly linked to leader personality traits, including their narcissism—non-narcissists can engage in narcissistic leadership, whereas narcissists are capable of leading non-narcissistically. The central reason for adopting a perspective focused on narcissistic leadership rather than on narcissistic leaders is that it is difficult to characterize the relationship between particular leader personality characteristics and their actions. The idea that leadership can be studied adequately by focusing on leaders' personality traits has been contested for nearly 60 years, beginning with Stogdill's (1948) review and critique of trait-based leadership research. Although the topic is still debated (e.g., Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989; House, Shane, & Herold, 1996), there is fairly wide consensus that any comprehensive theory of leader effectiveness needs to consider situational factors along with leader characteristics (Northouse, 2004). Studying narcissistic traits in leaders does have advantages over some other types of trait-related leadership research. For instance, studying narcissistic traits in leaders is not a “hunt” for a comprehensive list of important leadership traits, which Stogdill (1948) and others have criticized, but rather, is the analysis of the effects of a particular trait that leaders are known to possess. Further, narcissism is not a trait-without-a-theory, as are some other personality traits linked to leadership (e.g., Big-5 personality traits; Judge & Bono, 2000). Instead, narcissism as a topic of study is embedded in multiple theoretical perspectives, most of which include dynamic ideas about the individual as an “integrated person” (Renshon, 2004, p. 58) who has multiple, complex, and interrelated characteristics and motives. However, even with the advantages studying narcissism in leaders may have over studying other leader traits, the research generally boils down to two basic questions: (a) Is leader “x” a narcissist? (b) If “yes,” is that a good thing or a bad thing? Such a perspective is inherently limited—first, because, as noted earlier, it is difficult to move beyond the first question without agreeing on a precise definition of narcissism. But beyond that, it makes it difficult to integrate analyses of narcissistic leaders into existing models of leadership. Not only is it difficult to clearly establish exactly how (and even if) narcissism in leaders is distinct from closely related leadership models such as power motivation and charismatic leadership, but it can even be difficult to establish narcissism's relationship with more distant leadership models.

630

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

For instance, at first glance, it might seem preposterous to suggest that a narcissistic leader could practice transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), given the latter's strong normative component. However, on closer examination, it is clearly possible that a narcissistic leader could inspire followers to reach their fullest potential by engaging their highest ideals, whether by mistake, out of self-serving motives (in which case it might be considered “pseudo-transformational” leadership; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), or even out of an uncharacteristic instance of altruism. In contrast, it is clear that narcissistic leadership is largely incompatible with transformational leadership—leadership motivated by grandiose egocentrism cannot, at the same time, be motivated by a dynamic prosocial connection between leader and followers. In a similar vein, while narcissistic leadership is not (and should not) be incompatible with power motivation and charismatic leadership, it is easier to clarify how it differs from those theories than it is to state emphatically whether a particular narcissistic leader fits within those categories. For instance, both narcissistic leadership and power motivation may involve aggressive and exploitative leader behavior. However, the motivations for that behavior are easier to distinguish—a self-enhancing, expansive quest for superiority versus a desire to pursue power in order to have a positive impact on others. Likewise, narcissistic and charismatic leadership may both entail using charm and magnetism to win over devoted followers. Such behavior would be characterized as charismatic leadership if it involves a genuinely dynamic relationship between leader and followers. However, if the followers simply function as “audience members” through whose admiration the leader bolsters his or her own self-image, it would be defined as narcissistic leadership. 6. Conclusion This review began with the assertion that narcissistic leaders can be differentiated from non-narcissistic leaders by the primacy of their egotistical needs (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1997). The downside of egocentric, ego-driven leadership is clearly articulated from diverse perspectives (e.g., Conger, 1997; Glad, 2002; Gladwell, 2002; Kramer, 2003). Leaders who convince themselves and us of their dominance by taking more than their share of the credit for success while blaming all of their failures on others are likely to bring disaster to those they lead (Gladwell, 2002), especially over the long run (Robins & Paulhus, 2001). In contrast, it is also plausible that without such ego-driven leaders, we would live in a world relatively devoid of bold innovation and social change (Maccoby, 2000, 2004). However, the debate over whether narcissistic leaders provide a net gain or loss ultimately seems futile, both because there is no consensus about how best to define narcissism, and because of problems inherent in the study of any trait's relationship to leadership (Stogdill, 1948). Therefore, we propose a new definition of narcissistic leadership, which enables us to transform the discussion from a good vs. bad debate about narcissistic leader traits, to an examination of the dynamics between leaders' psychological motivations and behaviors and the motivations and behaviors of the constituents and institutions they lead. In so doing, we can facilitate a more advanced and fruitful discussion about the role narcissism plays in leadership. Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Jerry Hunt, Editor, The Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review of Leadership, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on an early draft of this manuscript. We received many insightful comments from colleagues at the Center for Public Leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and elsewhere, in particular R. Matthew Montoya, Brian Welle, Laura Bacon, Connie Hadley, Maria Levis, Diane Purvin, and Barbara Kellerman. The Center for Public Leadership provided financial support for the preparation of this manuscript. An early version of this article appeared in the Center for Public Leadership Working Paper Series (Spring, 2006). References Alford, C. F. (1988). Mastery and retreat: Psychological sources of the appeal of Ronald Reagan. Political Psychology, 9, 571−589. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR-4th edition, Text Revision). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Ames, D. R., & Kammrath, L. K. (2004). Mind-reading and metacognition: Narcissism, not actual competence, predicts self-estimated ability. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 187−209.

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

631

Anonymous. (2004). Imperial hubris: Why the west is losing the war on terror. Washington, DC: Brassey's. Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision, content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345−373. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd Ed.). New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181−217. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1−44. Boatwright, K. J., & Egidio, R. K. (2004). Psychological predictors of college women's leadership aspirations. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 653−669. Brooks, D. (2004, May 11). For Iraqis to Win, the U.S. Must Lose. The New York Times, A23. Brown, R. P., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2004). Narcissism and the non-equivalence of self-esteem measures: A matter of dominance? Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 585−592. Bumiller, E. (2004, November 8). President feels emboldened, not accidental, after victory. The New York Times, A1. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Campbell, W. K. (2001). Is narcissism really so bad? Psychological Inquiry, 12, 214−216. Campbell, W. K., Foster, J. D., & Brunell, A. B. (2004). Running from shame or reveling in pride? Narcissism and the regulation of self-conscious emotions. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 150−153. Campbell, W. K., Goodie, A. S., & Foster, J. D. (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 297−311. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006, August). It's all about me: Narcissistic CEOs and their effects on company strategy and performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta. Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 267−277. Chernow, R. (2004, July 11). Alexander Hamilton's last stand. The New York Times, 13 (Section 4). Collins, J. (2001, January). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review, 66−76. Conger, J. A. (1997). The dark side of leadership. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (pp. 215−232). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., Menon, S. T., & Mathur, P. (1997). Measuring charisma: Dimensionality and validity of the Conger-Kanungo Scale of charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 14, 290−302. Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 385−400. De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., Thierry, H., Van den Berg, P. T., Van der Weide, J. G., et al. (2005). Leader motives, charismatic leadership, and subordinates' work attitude in the profit and voluntary sector. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 17−38. Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership, narcissism, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 49−65. Demause, L. (1992). America's search for a fighting leader. Journal of Psychohistory, 20, 121−134. Ellis, H. (1898). Auto-eroticism: A psychological study. Alienist and Neurologist, 19, 260−299. Freud, S. (1931/1950). Libidinal types. Collected papers, Vol. 5. London: Hogarth Press. Funder, D. C. (2001). Accuracy in personality judgment: Research and theory concerning an obvious question. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 121−140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Glad, B. (2002). Why tyrants go too far: Malignant narcissism and absolute power. Political Psychology, 23, 1−37. Glad, B., & Whitmore, B. (1991). Jimmy Carter and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan: A psychological perspective. In J. Offerman-Zuckerberg (Ed.), Politics and psychology: Contemporary psychodynamic perspectives (pp. 117−142). New York: Plenum Press. Gladwell, M. (2002, July 22). The talent myth: Are smart people overrated? The New Yorker, 28−33. Goleman, D. (1998, November-December). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 93−102. Greenhouse, S. (2005, May 31). A summer of discontent for labor focuses on its leader's fitness for his job. The New York Times, A13. Harwood, I. (2003). Distinguishing between the facilitating and the self-serving charismatic group leader. Group, 27, 121−129. Hill, N. C., & Ritchie, J. B. (1977). The effect of self-esteem on leadership and achievement: A paradigm and a review. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 491−503. Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493−504. Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343−354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Horney, K. (1939). New ways in psychoanalysis. New York: Norton. Horowitz, M. J., & Arthur, R. J. (1988). Narcissistic rage in leaders: The intersection of individual dynamics and group processes. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 34, 135−141. House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81−108. House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364−396. House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21, 203−224.

632

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger, & R. A. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213−236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96−112. Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Correll, J. (2003). Secure and defensive high self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 969−978. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751−765. Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self-and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762−776. Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex task performance: Two routes to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 523−544. Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2006). Empathy and the emergence of task and relations leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 146−162. Kernberg, O. F. (1967). Borderline personality organization. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 15, 641−685. Kernberg, O. F. (1989). Narcissistic personality disorder in childhood. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 671−694. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1990). The organizational fool: Balancing a leader's hubris. Human Relations, 43, 751−770. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1997). Leaders who self-destruct: The causes and cures. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (pp. 233−245). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1997). Narcissism and leadership: an object relations perspective. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (pp. 194−214). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Kimhi, S. (2001). Benjamin Netanyahu: A psychological profile using behavior analysis. In O. Feldman & L.O. Valenty (Eds.), Profiling political leaders (pp. 149−164). Westport, CT: Praeger. Kohut, H. (1966). Forms and transformations of narcissism. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 14, 243−272. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press. Kramer, R. M. (2003, October). The harder they fall. Harvard Business Review, 58−66. Krugman, P. (2005, October 14). Questions of character. The New York Times, A25. Levinson, H., Sabbath, J., & Connor, J. (1992). Bearding the lion that roared: A case study in organizational consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal, 44, 2−16. Ma, H., & Karri, R. (2005). Leaders beware: Some sure ways to lose your competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 63−76. Maccoby, M. (2000, January–February). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business Review, 69−77. Maccoby, M. (2004). The productive narcissist: The promise and peril of visionary leadership. New York: Broadway Books. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976, March–April). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 100−110. Miliora, M. T. (1995). The dialectics of historical fantasy: The ideology of George Lincoln Rockwell. The Psychohistory Review, 23, 259−281. Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001a). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177−196. Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001b). Expanding the dynamic self-regulatory processing model of narcissism: Research directions for the future. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 243−251. Morf, C. C., Weir, C., & Davidov, M. (2000). Narcissism and intrinsic motivation: The role of goal congruence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 424−438. Morrison, R. (Executive Producer). (2006, July 30). CBS Sunday Morning [Television broadcast]. New York: CBS. Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. O'Connor, J., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C., Gessner, T. L., & Connelly, M. S. (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: An historiometric study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 529−555. Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197−1208. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556−563. Pittinsky, T. L., & Rosenthal, S. A. (in preparation). From selection to rejection: The trajectory of narcissistic leaders. Manuscript. Post, J. M. (1986). Narcissism and the charismatic leader–follower relationship. Political Psychology, 7, 675−688. Post, J. M. (1993). Current concepts of the narcissistic personality: Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology, 14, 99−121. Post, J. M., & Baram, A. (2003). “Saddam is Iraq: Iraq is Saddam” (until Operation Iraqi Freedom). In B. R. Schneider & J.M. Post (Eds.), Know thy enemy: Profiles of adversary leaders and their strategic cultures (pp. 163−220). Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: USAF Counterproliferation Center. Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and defensive self-enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59, 19−38. Renshon, S. A. (2001). The comparative psychoanalytic study of political leaders: John McCain and the limits of trait psychology. In O. Feldman & L.O. Valenty (Eds.), Profiling political leaders (pp. 233−253). Westport, CT: Praeger. Renshon, S. A. (2004). Psychoanalyzing presidents without a couch: Lessons from the William J. Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies. In B. Kellerman (Ed.), Center for public leadership working papers (pp. 55−72). Cambridge, MA: Harvard College. Robins, R. W., & Paulhus, D. L. (2001). The character of self-enhancers: implications for organizations. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 193−219). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ronningstam, E. F. (2005). Identifying and understanding the narcissistic personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

S.A. Rosenthal, T.L. Pittinsky / The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006) 617–633

633

Rosenthal, S.A. (2005). The fine line between confidence and arrogance: investigating the relationship of self-esteem to narcissism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Sankowsky, D. (1995). The charismatic leader as narcissist: Understanding the abuse of power. Organizational Dynamics, 23(4), 57−71. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577−594. Sheng, M. M. (2001). Mao Zedong's narcissistic personality disorder and China's road to disaster. In O. Feldman & L.O. Valenty (Eds.), Profiling political leaders (pp. 111−127). Westport, CT: Praeger. Soyer, R. B., Rovenpor, J. L., & Kopelman, R. E. (1999). Narcissism and achievement motivation as related to three facets of sales role: Attraction, satisfaction and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 285−304. Spector, B. (2003). HRM at Enron: The unindicated co-conspirator. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 207−220. Spreier, S. W., Fontaine, M. H., & Malloy, R. L. (2006, June). Leadership run amok: The destructive potential of overachievers. Harvard Business Review, 72−82. Stake, J. E. (1983). Situation and person-centered approaches to promoting leadership behavior in low performance self-esteem women. Journal of Personality, 51, 62−77. Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision of charismatic versus ideological leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 343−377. Steinberg, B. S. (1991a). Shame and humiliation in the Cuban Missile Crisis: A psychoanalytic perspective. Political Psychology, 12, 653−690. Steinberg, B. S. (1991b). Psychoanalytic concepts in international politics: The role of shame and humiliation. International Review of PsychoAnalysis, 18, 65−85. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership; a survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35−71. Stolorow, R. D. (1975). Toward a functional definition of narcissism. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 56, 179−185. Stucke, T. S. (2003). Who's to blame? Narcissism and self-serving attributions following feedback. European Journal of Personality, 17, 465−478. Sümer, H. C., Sümer, N., Demirutku, K., & Çifci, O. S. (2001). Using a personality-oriented job analysis to identify attributes to be assessed in officer selection. Military Psychology, 13, 129−146. Suskind, R. (2004, October 17). Without a doubt. The New York Times Magazine, 44. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 113−164. Volkan, V. D., & Itzkowitz, N. (1984). The immortal Atatürk: A psychobiography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Weber, M. (1924/1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press. White, R. K. (1991). Empathizing with Saddam Hussein. Political Psychology, 12, 291−308. White, R. K. (1994). Empathizing with Saddam Hussein—Updated. In H. H. Blumberg & C.C. French (Eds.), The Persian Gulf War: Views from the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 171−189). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Winter, D. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive profiles of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 196−202. Winter, D. G. (2002). Motivation and political leadership. In L. Valenty & O. Feldman (Eds.), Political leadership for the new century: Personality and behavior among American leaders (pp. 25−47). Westport, CT: Praeger. Winter, D. G. (2004). Power motivation. In G. R. Goethals, G. J. Sorenson, & J. M. Burns (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership, Vol. 3 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Winter, D. G. (2005). Things I've learned about personality from studying political leaders at a distance. Journal of Personality, 73, 557−584. Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. U. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 505−522. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285−305. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zee, H. J. (1980). The Guyana incident: Some psychoanalytic considerations. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 44, 345−363. Zeigler-Hill, V. (2006). Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem: Implications for narcissism and self-esteem instability. Journal of Personality, 74, 119−143.