Otago Management Graduate Review Volume 3 2005

Narcissistic Leaders: Effectiveness and the Role of

Followers

Ben Brown

Introduction

“A tomb now suffices him for whom the whole world was not sufficient”
- Unattributed

One afternoon in June of 323 BC, Alexander the Great died of a

mysterious illness at the palace of Nebuchadrezzar II in the city of
Babylon in modern day Iraq. He was only 33 years old.

Having conquered his way from Northern Greece south to Egypt and east
to India, Alexander was considered by many as the ultimate military
commander and tactician of the ancient world.

Despite widespread acceptance of his greatness as a leader, there is a still

a contentious argument which suggests he was poisoned by one of his
followers. This notion is supported by historical accounts that suggest
there was much disharmony among Alexander’s generals and soldiers in
regards to his unwavering quest to reach the end of the Earth. As history
recalls, Alexander’s preoccupation with a personal legacy of conquest
resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers and
was the primary cause of such discontent. Indeed, it is suggested that
Alexander’s failure to heed the advice of his generals to return the army
to Macedonia was just cause for his eventual assassination.

Throughout history, narcissistic leaders have inspired people and achieved

great deeds that have shaped our world. Alexander has been immortalised
as one of the greatest examples of military and imperial prowess, revered
for his unbridled vision, charisma, and unrepentant determination. Today,
in a world where business is a fundamental feature of the social climate,
narcissists lead the way in pushing the boundaries of global enterprise
through shaping new technologies, forging new strategies and conquering
new markets.

There is often great drama associated with such leaders and their ideas of
“conquering” and “world domination”, but it must be acknowledged that
this pursuit can have a destructive dark side. Contemporary management
literature is brimming with commentary and criticism of governance
practices which have seen the collapse of corporate giants such as Enron
and WorldCom. Much of the assessment points the finger at leaders, in
the image of Alexander, bent on the achievement of their own conquest.

This assignment was for MANT446, Advanced Organisational Behaviour 69-87

Supervised by Prof. Steven Grover
Volume 3 2005 Otago Management Graduate Review

In light of such occurrences, this paper seeks to explore (1) the existence
of narcissistic leaders in contemporary organisations and their potential in
providing effective leadership, (2) how narcissistic leaders fit within
models of charismatic, transformational and transactional leadership, and
most importantly, (3) the role of followers in enhancing the potential of
narcissists to be effective towards the achievement of organisational
objectives.

Effective Leaders – The Role of Individual Traits

Leaders have been around for a long time. They are present in the stories
that shape our upbringings, the sports teams we admire and the
businesses we respect. We find them in our history and they may provide
an inspirational point of reference to shape our futures. As such, the study
of leadership has long excited researchers, historians and political and
religious groups, with each seeking to understand how it can be built,
maintained and mobilised to achieve feats of success and greatness. Since
scientific research in the concept of leadership began in the early
twentieth century, there has been a plethora of definitions provided by
many different theorists, much of which has been aimed at discovering
the determinants of leadership effectiveness within the context of
organisations (Yukl, 2002). Indeed, following an extensive review of
leadership literature, Stogdill (1974) determined that there were just
about as many different definitions of leadership as there were theorists
who had sought to define it.

Since this assessment, the field of leadership has grown further, with a
great deal of knowledge being created on leader traits and behaviours,
effectiveness and dysfunction, follower characteristics, and leader–follower
relationships (Cooper, Scandura & Schriesheim, 2005). In this section, I
will briefly explore some of the theory on leadership effectiveness, with a
specific focus on personal traits and behaviours associated with
narcissism.

Traits

While effective leadership is considered by most theorists in terms of the

consequences of a leader’s actions on followers and other organisational
stakeholders (see for example Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Yukl, 2002), there
are many different theories which suggest it is achieved as a result of a
range of different influences. One of the most prominently discussed
influences on leadership effectiveness and performance is that of a
leader’s personal traits, which include; personality, motives, values and
skills. Such an approach formed the basis of much early scientific research
into leaders which suggested that some individuals were inherently
endowed with certain traits that were not possessed by other people, thus
making them ‘naturally’ better leaders (Howard & Bray, 1988).

70
Otago Management Graduate Review Volume 3 2005

According to Bass (1990), the presence of a given set of personality traits

including; energy level and stress tolerance, self confidence, internal
control, emotional stability and maturity, personal integrity, power
motivation, achievement orientation, and need for affiliation, to a certain
extent influences and encourages leadership effectiveness. While such
assertions appear powerful in predicting leadership effectiveness, a trait
theory of leadership effectiveness, which suggests that leaders are born,
has received widespread criticism as a narrow myth, lacking conclusive
empirical support (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). However, as Yukl (2002)
illustrates, the notion that certain personal traits can influence leader
effectiveness has received support in contemporary literature which
argues such traits can be learned and developed.

In their acclaimed commentary on leadership, Kouzes and Posner (2002)

assert that one of the most promising features of leadership is that it is:

An observable, learnable set of practices. Leadership is not

something mystical and ethereal that cannot be understood by
ordinary people. Given the opportunity for feedback and practice,
those with the persistence to lead and to make a difference can
substantially improve their abilities to do so (p. 386).

With leadership most commonly being considered as a process where

intentional influence is exerted by one person over other people to
structure, guide, and facilitate activities and relationships within a group
or organisation (Yukl, 2002), the idea that leadership effectiveness can be
improved is encouraging for those wishing to do so. Further, such a notion
suggests that where a leader is ineffective and unproductive, there is the
opportunity to develop certain personal traits that may enhance their
effectiveness.

This has important implications for narcissistic leaders and suggests that
any ineffectiveness present in a narcissistic leader can be overcome
through the development of a given set of traits, specifically those related
to personality, emotional stability and maturity.

The Narcissistic Leader

Sigmund Freud (1931) defined a narcissistic personality type as an

individual whose main interest is self preservation, is independent and
impossible to intimidate. Freud (1931) suggested that individuals
belonging to this type of personality group impress others as being strong
personalities, and are especially suited to act as bastions for others,
essentially in leadership roles. It is apparent that this definition is

71
Volume 3 2005 Otago Management Graduate Review

congruent with the ancient origins of the term1 and interpreted, it refers
to a personality type that has an extreme innate need for esteem; in the
form of status, attention or admiration, a strong need for power, weak
self-control, and indifference about the needs and well being of others
(Yukl, 2002).

The ties between narcissism and leadership were notably discussed by

Kets de Vries and Miller (1985) who utilised their foundations in
psychoanalysis to describe the origins of narcissism and its associated
behaviours. Fundamental to this analysis is the assertion that the origins
of narcissistic behaviour lie in aspects of an individual’s upbringing,
specifically, the presence of emotionally unresponsive and rejecting
parental figures. Following on from Freud’s observations, Kohut (1971)
suggested that individuals with such a background have a tendency to
believe they cannot depend on the love and loyalty of anyone, and in an
effort to cope they become preoccupied with establishing their power and
control over others, and ultimately aim to enhance their status.

As leaders, narcissistic individuals have fantasies of power and success, an

exaggerated, grandiose sense of self-importance, and little empathy or
concern for the feelings and needs of others (Yukl, 2002). Such innate
characteristics lead to the exploitation and manipulation of others for the
primary purpose of indulging a narcissistic leader’s desire for personal
enhancement. They expect special favours without feeling any need to
reciprocate, oversimplify relationships and motives and have extremely
bipolar worldviews; seeing things as either extremely good or extremely
bad and see others around them as either loyal supporters or mortal
enemies (Yukl, 2002).

In Alexander the Great, we can see without doubt the characteristics of a

rampant narcissist. Coupled with visions of grandiose, Alexander mobilised
a massive army for the sole purpose of meeting his personal ambitions,
his worldview was dominated by the certainty of battle where one was
either his supporter or his loathed enemy, and his ceaseless war
mongering and conquest at the great expense of his generals and soldiers
is an indication of Alexander’s lack of empathy for those he led.

Indeed like Alexander, contemporary narcissists can become chaotic and

unpredictable in their actions and interactions with others and ultimately
self-destructive, ineffective, and underproductive leaders in an
organisational setting. Such leaders have the potential to destroy the
organisation in the rampant pursuit their personal needs (Maccoby, 2000).

1
Freud named the narcissistic personality after the mythical Greek hero; Narcissus, who
became pathologically obsessed with himself and his reflection, an obsession that
ultimately ended his life (Maccoby, 2000).

72
Otago Management Graduate Review Volume 3 2005

Narcissistic vs. Charismatic and Transformational

Leaders

Kets de Vries and Miller (1985) explore personality traits of narcissistic

leaders by taking their analysis to the “inner world” (p. 585) of their
subjects; analysing the relationship between given personalities and their
leadership behaviour. Much of their analysis suggests that narcissistic
leaders have a great deal in common with charismatic and
transformational models of leadership.

According to Kets de Vries and Miller (1985), the most common trait
among all effective leaders, including narcissistic ones, is the ability to
awaken primitive emotions in their followers. Leaders that are highly
charismatic have the ability to appeal to some intrinsic emotion within
followers which can cause them to be proud to behave in the manner that
the leader professes and act in the best interests of the mission or
organisational objectives, even if it is over and above their personal self
interest (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985; Conger, 1990). Weber (1947) had a
large influence in describing the deference of followers to charismatic
leaders, suggesting that these leaders, who expressed specific personal
features of extraordinary attractiveness and power of person held
charismatic authority over their followers.

Beyond being simply a transactional type of leadership that asserts

influence by setting goals, clarifying desired outcomes, providing
feedback, and compensating based on the achievement of such goals
(Bass & Avolio, 1990), transformational leaders ‘transform’ followers by
making them aware of the importance of the mission or specific goals,
appealing to their higher esteem and self actualising needs (see Maslow,
1970), and encouraging them to transcend their own interest for the sake
of the cause (Yukl, 2002). Transformational leadership appeals to the
moral values of followers; they feel trust, admiration, loyalty and respect
towards a leader and are motivated to actively do more then they
originally intended (Yukl, 2002). When expressed in this manner, there
seems to be little separating charismatic and transformational leaders and
although there has been much debate among leadership scholars as to the
extent that the two typologies are the same, contemporary explanations
of the similar features of each are often expressed as an umbrella concept
of transformational leadership (House & Shamir, 1993; Bass &
Steidlmeier, 1999).

Narcissistic leaders share a number of similar characteristics to those

expressed by the transformational leadership typology, including the
ability to articulate a clear and appealing vision, provide guidance as to
how this vision can be achieved, act confidently and optimistically, utilise
dramatic, symbolic actions to illustrate key values, and lead by example.
However, there are also some distinct differences, especially in regards to

73
Volume 3 2005 Otago Management Graduate Review

the relationship that narcissistic leaders have with their followers, in the
extent that they empower followers to achieve their vision.

Transformational leaders seek new ways of doing things, seek

opportunities in the face of challenges and often contend the status quo
(Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). According to Avolio and Bass
(1988) they do not simply react to environmental consequences, but
rather seek to shape and create them. As such, they must have a clear
vision about what could be achieved and be able to build commitment to
the achievement of such a vision. Indeed, before a leader is able to
implement any change, radical or otherwise, they must be able to
articulate a vision that is attractive enough to justify any sacrifices that
followers might be required to make.

The vision of a transformational leader should be unambiguous and based

on an idealistic notion of a desirable future and should not be filled with
the complexities of implementation (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Moreover,
vision within transformational leaders should based on some attainable
and realistic, yet not immediately available, ideological future (Yukl,
2002). Further, achieving such a vision depends on how well it is
articulated to others and how well they can be convinced that it is in fact
feasible. Lowe et al. (1996) assert that transformational leaders will
achieve this through the articulation of a clear, simplistic strategy that is
not intended to be comprehensive, but rather suggests confidence in the
abilities of followers to provide valid actions in shaping how it comes to
fruition. Further, due to their authoritative position, leaders are explicit
role models for their followers and provide a reference point to guide
follower actions and behaviour. Therefore, it is vitally important that
transformational leaders express positive, confident and optimistic moods
and behaviours (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002). Any lack of
confidence is likely to reduce the extent to which followers ‘buy in’ to the
espoused vision of a leader.

Perhaps the most essential element of transformational leadership lies in

the ability of a leader to dramatically and symbolically express the values
central to a given vision.

Such explicit behaviour can serve to reinforce key values to followers and
illustrate that a leader is committed to the achievement of the vision
(Yukl, 2002). An effective example can be found in Ray Anderson, who
very publicly announced that he and the company which he had founded,
world carpet giant; Interface Inc., were environmental ‘plunderers’ and
‘sinners’ who ultimately “deserved to be in jail” (Baken, 2004, p. 72).
Anderson’s explicit proclamation of his company’s new vision for
sustainability was a direct, dramatic, and symbolic expression of the
values central to such a vision. Moreover, the example illustrates how
Anderson led by example, a vital characteristic of transformational
leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1988). Essentially, in promoting a new ‘green’

74
Otago Management Graduate Review Volume 3 2005

vision for his corporation, Anderson personalised the actions of his firm
suggesting the he himself was a key source of the company’s checkered
environmental past, a challenging proposition that illustrated to his
followers that he was committed to experiencing the same challenges that
they would face in working towards the new vision.

While each feature of the transformational leader conjures up compelling

images of inspiration, triumph and romanticism, it is widely accepted that
leaders have to perform both transactional and transformational roles at
different times. Waldman, Bass and Yammarino (1990) assert that while
transformational leadership augments the effectiveness of transactional
leadership, it does not replace it entirely. However, those who we would
classify as transformational leaders, the Bill Gates and Mahatma Ghandi’s
of this world, are much more transformational in leadership style than
transactional, with their defining moments being acts primarily
transformational in nature (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). However, I argue
that many leaders who could be considered narcissistic, also express
many of the features of a transformational leader, only the
transformational abilities are directed towards the achievement of self-
fulfilling goals.

In his MacKinsey Award winning Harvard Business Review article, Michael

Maccoby (2000) suggested many of today’s top business leaders have
narcissistic personalities. Such leaders write books, actively promote their
own philosophies, and are seen as the shapers of our public and personal
agendas (Maccoby, 2000). Given these features, they are also celebrated
and confirmed as transformational leaders, as they have grand,
compelling visions, can generate scores of followers through passionately
articulating their vision, are supremely confident and optimistic, and often
lead by example (Maccoby, 2000). However, given the corporate collapses
that have coloured the contemporary business climate, it is important to
note that there are some significant differences between the narcissistic
leader who has a transformational edge, and effective, productive
transformational leaders (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).

The first difference can be seen in the vision that shapes leaders’ actions.
Driven by their desire for recognition, and admiration (see Kohut, 1971),
narcissistic leaders create visions that seek to fundamentally shape the
future and leave a personal legacy of great achievement (Maccoby, 2000).
Conversely, while transformational leaders wish to challenge the status
quo and create something new, their visions are less self-serving, being
focussed more on a common, collective organisational or group purpose
(Yukl, 2002). Indeed, the rampant individualism associated with
narcissistic leaders is more closely aligned to transactional leaders, where
leaders and followers each rationally pursue their own self-interest in their
transactions with each other via the notion of a free contract (Donaldson &
Dunfee, 1994).

75
Volume 3 2005 Otago Management Graduate Review

The second - and perhaps most important - divergence of the narcissistic

leader from the transformational leader is in their relationship with
followers. Kets de Vries and Miller (1985) assert that the narcissistic
leader seeks out leadership positions in the desire to gain some
recognition and admiration. Moreover, the narcissistic leader feels like
they can rely only on themselves for the gratification of their life’s needs
and as such are highly exploitative and project an image of independence
(Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985).

Such idealised independence is not realised however, as Moccoby (2000)

suggests narcissistic leaders are highly dependent on their followers for
affirmation and the adoration that they desperately seek. Such
dependence is reiterated by a narcissist’s sensitivity to criticism and
inherent lack of listening skills (Maccoby, 2002) – arguably because such
interactions do not support, and in fact are contradictory to their desire for
recognition of their greatness.

Therefore, notwithstanding a narcissistic leader’s occasional illusions of

omnipotence, they are innately dependent of their followers to validate
their self-esteem and indeed cannot function without an admiring
audience (Lasch, 1970).

Transformational leaders, on the other hand, explicitly seek to become

less dependent on their followers; seeking to satisfy their higher needs in
a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation (Burns, 1978). Indeed,
according to Bass (1985) true transformational leadership requires
follower empowerment rather than follower dependence. In this mutual
relationship, the transformational leader is dependent on followers only for
the achievement of the task that he/she has diverged to them personally.
They are not dependent on followers at a personal level for any
recognition or adoration.

Thus, it is fair to assert that where transformational leaders propound

visions of collective significance, target the higher need motivations of
followers to achieve such visions and empower them to achieve beyond
what they might expect, the narcissistic leader is highly dependent on
followers for obedience to a dramatic, self-satisfying vision and ongoing
recognition and praise.

Given the above analysis of similarities and differences between

transformational and narcissistic leaders, I argue that followers can play a
significant role in shaping the outcomes of narcissistic leadership in a
positive and effective manner.

76
Otago Management Graduate Review Volume 3 2005

Followership – The New Agenda for Encouraging

Effective Leadership

We certainly remember the name of the Macedonian King who conquered

most of the known world. Although his reign was several centuries ago,
his name is one synonymous with powerful, narcissistic leadership. Yet,
we do not hear about the followers of Alexander, the military generals, the
regular soldiers and the members of his travelling baggage, who made his
conquest possible.
The same can be seen in organisations, with the visible nature of leaders
often obscuring the role that followers play in the success of an
organisation. Both in the theory of organisations and in organisational
practice throughout the past hundred years, the unrelenting focus on
leadership has completely eclipsed discussion and research regarding the
role of followership in organisational performance (Gilbert & Hyde, 1988).
According to Meindl, Ehrlich and Dukerich (1985), the notion of leadership
has assumed a romanticised, larger than life status within organisations,
whereas the idea of followership has been neglected and considered within
leadership theory only in regards to a leader’s ability to motivate
subordinates.

I argue that the proliferation of narcissistic leaders and associated

corporate disasters calls for recognition of Mary Parker Follett’s (1949)
assertion that the role of followers in organisational settings is not merely
to follow, but rather to be very active in ensuring leaders ‘stay in control’
of a given situation

Narcissistic leaders can have a strong tendency to ‘lose control’ in the

rampant pursuit of their visions without consideration for the ideas,
criticisms or feelings of others. Such actions can cost an organisation
dearly and as Maccoby (2000) illustrates, the continued ‘blind’ pursuit of
self-satisfying goals can lead to a narcissistic leader having to be publicly
ejected from their post by disgruntled shareholders. True to the ideas of
Follett, Maccoby (2000) suggests that the role of encouraging narcissists
to channel their abilities in a productive manner and not ‘lose control’ can
lie in the hands of followers.

Leaders are often portrayed and interpreted in a bi-polar fashion, often

being considered as either heroes or villains, good or bad – Nelson
Mandela or Adolf Hitler. This distinction is vital among followers and can
be highly significant in how followers might deal with, and mitigate the
negative effects of narcissistic leaders.

77
Volume 3 2005 Otago Management Graduate Review

Follower Transference

The way in which followers perceive their leader is vital to organisational

success, as those who are perceived to be competent are likely to retain
their position or be elevated to a higher position. Thus, for the benefit of
leader effectiveness, performance and subsequent organisational
performance, it is important that followers have a positive perception of
their leaders.

Followers have a tendency to idealise their leader which, within an

organisational context, may see the leader represent a parental figure
who, based on a relationship that a follower had with a parental figure in
the past, is a powerful, omnipotent care giver (Kets de Vries, 1993). While
it is unrealistic for the follower to make the assumption that a leader will
fulfil this role, Maccoby (2004) attests that if the follower sees that the
transferred expectations are being met, they may be motivated to
contribute great efforts in order to please the leader.

However, transference also can work in negative ways, especially if the

leader does not fulfil the transferred expectations that followers might
have. Indeed, such negative transference may be present in the instance
of a narcissistic leader, whereby a follower may have idealised a leader in
the manner discussed above and in response the narcissist is closed to
feedback, lacks empathy and may not provide the emotional support that
the follower desires (Maccoby, 2004). Such differences can create
dissonance between the leader and follower, where they lack a sound
bond, togetherness or cohesion and ultimately are unproductive in their
relations and thus generate poor results (Goleman et al., 2002).

The nature of such dissonance can be seen in the example of Alexander

the Great and his followers, where it was mortally divisive and destructive.
While not so dramatic in the setting of the contemporary organisation, it is
still something that needs to be overcome to ensure a productive and
effective leader – follower relationship and subsequent leadership
effectiveness.

Discussion of transference tendencies within followers has been included

in the paper because it is seen as being a key feature in how narcissistic
leaders can be encouraged towards positive ends. Like the chaotic and
unpredictable nature of the narcissist, the existence of transference by
followers is something that is internal to the individual and unknown to
the leader. Therefore, without addressing such issues of the self, an
effective leader – follower relationship cannot be achieved beyond the
rational, transactional issues such as pay. This is significant for
organisational performance as many theorists have asserted (see for
example, Hertzberg 1966; Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass 1990) that superior

78
Otago Management Graduate Review Volume 3 2005

performance depends on interactions between leaders and followers that

are beyond the realm of the transactional.

Therefore, it is argued that followers must learn to direct their transferred

expectations towards those behaviours that can be actively fulfilled by
leaders, before narcissistic leaders can overcome the limits of their
penchant for the self-satisfying so they can channel their creative,
visionary abilities towards organisational ends. It is suggested that this
process begins in the hands of followers.

Kelley (1992) and Chaleff (1995) provide a set of follower behaviours that
can effectively facilitate followers’ exposure and acknowledgement of
deficiencies within themselves, and can drive followers towards
stimulating similar processes in their narcissistic leaders. Such follower
behaviours include (1) self reflection, (2) open communication, (3)
expressing appreciation, (4) resisting inappropriate leader behaviour and,
(5) challenging flawed practices (Yukl, 2002).

Chaleff’s (1995) book; The Courageous Follower provided one of the first
pragmatic guides to effective followership practises. Central to his
argument was the observation that the term follower was commonly seen
to imply docility, weakness, and subordinate passivity. Such passivity is
encouraged by the distance between leaders and followers which sees
leaders as being more powerful, having higher salaries and being more
successful in general (Chaleff, 1995). The central role that followers play
in organisational activities and the dependence that narcissistic leaders
have on their support places them in position to be able to be active in
righting the wrongs of wayward leadership, and supporting the growth of
a value-based organisation. Followers can influence whether a narcissistic
leader’s strengths (such as vision) are fully utilised and weaknesses (such
as lack of empathy) are overcome, by being proactive, responsible and
courageous (Chaleff, 1995).

Self-reflection

Followers can have unrealistic expectations of their leaders and such

expectations can be very different among followers, who have different
transferral lenses through which they view their leader (Maccoby, 2004).
Therefore, enhancing the relationship between leaders and followers and
overcoming potentially ineffective leader practices requires a follower first
to overcome the limitations of their ‘incomplete-self’ (Kets de Vries,
1993). In the Freudian tradition, self reflection requires introspection
aimed at getting to know and understand the self and may provide an
insight into the subconscious motivations that guide follower behaviour
(Kohut, 1971). I argue that only when a follower becomes aware of
themselves at a deeper level, acknowledging their inner motivations and

79
Volume 3 2005 Otago Management Graduate Review

conflicts, can they have a positive influence in overcoming negative leader

behaviour associated with narcissism.

Open communication

Maccoby (2000) highlights that while narcissistic leaders are great

communicators when it comes to articulating their vision, they can be
sporadic and chaotic in expressing their specific demands to followers. To
ensure that a leader’s vision is channelled in productive ways, followers
need to be able to communicate very effectively in deciphering such
demands. Followers can overcome role ambiguity by being assertive and
continuously clarifying expectations such as job responsibilities, scope of
authority and performance standards with their leader (Kelley, 1992).
Followers must also keep leaders informed of their ongoing activities,
especially if the leader has given them some degree of decision-making
responsibility (Chaleff, 1995). As I have explained, narcissists are
fundamentally self-serving and feel as though they cannot rely on others
in the achievement of their goals, therefore they may see any activities or
decisions that are contrary to their opinion as personal attacks and may
react unproductively; reprimanding followers.

Central to maintaining open lines of communication between followers and

their leaders are the actions of followers that support leader activities
(Kelley, 1992). These may be expressed by followers through signals of
appreciation, such as praise for a leader’s efforts. Such signals can help
the narcissistic leader to remain productive by encouraging them to feel
valued and admired by their followers.

Resisting and challenging

Chaleff (1995) argues that the most challenging activity of the courageous
follower is acting against a leader when an action is inappropriate or
flawed in some way. Indeed, based on his research Chaleff (1995) asserts
that 70 percent of followers will not speak up when they believe that a
leader is making a mistake. In regards to narcissistic leaders, the power
advantage, confirmed by their charismatic authority (Weber, 1946), is
combined with their inability to listen to and accept the influence and
criticism of others (Maccoby, 2000), creating an ominous obstacle for
followers to overcome. However, taking action to challenge leader
demands and actions that are inappropriate and ineffective is vital to
ensuring the efforts of the narcissistic leader are channelled in a
productive manner.

Essentially, it is a combination of the follower actions outlined above that

will help to direct narcissistic leaders towards productivity. Having
reconciled their inner conflicts, followers must have the courage to risk
causing a leader’s displeasure in openly communicating with a leader

80
Otago Management Graduate Review Volume 3 2005

about organisational activities, and constructively challenging the leader

when demands and requested activities are inappropriate or flawed.

An example of courageous followership in action can be seen in the

follower who, disapproving of a leader’s actions or demands, openly
explains to the leader that they respect and appreciate what the leader is
trying to achieve but would like to raise some specific, honest concerns.
I argue that if such actions are taken by followers, narcissistic leaders can
be effectively directed towards productive ends and prevented from self
destructing and taking the organisation with them.

Further, the actions mentioned above may help the narcissist overcome
some of their internal issues and break free of the limitations of their
psyche. The dependence that narcissistic leaders have on their followers
could facilitate them to react positively to the ‘courageous’ actions of their
followers and change some of their behaviour to suit. However,
overcoming the rampant individualism and self-protectiveness of
narcissists would require an extraordinary amount of empathy,
understanding and sympathy for the narcissist’s needs on the behalf of
followers and any therapists involved (Kohut, 1971; Maccoby, 2000).
Indeed, it is highly likely that such a leader will strongly resist any
indication that they might benefit from such help.

Despite this I assert that courageous followership can enhance the leader
– follower relationship, building trust, honesty and integrity within the
organisational setting, ultimately encouraging leadership effectiveness,
superior productivity and performance. In support of this is a growing
trend within organisational behaviour and leadership literature towards
the achievement of what has been coined authentic leadership.

The notion of ‘authentic leadership’ has been developed as a

representation of the underlying construct of all positive forms of
leadership (Avolio & Gardener, 2005). Essentially a response to dynamic
and often dramatic business environments and the failures of some
leadership behaviours, including the narcissist, the construct of authentic
leadership seeks to encapsulate leaders who lead not only with purpose,
but also with values and integrity (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Importantly,
developing authentic leadership requires a strong degree of self-
awareness and self-regulation within both the leader and the follower
(Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Moreover, “authentic leadership extends
beyond the authenticity of the leader as a person to encompass authentic
relations with followers and associates” (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May &
Walumbwa, 2005, p. 345). Indeed, the development of authentic
followership is also being given much attention, posited to occur alongside
authentic leadership development, and the development of both is said to
be characterised by open communication and transparency, trust, and
movement towards the achievement of worthwhile organisational
objectives (Gardner et al., 2005).

81
Volume 3 2005 Otago Management Graduate Review

This trend in the literature coupled with others that further highlight the
importance of self awareness to effective leadership; including trends
towards emotional intelligence (see Goleman et al., 2002; Caruso, Mayer
& Salovey, 2002), provide exciting movement towards supporting the
notion that with self reflection, empathy and most of all courage, followers
can encourage effective leadership. Such developments suggests a real
recognition among theorists that the narcissistic leaders, which have been
such a prominent feature of contemporary organisations (Maccoby, 2000),
can no longer be left to their destructive, self-satisfying devices and need
to be effectively channelled towards productive ends – a task that can be
effectively met by self aware, courageous followers.

Potential limitations and future research

In this paper, I have illustrated the actions that followers can take in
overcoming the negative tendencies of their narcissistic leaders. What is
omitted, however, is dialogue surrounding how followers might develop
the capabilities necessary to have such an impact. Arguably, if a leader is
essentially narcissistic, they will be less inclined to support the
development of the emotional competencies required for increased
follower self-awareness (Goleman et al., 2002). I argue that the
development of these competencies needs to occur at a stage before an
individual becomes a follower under the direction of a narcissistic leader.
Exposure to educational programmes that teach self-awareness and the
pitfalls of narcissism, throughout an individual’s development, may serve
to equip them to better deal with narcissistic leaders in the future.

Such education might also equip individuals with the same necessary
competencies for effective leadership, as the desired qualities of a follower
can also be seen as those desired in a leader (Kelley, 1992; Chaleff,
1995). Indeed, herein lies a potential problem. If individuals are trained
throughout their education to posses the competencies and traits of
effective followers then they are likely to at some point become leaders of
some kind where, given leadership status and its associated stigma the
individual may be inclined to act in a narcissistic manner. Indeed, Freud
(1931) concluded that everyone is somewhat narcissistic and given certain
stimulation (such as a high ranking position) they will be inclined to act in
a narcissistic manner.

While this is a potential problem, if the individual has been exposed to the
ideas discussed above in their development they may also be more
inclined to be self-aware and may be able to overcome any narcissistic
tendencies, especially if they are prompted by courageous followers.

82
Otago Management Graduate Review Volume 3 2005

More than just a few ‘bad apples’

The discussion in this paper has focussed on narcissistic leaders and their
followers at an individual level and has not considered the other, wider
societal influences that promote or create narcissistic leaders and
subsequent disastrous behaviours.

At this point I feel it is important to acknowledge that the problems

associated with narcissistic leaders do not stem solely from the individual.
Maccoby (2000) argues that as different forces come to dominate society,
such forces have the ability to shape the social agenda. In the time of
Alexander, for example, the monarch and military were arguably the most
powerful drivers of social activities. In such times, much of the population
was actively involved in the military whose prime objective was conquest,
and such conquest and war had pronounced effects on every member of
society. It is in times of crisis (such as war) that narcissists thrive in
proposing new and daring visions to overcome the odds (Maccoby, 2000).

Likewise, contemporary organisations, particularly large corporations,

have come to be extremely powerful social entities, over-shadowing the
state in controlling and directing individual lives and influencing collective
social development (Deetz, 1992). As in times of war, the normative
prescription of winning or losing is inherently evident in how organisations
compete, and contemporary organisations need to be constantly
innovating and improving in order to ‘win’ in their pursuits, an ongoing
crisis that is well suited to the visionary nature of the narcissist.

Cultural influences also enhance the social environment to the advantage

of narcissists. Lasch (1979) suggested that the narcissism inherent in
America had emerged through a culture which had taken Western
individualism (see Hofstede, 1980) too far.

Such a notion has received a great deal of attention within organisational

theory in recent times with many theorists arguing that proliferation of
business ethics disasters is more likely the result of Western capitalism
and rational, scientific management than simply the consequence of a few
emotionally unstable leaders (Ghoshal, 2005). To explore this argument in
more detail is beyond the scope of this paper; however it would provide
an exciting and valuable area of future research.

Conclusion

Narcissistic leaders are an inevitable part of contemporary businesses. As

individuals they have the exceptional vision, charisma and strength of
character essential to operate effectively in a fast-paced, dynamic
business climate. They have the ability to innovate, create and inspire
beyond the boundaries of normative prescription and play a significant

83
Volume 3 2005 Otago Management Graduate Review

role in shaping the social agenda that affects us all. However, they also
have a dark side. Inherently self-serving and individualistic, narcissistic
leaders are prone to ignorance in the pursuit of their goals. They do not
listen well to the advice of others and often see it as a personal attack,
counter to their revolutionary goals. Essentially, while the narcissistic
leader has the potential to be utilised to achieve great feats, they are
driven by the inadequacies of their psyche, seek to leave a legacy of
personal achievement and acclaim, and do not strive towards collective
goals. Within an organisational setting the narcissist can blindly steer an
organisation far beyond the reaches of its capabilities and can result in its
eventual undoing.

In this paper I have proposed that, given the dependence that narcissistic
leaders have on their followers, actions of courageous followership can
have a significant impact on narcissistic leaders, encouraging them to
direct efforts towards the achievement of realistic, organisationally
relevant goals. Such effective leadership can be promoted by followers
through actions such as self reflection, open communication, and the
resisting and challenging of inappropriate demands and leader actions.

Finally, two distinct areas of future research have been proposed. The first
regards the development of individuals to possess the competencies and
traits of courageous followership and the second considers the effects that
the wider social and cultural influences have on promoting narcissistic
behaviour.

Ultimately, a shifting focus towards followership and its role in enhancing

effective leadership is an encouraging movement which illustrates the long
overdue recognition of the vital role that followers play in shaping
organisational performance.

Young Alexander conquered India.

He alone?
Ceasar beat the Gauls.
Was there not even a cook in his army?
Philip of Spain wept as his fleet
Was sunk and destroyed. Were there no other tears?

Bertolt Brecht (1970)

Excerpt from A Worker Reads History.

84
Otago Management Graduate Review Volume 3 2005

References

Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (1988). Transformational leadership: Charisma and

beyond. In J. Hunt, H. Baliga, H. Dachler, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.),
Emerging leadership vistas. Lexington: Health.

Avolio, B., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development:

Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 315-338.

Baken, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and

power. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership:

Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1990). Developing transformational leadership:

1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14, 21-
27.

Bass, B. (1981). Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic

transformational leadership behaviour. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2),
181-217.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leadership theory and administrative

behaviour: The problem of authority. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 4, 259-260.

Brecht, B. (1970). A worker reads history. In K. Coates & R. Silburn

(Eds.), Poverty: The forgotten Englishmen, London: Penguin.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Caruso, D., Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Emotional intelligence and
emotional leadership. In F. Pirozzolo, (Ed.), Multiple intelligences
and leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our

leaders. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cooper, C., Scandura, T., & Schriesheim, C. (2005). Looking forward but
learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic
leadership theory and authentic leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 16,
475-493.

85
Volume 3 2005 Otago Management Graduate Review

Conger, J. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics.

19(2), 44-55.

Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in the age of corporate colonization. Albany:

State University of New York.

Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business

ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management
Review, 19, 252-284.

Follett, M. P. (1949). The essentials of leadership. In L. Urwick (Ed.),

Freedom and coordination. London: Management Publications Trust.

Freud, S. (1912). The dynamics of transference. In J. Strachey, (Trans. and

Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of
Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12). London: Hogarth Press and Institute of
Psychoanalysis.

Freud, S. (1931). Libidinal types, The standard edition of the complete

psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. XXI). London: The Hogarth
Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis.

Gardner, W., Avilio, B., Luthans, F., May, D., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can
you see the real me?” A self based model of authentic leadership
development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.

Gillbert, G., & Hyde, A. (1988). Followership and the federal worker. Public
Administration Review. 46(6), 962-968.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The new leaders:
Transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. London:
Brown

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good

management practices. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 4(1), 75-91.

Hertzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Ohio: Word Publishing.

Hofsteade, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. California: Sage.

House, R., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational,

charismatic, and visionary leadership theories. In M. Chemers & R.
Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions. Florida: Academic Press.

Howard, A., & Brey, D. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age
and changing times. New York: Guliford Press.

86
Otago Management Graduate Review Volume 3 2005

Kelley, R. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people

want to follow and followers who lead themselves. New York:
Doubleday Currency.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1993). Leaders, fools and impostors: Essays on the

psychology of leadership. California: Jossey-Bass.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An

object relations perspective. Human Relations, 38(6), 583-601.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International

Universities Press.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). The Leadership Challenge. (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of

diminishing returns. New York: Norton.

Lowe, K., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates

of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic
review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable

cons. Harvard Business Review, (January-February), 69-77.

Maccoby, M. (2004). Why people follow the leader: The power of

transference. Harvard Business Review, (September-October), 77-85.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper
and Row.

Meindl, J., Ehrlich, S., & Dukerich, J. (1985). The romance of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.

Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New

York: The Free Press.

Waldman, D., Bass, B., & Yammarino, F. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward

behaviour: Augmenting the effect of charismatic leadership. Group &
Organizational Studies, 15, 381-394.

Weber, M. (1946). The sociology of charismatic authority. In H. Gerth & C.

Mills, (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leaders in organisations. (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-

Hall.

87