Archives For August 2010

Last week I wrote an article entitled “Seven Things To Expect From Your Narcissistic Employee” that looked at how to deal with employees that are overly self-absorbed, arrogant, manipulative, and believe they are entitled to lead others. But that article did not address what to expect from a leader with a narcissistic personality.

Once again, there are very few articles on narcissism in the top Management and I-O Psychology research publications. But I do want to share the results of one very well done study recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology entitled “The Bright-Side and the Dark-Side of CEO Personality: Examining Core Self-Evaluations, Narcissism, Transformational Leadership, and Strategic Influence.” This study of 75 CEOs of Major League Baseball organizations over a 100 year period examined how positive and negative personality characteristics affected the individual’s leadership style and ultimately important outcomes for the organization.

Terms like confident, determined, optimistic, stable, persistent, and positive were associated with the bright-side of leadership, while terms like arrogant, boastful, conceited, egotistical, self-centered, show-off and temperamental were associated with the narcissistic dark-side of leadership. The authors of the study suggest the following five things based on their findings (pp. 1373-1374):

The Bright-side of personality

1. Leaders who have an overall positive self-concept are better able to articulate a vision in a manner that builds commitment to the organization’s goals.

2. Positive leaders may role model the efforts needed for the organization to be successful and are comfortable empowering others because they have a realistic sense of their own and their organization’s capabilities

3. Positive leaders are more comfortable with the focus being on the good of the organization rather than on their individual success.

The Dark-side of personality

4. Narcissistic leaders are unlikely to be concerned about developing equitable exchange relationships with members of their organization. When followers meet objectives, narcissistic leaders do a poor job of allocating recognition and rewards to reinforce desired behavior.

5. Narcissistic leaders are very unlikely to offer a compelling vision for the organization and inspire others to higher levels of morale and motivation.

Narcissistic leadership in this study eventually lead to more manager turnover, while positive leadership lead to higher attendance, a better winning percentage, and greater external influence in the industry (Major League Baseball).

Just like the advice to avoid hiring narcissistic employees, you should likewise avoid hiring and promoting narcissistic individuals into positions of management and leadership. It’s impossible for narcissists to see the best in others when they are so laser-focused on spotlighting the best they see in themselves. They won’t treat people fairly because it simply is not a concern for them, and their vision of individual greatness is unlikely to inspire others and may even expose the organization to competitive peril.

There is no guarantee that simply hiring and promoting positive people is a recipe for organizational success. But I think the research is pretty clear that narcissistic individuals, especially in positions of power and influence, are more likely to do harm than to do lasting good.

Bret Simmons is an Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), where he teaches courses in organizational behavior, leadership, and personal branding to both undergraduate and MBA students. He has a Ph.D. in Business Administration from Oklahoma State University. Bret blogs about leadership and followership at his website Positive Organizational Behavior . You can also find Bret on Twitter, Facebook, and Linkedin.

Related Posts on Positive Organizational Behavior:

Service-Profit Chain: Managers Matter

ACT Change: Inspire Others To Enact Their Best Selves

My Buffalo Wild Wings Rant

David Burkus —  August 26, 2010

(or on the folly of rewarding A while hoping for A)

“Do you guys have email addresses?” our waitress asked. It was Thursday, and my colleague and I were partaking in 60-cent Boneless Wings Day. After delivering a sarcastic “No” I inquired why she was asking so bluntly. She wanted us to enroll in the Buffalo Circle Loyalty Program. No, she didn’t want us to…BWW did. Most restaurants have some variation on “offer a free $4 appetizer on your birthday in exchange for attacking you with spam” programs. Our waitress didn’t seem too interested in gaining our email so I asked, “What do you get out of it?”

“I get a ticket for each person enrolled, and every week we have a raffle. The winner gets out of clean up duty.”

The reason for her lack of interest became obvious.

In a perfect world, employees would be perfectly matched to their job. Every manager would be a leader and leaders would inspire and engage their employees by reminding them how their job ties into a larger mission. But sometimes you just need wings delivered to table eight. Those jobs call for transactional leadership, a.k.a., incentives. It’s a standard rule of organizational psychology: that which gets measured gets done; rewarded gets done better (or more often). Expectancy theory tells us incentives work when task performance is easily related to the reward, and the reward is desired. But if you make the incentive too complex, or one no one cares about, the system falls apart.

You get waitresses who don’t care if I become a member of the hallowed Buffalo Circle.

So what should Buffalo Wild Wings do? Pay for performance: a dollar for each enrollee. Or force rank employees: everyone gets a percentage in tip share equal to their percentage of enrollees. There are many different incentive solutions that would simply tie performance to reward.

A raffle tickets is not one of them.

(Note: this post initially appeared as a guest post elsewhere. Apologies to those who’ve seen it twice. We wanted to share it with the entire LDRLB family.)

Organic Values

David Burkus —  August 25, 2010

O’Toole (1996) reminds us that leading change and instituting values is not a dictatorial process. Inclusion and participation are vital elements of leadership, particularly when leading an infusion of values. Joas (2000) claims that values develop from the shared experience of an individual or group. Perhaps another way to look at is in that values grow organically out of culture. Inclusive leaders recognize this, and rather than infuse their values on an organization, they seek to draw out values from the culture.

Tony Hsieh (2010) and Zappos serve as an example of these organic values. Hsieh had an idea of what values Zappos had. But rather than state them outright, he actively sought out the participation of every employee at Zappos. His leadership role consisted of compiling and editing this list. In doing so, he left Zappos employees feeling included and created a list that actually reflected Zappos’ values (a rare find).

Joas, H. (2000). The genesis of values. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Hseih, T. (2010). Delivering happiness: A path to profits, passion and purpose. New York: Business Plus.

O’Toole, J. 1996. Leading Change: The Argument for values-based Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bob Sutton laments his label as “the asshole guy.” But, some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have labels thrust upon them. Sutton published The No Asshole Rule a few years ago, in which he revealed the costs of keeping asshole employees and the benefits of ditching them. In Good Boss Bad Boss, he tackles the ultimate workplace jerk: bossholes (asshole + boss).

In many ways, the book recaps a lot of Sutton’s old ideas but re-presents them through the lens of boss. The boss role is almost a breeding ground for bossholes because we often judge them solely on their ability to get results. Sutton, and many others, argue that bosses must be judged by their results and how their followers feel in the process of getting those results. Using this as the measuring stick, Sutton outlines seven core habits that the best bosses do, and fills each chapter with case studies and amusing stories that prove that good bosses do things that bad bosses don’t do (the corollary is also true).

If you’re a boss, someone who manages others, than Good Boss Bad Boss is a worthwhile read. It’s a short course on Sutton’s work that will reveal how to be a boss who gets results, and good reviews.

Service-Profit Chain

Bret Simmons —  August 23, 2010

Last week on Positive Organizational Behavior, LDRLB contributor Bret Simmons outlined the surprising findings of a study from the Journal of Applied Psychology. The results verify the theory behind the service-profit chain and found something else: managers matter.