Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership, narcissism, and rated performance

RELATIONSHIP AMONG AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP, NARCISSISM, AND RATED PERFORMANCE

Ronald J. Delu a* BryantCo/ fege

This research examines the relationship of American presidential narcissistic behaviors with charismatic raters assessed narcissism in leadership and rated performance. Using historiometric procedures, unidentified profiles describing 39 American Presidents. Archival sources were tapped for two charisma and five performance assessments. Supporting the prediction, narcissism was generally positively associated with presidential charismatic leadership and rated performance. The results were explained in terms of Kohut’s psychoanalytic self theory. The beneficial and detrimental aspects of leader narcissism, as well as future research directions. are addressed.

Although the leadership behavior of American Presidents has received enormous attention, presidential charismatic leadership has received limited study. For example, Simonton (1988) studied the connection of several presidential styles (e.g., charismatic) with personality traits, biographical experiences, and performance. Similarly, House, Spangler, and Woycke (1991) reported that presidential personality and charisma were important determinants of effectiveness. Nevertheless, due to the widespread consequences of presidential performance, a more complete understanding of charismatic leadership in the presidency is important. Accordingly, because personality is a likely antecedent (House & Howell, 1992), the domain of interest in this investigation was narcissistic behavior as a trait predicting charismatic leadership. The link between narcissism and five measures of American Presidential performance also was studied. A brief review of charismatic leadership and narcissism follows.

* Direct all correspondence to: Ronald .I. Deluga. Professor of Psychology. Department ant College, 1150 Douglas Pike, Smithfield, RI 02917.1284; r-mail: rdeluga@researchl Leadership Quarterly. 8(l), 49-65. Copyright 0 1997 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1048.9843

of Social Sciences, Bry.bryant.edu.

50

LEADERSHIP

CHARISMATIC

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 1 1997

LEADERSHIP

Charisma (Greek for divinely inspired gift) was introduced to the study of leadership by the sociologist Max Weber (19240947) in the early 1900s. Weber (1924/1947) described the charismatic leader as set apart from others. Due to a certain quality of personality, charismatic leaders are frequently idolized by followers and are often perceived as superhuman. Charismatic leaders exert referent power and influence, command respect, and garner attraction to themselves. Followers identify with the charismatic leader and are motivated by a demonstrative and convincing speaking style, contagious ebullience, and personal magnetism. Furthermore, charismatic leaders create an inspirational vision, generate new goals for followers, and chart novel avenues for achieving goals. Finally, charismatic leaders excite others through carefully crafted rhetoric, effusive body language, and often a distinctive general appearance (e.g., Bass, 1985, 1990; Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; House, 1977; Yukl, 1994). Consequently, charismatic leaders have extraordinary effects on their followers and social systems (e.g., Bass, 1985; House & Howell, 1992). For example, American Presidents Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Kennedy have been characterized as exhibiting charismatic leadership (House et al., 1991; Simonton, 1988). Although not always advantageous (e.g., Conger, 1989; Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990; House & Howell, 1992; Howell & Avolio, 1992; Johnson, 1979; McClelland, 1975; Newman, 1983; O’Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connelly, 1995) numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of charismatic leadership (e.g., Avolio, Waldman, & Einstein, 1988; Bass, 1985, 1990; Hater & Bass, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Keller, 1992; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Waldman, Bass, & Einstein, 1987; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Yet, prior research addressing charismatic leadership and effectiveness in American Presidents is sparse (e.g., House et al., 1991; Simonton, 1988). This void is surprising given the extensive impact of presidential policies, decision-making, and political leadership. Therefore, because personality traits are expected precursors of charismatic leadership (House & Howell, 1992), one promising avenue of study is presidential personality. Narcissism is one trait theoretically associated with charismatic leadership (House & Howell, 1992; Post, 1986, 1993). NARCISSISM Narcissism or self-love has its roots in the ancient Greek myth of Narcissus who fell into an all consuming love of his own reflection in a pool of water. Accordingly, narcissistic individuals are characterized by strong egocentricity, a sense of self-importance (Godcomplex), fantasies of power, and considerable self-confidence (e.g., Emmons, 1981; Fromm, 1973; Raskin & Hall, 1979). Raskin and Terry (1988) identified seven components of the narcissistic personality. These components are Authority (seeking leadership positions), Exhibitionism (enjoying being the center of attention), Superiority (viewing oneself as a special person), Entitlement (possessing a strong need for power), Exploitativeness (persuading others to reach goals, often for selfish gains), Self-SufJiciency (displaying a high need for achievement), and Vanity (judging oneself as physically attractive).

Presidential

Charisma,

Narcissism,

and Performance

51

Ample agreement suggests that the psychogenesis of narcissism is found in childhood (Emmons, 1987) and reflects disturbances in self-esteem regulation. In this respect, several theoretical approaches have offered alternative explanations for narcissism. For example, narcissism was a central construct for much of Freud’s (191411957) psychoanalytic and personality development work. In the seminal, On Narcissism: An Introduction (1914), Freud described narcissism as feelings of omnipotence and a grandiose self-conception used as a defense against depression, self-esteem management, and ego-ideal development. Furthermore, Freud (191411957) argued that an individual’s narcissism held considerable attraction for others who have denied part of their own narcissism and are seeking object-relationships. More recent psychoanalytic perspectives examining narcissism have resulted in vigorous debate (Millon, 1981). For instance, Kemberg (1975, 1980) proposes a parentaldevaluation hypothesis whereby narcissism is a function of parental rejection or abandonment. The rejected child subsequently withdraws and believes that only the self can be trusted and loved. Next, Kohut’s (1971, 1976) developmental self theory suggests that narcissism results from the failure to idealize the parents because of insufficient parental empathy. Due to the absence of parental acceptance, the child is unable to develop a good sense of self-worth and becomes self-absorbed. Consequently, the narcissistically injured child spends the remainder of life searching for an idealized parent substitute and acceptance that can never be found (Kohut, 1971, 1976). In brief, the various explanations share a longstanding predilection for viewing narcissism as a psychogenically based imbalance in self-esteem management (Freud, 1914/1957; Jacobson, 1964; Kemberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971, 1976; Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991a; Reich, 1960). The purpose of the narcissistic mental activity is to preserve a favorable view of the self (e.g., Kemberg, 1970; Kohut, 1971). Narcissists protect their fragile sense of self by perceiving themselves as unique, special, and possessing extraordinary abilities (Russell, 1985; Tobacyk & Mitchell, 1987). In addition, narcissists maintain an attitude of superiority toward others, artificially inflate their achievements, and deny their failings (Lax, 1975). Finally, the narcissist’s grandiose and exaggerated view of the self can span across many life areas (Akhtar & Thomson, 1982). The above review implies that narcissism is linked only with pejorative self-indulgence and the abuse of leader power (e.g., O’Connor et al., 1995; Sankowsky, 1995). However, narcissism may be similar to the need for power where activity inhibition reflects the motive to use power for social rather than personal objectives (e.g., McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; McClelland & Bumham, 1976; McClelland, Davis, Kalin, & Wanner, 1972). As such, narcissism likewise may incorporate desirable features (Emmons, 1987; Kohut, 1971, 1976; Volkan & Itzkowitz, 1984). For example, narcissistic Authority, Exhibitionism, and Superiority may parallel the unique leadership, special magnetism, and personal eminence associated with charismatic leaders. Similarly, narcissistic Entitlement, Exploitativeness, Self-Sufficiency, and Vanity may mirror the charismatic leader’s referent power, manipulative persuasive skills, efficacy capacity, and distinctive appearance, respectively. Therefore, it seems reasonable that narcissism may predict charismatic leadership (e.g., Post, 1986, 1993). Moreover, given the vast responsibilities of American Presidents, effective and decisive leadership

52

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

may require an individual demonstrating ample doses of narcissism. research has not addressed narcissism in American Presidents.

Vol. 8 No. 1 1997

Surprisingly,

previous

SUMMARY AND HYPOTHESIS Charismatic leaders formulate and communicate an exciting vision of what can be accomplished. As a consequence, motivated followers perform beyond expectations and generate impressive results (e.g., Bass, 1985). Moreover, personality traits are likely predictors of charismatic leadership (House & Howell, 1992; Post, 1993). For example, narcissistic personality features such as a strong sense of self-confidence, the ability to influence others, and viewing oneself as a special person may help create the personal aura essential for charismatic leadership. As a consequence, followers may closely identify with the narcissistic charismatic leader (Post, 1986). Finally, American Presidents hold political leadership positions whereby the performance of their responsibilities can have far-reaching societal effects. Accordingly, the study of personality traits connected with presidential charismatic leadership seems important. However, few studies have addressed presidential personality and charismatic leadership (e.g., House et al., 1991; Simonton, 1988). Also, earlier research has not examined narcissistic behavior in American Presidents. Therefore, the major purpose of this investigation was to study narcissism as a personality trait predicting presidential between narcissism and rated charismatic leadership. In addition, the relationship presidential effectiveness was examined. Based on the above review and prior work, the following hypothesis was generated: Hypothesis 1. Presidential narcissism leadership and rated performance.

will be positively

related to charismatic

METHOD Historiometric procedures were used to evaluate the hypothesis. Historiometry examines biographical information of historical figures by using quantitative measurement without any prior theoretical commitment. The methodology includes content analysis and the use of adapted personality instruments with biographical works. As such, historiometry attempts to establish personality patterns from the particular to the general across a sample of cases (Simonton, 1984, 1986). Prior work has justified the use of historiometry in the study of world class leaders (Avolio & Bass, 1988; O’Connor et al., 1995). For example, historiometry has been used to examine presidential leadership motive profiles (Spangler & House, 1991) as well as to demonstrate a connection between presidential charisma and effectiveness (e.g., House et al., 1991; Simonton, 1988). Further, biographical information was implemented in student assessments of how leaders (including 12 American Presidents) differed in transactional and transformational leadership (Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987). Finally, in a study of 15 political leaders, pairs of students read biographies and then completed a management styles questionnaire as if they were an immediate subordinate of the leader. The findings provided support of using students in research examining world-class leaders (Bass & Farrow, 1977).

Presidential

Charisma,

Narcissism,

and Performance

53

Sample and Data Sources

The 39 American chief executives from Washington to Reagan were subjects for this investigation. The profiles developed by Simonton (1986, 1988) were employed to assess presidential personality. These profiles were prepared by abstracting personality descriptions verbatim from numerous standard biographical sources and presidential fact books. These profiles were prepared in as an objective and unbiased fashion as possible. For instance, no editing was performed as only identifying material was deleted. Also, individual biographies were omitted to insure consistent and non-idiosyncratic portrayals of the presidents. The specific reference works used and further details concerning the creation of the profiles are available in Simonton (1986, 1988). Finally, the author supplemented each profile with all non-identifying material taken from the personality section of DeGregorio’s (1991) presidential reference work. The purpose was to provide each president with a personality description as comprehensive as possible. (The author would like to thank Dean Keith Simonton for this idea). The average length of each profile was approximately 600 words. Measures

All profiles were rated for presidential narcissism. Archival sources were exploited for two measures of presidential charismatic leadership and five performance assessments. Narcissism

The 40-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988) was used to evaluate presidential narcissism. The NPI and has been extensively used in recent personality research (e.g., Buss & Chiodo, 199 1; Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee, 1994; Raskin & Novacek, 1989, 1991; Raskin et al., 1991a, 1991b) and has been validated by the authors of the instrument (e.g., Raskin & Hall, 1979,198 1; Raskin & Terry, 1988) as well as by independent researchers (e.g.,Emmons, 198 1,1984,1987;Ritzer, 1995).PriorresearchusingtheNPIhasdemonstrated consistent and large relationships between narcissism and political leadership (Hogan et al., 1990). The instrument assesses seven components of narcissism. The components are Authority (8 items), Exhibitionism (7 items), Superiority (5 items), Entitlement (6 items), Exploitativeness (5 items), Self-Sufficiency (6 items), and Vanity (3 items). For each NPI item, three raters chose between one of two alternatives assessed as most closely applied to the profiled person. Following the recommended procedure (Raskin & Terry, 1988), scores were calculated by matching the rater’s choice with the NPI scoring template. Each match was scored one point with the sum of the matches yielding an overall NPI score. Higher scores indicated stronger narcissism. A sample item was: (a) “believes he/she is much like everybody else” or (b) “believes he/she is an extraordinary person.” Because the seven NPI component scores emerged as highly intercorrelated (average r = .70), these were added to form composite narcissism scores. Each president’s overall narcissism score then was determined by averaging the composite assessments from the three raters. Presidential

Charismatic

The presidential used as indicators

Leadership

charismatic and creative styles developed by Simonton (1988) were of charismatic leadership for this study. To recall, Simonton (1988)

54

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 1 1997

constructed the aforementioned 39 presidential personality profiles from a variety of biographical reference sources. Next, after all recognizable materials were deleted, Simonton asked seven student raters to independently assess each president using 82 items describing presidential style. The 82 style items were formulated by the Historical Figures Assessment Collaborative at the Institute for Personality Assessment and Research (University of California, Berkeley; cf. HFAC, 1977). Each item was rated on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely atypical) to 7 (extremely typical) of the target profile. A subsequent factor analysis yielded five presidential stylistic dimensions for the 39 presidents. These dimensions included interpersonal, deliberative, neurotic, charismatic, and creative presidential styles. Further details describing the development of the five presidential stylistic dimensions are available in Simonton (1988). The charismatic and creative presidential styles for each president were adopted for the present study because their respective style item factor loadings were judged by the researcher as portraying charismatic leadership. For example, items loading high on the charismatic style included “is charismatic,” “ keeps in contact with the American public and its moods,” “ uses rhetoric effectively, ” “is a dynamo of energy and determination,” “characterized by others as a world figure,” and “enjoys the ceremonial aspects of the office.” Also suggesting charismatic leadership, the style items exhibiting high loadings on creativity included “is able to visualize alternatives and weigh long-term consequences,” “is innovative in his role as an executive,” “’is empathetic in asserting his judgments,” and “initiates new legislation and programs” (Simonton, 1988). Finally, and consistent with prior work (e.g., House et al., 1991), Simonton’s (1988) creative presidential style was selected as a measure of charismatic leadership because charisma appears to incorporate a prominent creative component. Support for the creative features of charismatic leadership has been amply provided by Bass (1985), Conger and Kanungo (1987, 1988) and House (1977). Rated Presidential

Performance

As reported by House et al. (1991) five archival measures of rated presidential performance were tapped for this study. First, Murray and Blessing (1983) asked American historians to rank the presidents from five (“great”) to one (“failure”). The subsequent presidential mean greatness scores were used in the present investigation. Scores for eight presidents were not available. Further information concerning the development of these ratings is available in Murray and Blessing (1983). Also, Winter’s (1987) four assessments of presidential performance including CO~ZS~~SUS of greatness, war avoidance, war ent?, and great decisions cited were used. First, the consensus of greatness scores were based on Maranell’s (1970) poll where American historians were asked to rate the presidents according to general prestige, strength of and administrative accomplishments. Winter (1987) action, presidential activeness, subsequently standardized and summed the four dimensions yielding composite consensus of greatness judgments. Next, Winter’s (1987) war avoidance scores describe crises that could have evolved into war but were resolved peacefully while war entry was defined in terms of a list previously created by Richardson (1960). Finally, as judged by Morris (1967), Winter (1987) formed a great decisions cited measure of performance based on “decisions that have historical impact on the country and world.” Consensus of greatness, great decisions cited, and war

Presidential

Charisma,

Narcissism,

and Performance

55

56

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 1 1997

avoidance data were not available for ten presidents. War entry data were not available for eight presidents. A complete description of Winter’s four presidential performance ratings is detailed in Winter (1987). Descriptive statistics for all measures used in the investigation are shown in Table 1. Procedure

The presidential profiles were randomly distributed in several undergraduate behavioral science classes at a small college located in the Northeastern United States. Volunteer raters first read a profile. Next, for each item on the aforementioned NPI scale attached to the profile, the raters confidentially selected the response best describing the depicted person. Raters were instructed to reread the profiles as often as necessary and to employ overall impressions of the profiled person when making choices. The rater instructions made no references to leadership. Raters were unaware that the profiles described either American Presidents or prominent leaders and had no prior knowledge of the hypothesis. Consequently, because the raters were unlikely to identify the person depicted, their judgments were based on the personality profiles and not on the raters’ pre-existing knowledge and views concerning the presidents or effective leadership. Preliminary tests also indicated that the raters were unaware that the profiles portrayed American Presidents. Finally, prior work has supported the use of undergraduates for historiometric leadership assessments (e.g., Bass et al., 1987; Bass & Farrow, 1977). For each profile, three raters assessed presidential narcissism. In total, I 17 raters were used in this study; 54 were men and 62 were women. One rater did not indicate their gender. The average rater age was 2 I years. The overall NPI raw and standardized c scores for the 39 American Presidents appear in Table 2.

RESULTS Interrater

Agreement

Following the procedures employed by Bass et al. (1987) a one-way Analysis of Variance was computed using presidents as the between-subjects variable and the NPI composite scores as the dependent variable. The resulting two-tailed F-ratio was significant [F(38,1 16) = 3.52, p < .OOOl] and converted to an eta coefficient (eta = .80) to provide an interrater agreement estimate. Eta coefficients indicate the degree to which raters were in agreement when assessing the same president as compared with ratings of different presidents. It was judged that the raters were in sufficient agreement in evaluating the narcissistic behaviors of the presidents. Hypothesis

Test

To recall, Hl proposed that presidential narcissism would be positively associated with charismatic leadership and rated performance. Therefore, a two-tailed, two-step hierarchical regression analysis was used to evaluate HI. Because rater responses to the personality profiles could be influenced by likability, Simonton’s (1986) friendliness data for each president were used as a control variable.

57

Presidential Charisma, Narcissism, and Performance

Table 2 Narcissism Scores for American Presidents NPI Standardized z Scores

NPI Rrrw Scores

G. Washington

.83

27.67

J. Adams

.91

28.33

-.4 1

17.33

President

T. Jefferson

-1.53

8.00

Sl

25.00

J.Q. Adams

.I5

22.00

A. Jackson

.83

21.67

J. Madison J. Monroe

M. Van Buren

-.21

19.00

.95

28.67

J. Tyler

1.23

31.00

J. Polk

.87

28.00

W.H. Harrison

2. Taylor

-1.21

10.67

M. Fillmore

-.93

13.00

F. Pierce

-.OI

20.67

Sl

25.00

J. Buchanan A. Lincoln A. Johnson

-.31 .99

U.S. Grant

-1.09

R.B. Hayes

-1.65

J. Garfield

17.67 29.00 1 I .67 7.00

.03

21.00

C. Arthur

1.71

35.00

G. Cleveland

-.77

14.33

B. Harrison

I .35

32.00

W. McKinley T. Roosevelt W. Taft

-1.69 .99

6.67 29.00

-.77

14.33

.3l

23.33

W. Harding

-1.21

10.67

C. Coolidge

-1.89

5.00

-.49

16.67

F. Roosevelt

I.51

33.33

H. Truman

-.93

13.00

D. Eisenhower

-.77

W. Wilson

H. Hoover

J.F. Kennedy L. Johnson R. Nixon

14.33

.23

22.67

1.39

32.33

.47

24.67

G. Ford

-.25

18.67

J. Carter

-.51

16.00

R. Reagan Note:

NPI = Narciassiatic Personality Inventory.

.83

21.67

58

LEADERSHIP

Hierarchical

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 1 1997

Table 3 Regression Analysis Evaluating the Relationship of Presidential Narcissism With Charisma and Rated Performace NPI ./3

F

Charisma Model

1

Model 2

.4s* .50**

.51**

Difference

6.52=

.20

10.49***

.46

13.00**

.26

.28

.Ol

4.43*

.26

8xr

.2s

Creativity Model

1

Model 2

-.I0 -.OS

.50**

Difference War Entry Model

I

Model 2

.09

.I

I

.I3

Difference

23

.Ol

.3l

.03

.SO

.02

War Avoidance Model I

.04

Model 2

.09

.04 55

Difference

00

1

.30

I o.oo*-

30

.26

.Ol

5.27*

Great Decisions Cited Model I

-.I0

Model 2

-.os

.52**

Difference

I*

.28

Y.oo**

.27

4.9

Mean Greatness Model I

-.I5

.02

Model 2

-.I0

.28 .26

Difference Consensus

of Greatness

I

p.09

Model 2

-.03

Model

Difference

.57**

.21

.Ol

6.12*=

.33

10.67*=

32

Therefore, in Step 1, the regression model contained the friendliness data as a regressor and the two charismatic leadership and five performance ratings as response variables. The model in Step 2 was identical to the Step 1 model with the addition of the presidential narcissism composite ratings as the last entered regressor variable. Thus, the incremental

Presidential Charisma, Narcissism, and Performance

59

variance in presidential charismatic leadership and performance attributable to narcissism (R22) beyond that explained by profile likability (R2t), could be assessed (R*, - R21; Cohen & Cohen, 1975). A review of the Table 3 data shows that presidential narcissism explained significant additional amounts of variance in charisma (26%, pc.Ol), creativity (25%, p<.Ol), war avoidance (3O%,p<.Ol), great decisions cited (27%,p<.Ol), mean greatness (26%,p<.Ol), and consensus of greatness (32%, px.01). Presidential narcissism did not account for variance in war entry significantly beyond likability (2%, ps.05). It was judged that Hl was generally supported.

DISCUSSION Prior to considering the findings, the study’s limitations require comment. First, due to the correlational nature of the study, causal direction cannot be inferred. Whether narcissism is either a cause or function of charismatic leadership and effectiveness cannot be determined by these data. Second, although 117 raters were used, only 39 presidents were available for evaluation. Finally, performance data were not available for all presidents. Overall, the findings are consistent with the Hl prediction that presidential narcissistic behavior is positively associated with charismatic leadership and rated performance. In this respect, the data corroborate the idea suggesting narcissism incorporates several desirable features (Emmons, 1987) required for effective leadership (Kohut, 1971, 1976; Volkan & Itzkowitz, 1984). Fu~he~ore, the observed narcissism and creativity relationship sustains the view that charismatic leadership embodies a salient innovative component (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; House, 1977). How might the observed relationships be explained? First, Kohut’s (197 1, 1976) psychoanalytic self theory will be used as a framework for understanding the narcissistic aspects of presidential charismatic leader-follower relationships. Franklin Roosevelt is selected as an example. Next, the deleterious features of narcissistic charismatic leadership will be considered. As argued by Post (1986, 1993), Kohut’s (1971, 1976) psychoanalytic self-psychology is valuable for clarifying the nature of narcissism in charismatic leader-follower relationships. Recall, Kohut (1971, 1976) argued that because of deficient parental approval, the child fails to develop suf~cient self-esteem. Consequently, two personality or transferential patterns emerge. Both patterns represent narcissistically injured individuals who are struggling with self-esteem management issues. First, the mirror-hungry persondily is characterized by attributes typically associated with charismatic leaders including an aura of great personal conviction and towering strength. These personalities possess a strong narcissistic grandiose self requiring a continuous stream of admiration from others. The craving for confirming responses is needed to counteract a fundamental lack of self-esteem. Thus, the mirror-hungry personality pursues mirroring self-object dationships with others (followers) that verify his/her sense of personal greatness (Kohut, 197 1, 1976). The narcissism of the minor-hung~ personality is especially attractive to Kohut’s (197 1, 1976) second transferential pattern, the ideal-hlmg~) personality. These individuals depict the followers in charismatic leadership relationships. IdeaI-hung~ personalities are

60

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 1 1997

plagued by self-doubt and gain self-esteem only by admiring idealized others, that is, the mirror-hungry personality. Particularly during crises, the ideal-hungry personality searches for idealizing self-object relationships where the target of the admiration (charismatic leader) is viewed as a model of perfection, power, comfort, and as a component of self. The mirror-hungry personality’s posture of total certainty and extreme self-confidence becomes magnetically reassuring (Kohut, 1971, 1976). Therefore, the stage is set for charismatic leader-follower relationships where the self-esteem requirements of narcissistic mirror-hungry leaders and ideal-hungry followers are mutually nourishing. Several data support the selection of Franklin Roosevelt as a lucid illustration of Kohutian (197 1, 1976) narcissism in charismatic leader-follower relationships. First, Simonton’s (1988) data rank Roosevelt as the most charismatic and creative American President. Roosevelt also was unsurpassed on both Murray and Blessing’s (1983) and Winter’s (1987) presidential performance assessments. Third, the NPI data (Table 2) show that Franklin Roosevelt was the second most narcissistic president. As explained by Post (1993), a review of Roosevelt’s biographical materials further reveals strong narcissistic elements in his personality (e.g., Bums, 1956; Miller, 1983; Ward, 1985). For instance, he was supremely ebullient and self-confident. He possessed a persuasive and vibrant golden voice and displayed remarkable gifts for leadership in times of crisis. Also, Roosevelt maintained an image of superiority and the absolute assurance as to the value and importance of what he was doing. Even among his ardent supporters, a common complaint about Roosevelt was his devious and deceptive nature; he never spoke with total candidness to anyone (DeGregorio, 199 1; Simonton, 1986, 1988). Finally, Roosevelt was the nation’s Chief Executive during 12 of the most difficult years in American history, for example, the Great Depression, World War Two, etc. Thus, many Americans may have subsequently experienced a Kohutian (197 1, 1976) self-object-like transference to the heroic figure of Roosevelt who would rescue them from political, economic, and military disaster. At the same time, the mirror-hungry Roosevelt’s fantasies of glory and greatness could be confirmed. The Roosevelt illustration suggests how narcissism may be a key factor in presidential charismatic leadership and effective performance. Following Kohut’s ( 197 1, 1976) theory, the narcissist’s extreme self-assurance, persuasive skills, and inflated favorable selfevaluation may produce the personal magnetism necessary for the dramatic consequences of charismatic leadership. The Dark Side of Narcissistic

Charismatic

Leadership

A strong caveat is needed as prior work asserts that the consequences of narcissistic charismatic leadership are not universally beneficial (e.g., Conger, 1989; Hogan et al., 19YO; Howell & Avolio, 1992; Johnson, 1979; Newman, 1983; Post, 1986, 1993; Sankowsky. 1995). For example, McClelland (1975) distinguished socialized from personalized charismatic leaders. Socialized charismatic leaders pursue collective interests while personalized charismatic leaders feature a self-interested, narcissistic dark side with damaging consequences. That is. due to the excessive grandiosity and ego-inflation, the mirror-hunFry leader (Kohut. I97 I. 1976) can be so overwhelmingly self-confident that he/\hc i\ scnuinrly convinced that followers have little useful to contribute. Moreover,

Presidential

Charisma,

Narcissism,

and Performance

61

because charismatic leaders frequently render their opinions and judgments with complete conviction, followers are likely to be influenced. As a consequence, charismatic leaders become disproportionately persuasive in group settings (Hogan et al., 1990). Thus, these situational conditions foster the narcissistic charismatic leader’s selfaggrandizing, malignant behavior characterized by personal domination, exploitation, and an authoritarian orientation toward followers. The personalized charismatic leader’s continuous self-seeking lessens the willingness to pursue common objectives (Kanfer, 1979). The leader is primarily interested in achieving personal outcomes, often at the expense of the social system, organization, and followers. Their inspirational vision becomes essentially a monument to themselves. Furthermore, the problem is exacerbated by ideal-hungry followers (Kohut, 1971, 1976) who ignore negative aspects and excessively idealize and identify with the narcissistic charismatic leader (Post, 1986). As a result, follower objective review of charismatic leader decision-making becomes impeded. O’Connor et al. (1995) provided support for these ideas by employing historiometric methods to demonstrate a connection between charismatic narcissism and destructiveness in a sample of 20th Century world class leaders.

CONCLUSION An understanding of narcissism and charismatic leadership in the American Presidency is important due to the far-ranging impact of presidential performance. Accordingly, this study goes beyond existing research in several ways. First, multiple data sources were exploited to provide insight into the narcissistic nature of presidential charismatic leadership. The findings showed positive presidential narcissism relationships with two measures of charisma and four assessments of performance. These results were interpreted with regard to the possible desirable and undesirable facets of charismatic leader narcissism. In addition, Kohut’s (1971, 1976) psychoanalytic self theory may further enrich the understanding of presidential narcissism in charismatic leader-follower relationships (Post, 1993). Here, the self-esteem management concerns of charismatic leaders and followers are mutually reinforcing. The investigation also contributes to the research literature by providing narcissism ratings for 39 American Presidents. These previously unavailable data can be used by future researchers analyzing presidential leadership. Future historiometric investigations might explore the conditions under which narcissism is detrimental to the charismatic leadership process. Similarly, follow-up research might explore the relationship of the seven individual narcissistic components with presidential charismatic leadership and effectiveness. The role different crisis conditions might play whereby narcissism is related to war avoidance, but not war entry, also seems worthy of study. Lastly, additional studies might tap larger and more diverse populations. For instance, investigating the narcissistic aspects of charismatic leadership in both smaller and private organizations might yield findings diverging from the political leadership data reported here. Investigations examining these and similar research questions will help illuminate the frequently dramatic consequences of charismatic leadership.

62

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 1 1997

REFERENCES Akhtar, S., & Thomson, J.A. (1982). Overview: Narcissistic personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 12-20. Avolio, B.J., &Bass, B.M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 29. 49). Lexington, MA: Lexington. Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., & Einstein, W.O. (1988). Transformational leadership in a management simulation: Impacting the bottomline. Group & Organization Studies, 13,59-80. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership andperformance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at the world-class level. Journal of Management, I3,7- 19. Bass, B.M., & Farrow, D.L. (1977). Quantitative analyses of biographies of political figures. Journal of Psychology, 97, 28 l-296. Bums, J.M. (1956). Roosevelt: The lion and the fox. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World. Buss, D.M., & Chiodo, L.S. (1991). Narcissistic acts in everyday life. Journal of Personality, 59, 179-215. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Conger, J.A. (1989). The charismatic leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership. Academy of Management Review, 12,637-647. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 78-97). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. DeGregorio, W.A. (1991). The complete book of lJ..S presidents, 2nd ed. New York: Dembner Books. Emmons, R.A. (1981). Relationship between narcissism and sensation seeking. Psychological Reports, 48, 247-250. Emmons, R.A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48.291-300. Emmons, R.A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1I - 17. Freud, S. (1957[ 19241). On narcissism: An introduction. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the completepsychological works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 14 (pp. 73-102). London; Hogarth Press. Fromm, E. (1973). The anatomy of human destructiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Gabriel, M.T., Critelh, J.W., & Ee, J.S. (1994). Narcissistic illusions in self-evaluations of intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62, 143-155. perceptions of Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ transformational and transactional leadership. Journul of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702. Historical Figures Assessment Collaborative. (1977). Assessing historical figures: The use of observer-based personality descriptions. Historical Methods Newsletter, IO, 66-76. 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. House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale. IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Presidential

Charisma,

Narcissism,

63

and Performance

House, R.J., & Howell, J.M. (1992). Personality

and charismatic

leadership. 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, 364396. Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation. The Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 43-54. Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit control, and support for innovation: performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,891-902. Jacobson, E. (1964). The self and the object world. New York: International Universities Press. Johnson, D.P. (1979). Dilemmas of charismatic leadership: The case of the people’s temple. Sociological Analysis, 40, 3 15-323. Kanfer, F.H. (1979). Personal control, social control, and altruism. American Psychologist, 34, 231. 239. Keller, R.T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18,489-501. Kemberg, O.F. (1970). Factors in the psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personalities. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 18,s l-8.5. Kemberg, O.F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson. Kemberg, O.F. (1980). Internal world and external reality. New York: Jason Aronson. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press. Kohut, H. (1976). The restoration of the self New York: International Universities Press. Lax, R.F. (1975). Some comments on the narcissistic aspects of self-righteousness: Defensive and structural considerations. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 56,283-292. Maranell, G.M. (1970). The evaluation of presidents: An extension of the Schlesinger polls. Journal of American History 57, 104-I 13. McClelland, D.C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington. McClelland, D., & Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,737-743. McClelland, D.C., & Bumham, D. (1976, March-April). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, .54(2), 100-l 10, 159- 166. McClelland, D.C., Davis, W.N., Kalin, R., & Wanner, E. (1972). The drinking man. New York: Free Press. Miller, N. (1983). F.D.R.: An intimate history. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Millon, A. (1981). Prisoners of childhood. New York: Basic Books. Morris, R.B. (1967). Great presidential decisions: State papers that changed the course of history (rev. ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. Murray, R.K., & Blessing, T.H. (1983). The presidential performance study: A progress report. Journal of American History, 70, 535-555. Newman, R.G. (1983). Thoughts on superstars of charisma: Pipers in our midst. American Journnl of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 201-208. O’Connor, J., Mumford, M.D., Clifton, T.C., Gessner, T.L., & Connelly, M.S. (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: An historiometric study. Leadership Quarterly, 6,529-555. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142. Post, J. (1986). Narcissism and the charismatic leader-follower relationship. Political Psychology, 7, 675-688.

64

LEADERSt-llP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 1 1997

Post, J. (1993). Current concepts of the narcissistic personality: Implications for polilical psychology. Potitical Psychology, 14,99- I2 I. Raskin, R., & Hall, C.S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. ~~.~c~o/~g;c~~ Reports, 45,590. Raskin, R., & Hall, C.S. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Alternate form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 4.5, 159-162.

Raskin, R., & Novacek, J. (1989). An MMPI description of the narcissistic personality. Jourrznl qf Persanali~ Assessment. 53,66-80. Raskin, R., & Novacek, J. (1991 f. Narcissism and the use of fantasy. Jaur~al gf Cfiniral Psychology, 41,490.499.

Raskin, R., & Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (I 99la). Narcissistic self-esteem management. Journal nf Personal&s and Social Psychology. 6, 9 1 l-9 18. Raskin, R., & Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991b). Narcissism, self-esteem, and defensive selfenhancement. Journnl afpersanaii~, 59, 19-38. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Jourtza~ of Persona& and Social Psychology,

54, 890-902.

Reich, A. (1960). Pathological

forms of self-esteem

regulation.

The Psychoanalytic

Study of the

Child, 15, 215-232.

Richardson, L. (1960). Statistics czfdeadly qararrels. Pittsburgh. PA: Boxwood Press. Ritzer, D.R. ( 1995, May). Con~r~ata~ ,fattor ana&sis qf the ~arc~.~‘~~sti~Per.sal7uli~ ~zz~,ezztar~. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Russell, GA. (1985). Narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: A comparison of the theories of Kemberg and Kohut. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 587, 137-148. Sankowsky. D. (1995). The charismatic leader as narcissist: Understanding the abuse of power. Org~z~i~at~ana~Dyzamics,

Z(4),

57-7

I.

Seltzer. J., & Bass, B.M. (1990). Transformational Jourrzal of Management.

leadership:

Beyond initiation and consideration.

16, 693-703.

Simonton, D.K. ( 1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Simonton, D.K. (1986). Presidential personality: Biographical use of the Gough Adjective Check List. Joz~rna~ of Perso~zal~t~ and Social Ps~~~zolog~, 51, 149- 160. Simonton, D.K. f 1988). Presidential style: Personality, biography. and performance. Journal oj Personrzlit?: and Social Psychology,

55,928-936.

Spangler, W.D., & House, R.J. (I 99 1). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,439-455. Tobacyk, J.J., & Mitchell, T.E. f 1987). Out-of-body experience status as a moderator of effects of narcissism on paranormal beliefs. Ps~~~~~~logic~~~ Report.s, 60,440-442. Volkan, V., & Itzkowitz, N. (1984). Tl?e jrnt~ortfli Atatzirk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M., & Einstein, W.O. (1987). Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal processes. Jouma( of Occupational Psychology, 60, I77- 186. Ward. G.C. (198.5). Before the trumpet: Young Franklin Roosevelt lXK2-1905. New York: Harper & Row. Weber, M. (192411947). The theory ofsocial and economic orgf~ni~flt~ons (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press. Winter, D.G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motives profile of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Persona& and Social Psychology,

52, 196-202.

Presidential Charisma,

Narcissism, and Performance

65

Yammarino, F.J., & Bass, B.M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 15 1- 169). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.