Narcissistic CEOs weaken collaboration and integrity
gsb.stanford.edu
gsb.stanford.edu
The article correctly points out some of the direct economic damage. It ignores the significant damage to people done by abusive narcissists; from personal experience I can say it's substantial. You can see that in the interviews with WeWork employees.
But another kind of damage is what they prevent from existing. Kalanick was aggressive in killing competition; Lyft was the only one he couldn't spend into the grave. Neumann has deeply distorted the market for coworking. Or we could look at Zuckerberg [1]; what kind of open social networks could we have ended up with if he hadn't ruthlessly pursued a personally-dominated monopoly?
[1] http://www.afterpsychotherapy.com/narcissistic-personality-d...
At least for VC-backed direct competition, nothing of value is lost. The business is commodity - driving people around in cars, delivering food, renting office space, offering rides on e-scooters, running under-the-table hotels, whatever. All that the insane amounts of VC enable is network effects and marketplace dominance - people don't call a pizza shop or a cab company any more, they open the Delivery Hero or Uber apps. But someone still has to make the pizza or drive the cab, which means until fully automated driving is reality, there is no direct loss in jobs.
The more interesting things are rather the "competition" that is entrenched companies... most obvious in taxis. Usually, taxis are regulated (meaning, their cars have appropriate insurance, silent alarm devices in case the driver gets robbed, and most importantly mandatory service areas and times). Uber/Lyft etc. can now pick the profitable cherries (airport transfers, drunk partygoers on Friday/Saturday) and leave the unprofitable times or areas to the regular cabs - who cannot run at an overall profit anymore as the business/hipster clientele is now using Uber/Lyft. Who suffers? Entire communities now underserved by taxis, old people (who don't have smartphones)... but no one really looks at which negative impact his/her company will have on minorities.
But instead we get supposedly hyper-rational arguments that are pretty clearly highly emotional. And then when the wheels come off, the support just evaporates, with nary a "mea culpa", let alone a "here's how WeWork fooled me" post.
It's just exhausting sometimes.
The rest seems quite solid.
Next step is focusing on solutions for/around narcissist leaders.
Also great to see Hacker News supporting these non-engineering business topics as well.
Being calculative, cold and even disloyal at an individual level does not make someone a narcissist, it can be a very altruistic and idealistic thing in fact. For example, firing untalented employees to make room for more talented, hard working ones is altruistic IMO. If everyone did this, the system would work really well and everyone would be better off (even the lazy, untalented people would be better off thanks to universal improvements in productivity).
I think nepotism is a huge problem now. At scale, loyalty to specific individuals can be downright evil. Loyalty must only be given on the basis of shared values and principles.
Criminals can be extremely loyal to each other but they have no shared values aside from mutual self-preservation.
As we moved into the 21st century, it does seem like lack of confidence has gone away. People are almost "over confident" sometimes.
Is it possible that people are by and large the same, but that social media simply makes it very easy for people lacking confidence to come across as more confident than they really are?
The whole thing is a descriptive generality, defining someone's character is difficult.
Narcissism (NPD) is telling a story to get other people to do what they want. Usually the story they tell is a lie or some form of twisting the truth. For example imagine you ask a coworker how they're doing and they say something like, "Not so good. I just finished a meeting and Bob treated me horribly. He kept talking over me and I felt like I couldn't get my ideas out."
The story seems normal enough. The average person doesn't keep track of what they've heard that is verified and unverified. Say, in this case, the narcissist is not telling the truth about Bob. They're spreading gossip with the goal of getting Bob fired months later, in this slow and subtle way. Worst of all, Bob has no idea. There hasn't been any arguments or any problems between them. There is a high chance he will not know what has happened until it is already over. What does the person with NPD want here? Maybe a promotion or something else that they are likely to get if Bob leaves the company.
Narcissists also use positive emotions when and where possible to aid their stories. Positive roles like being a loved one, a good friend, or a leader are the kinds of roles people question the least. This allows their stories to go unverified, giving them everything they want.
There is a line that connects NPD and ASPD (sociopath/psychopath). Many who suffer from NPD and ASPD have a blend of traits between the two. What both narcissists and sociopaths want is selfish, in that they're okay harming others to get what they want, as long as they can do it in a way that isn't obvious. People with ASPD tend to be forward and obvious and get caught. People with NPD tend to be more sly and subtle and rarely get caught.
I'm not one to usually bring politics up, but Trump is a great example of NPD, because of how obvious he is. If you watch what he says with the lens of looking for twisted truth or outright lies, and look for his motivation guessing what he wants, it becomes quite a bit easier to understand not only where he is coming from but how he works and what his tricks are.
What? No. Legally that may be true for C-corps, but AFAIK that's explicitly why people started doing B-corps; to have other metrics of success than just those two. And even for C-corps, doesn't it still depend on what the shareholders want?
And after all that, you've still got to consider that if you're only looking at "ends justify means", well, why do you think you're at an end and can even measure it?
If it is impossible to plan precisely enough to determine the bottom line 20 years from now, perhaps fostering a dynamic, healthy culture with a powerful vision is a more effective way of creating a successful company than narrowly looking only at the amount of profits. Obviously, the business model must be considered. But a business model with no value system or vision will likely crumble as conditions change.
People are just tired of assholery, ok.
It's not like greed is new. It's always been a part of human experience, usually bad, and especially so when it becomes extractive and monopolistic. But there's something about "tech" startups that seems to attract the most awful personalities into c-level leadership.
I expect railroad and oil tycoons were much the same in their day. I don't expect anything to be different in the tech industry.
A red flag is when you cannot make a distinction between your personal achievements and your team achievements.
- Very attuned to their own fashion attire. Very well/trendy dressed.
- Use the words/phrases “value”, “add value”
- Brag about themselves a lot. Talk about very lofty standards about very minor details.
Not really, you just need to know what to look for. A shallow, materialistic person with very little sense of humor, curiosity of the social/intellectual/cultural/creative kind, or visibly empathetic interest in others is a big red flag. The "curiosity" part may well be the easiest to assess as an observer, because it's not something that can be faked easily.
Thankfully, most people with NPD want to live off of others for free, so the majority of narcissists are not in the work place.
However, there are other not-so-great types that are more common in the work place. At the end of the day learning the ideal way to handle conflict (including with an abusive boss) is a productive endeavor, because that knowledge helps with many difficult situations. A master key of sorts is both how to handle conflict and how to identify dangerous people.
For more information on how to identify them this comment I just wrote explains where they are coming from to a decent degree of detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21494295
It helps to identify what people around you want, understand how manipulation works, and to not blindly believe stories. Most people believe or disbelieve what they hear. Having a third category that keeps track of unverified information helps identify when someone starts lying. Narcissists lie quite a bit, but they're not compulsive liars either. Sometimes it will take years to catch on.
For how to handle difficult situations, the book In Sheep's Clothing is a quicker read that most books and dives into how to respond to ASPDs and NPDs in the work place: https://www.amazon.com/Sheeps-Clothing-Understanding-Dealing...
Ask them to tell a joke. Do they do it right?
There are two fundamental arguments of the self: additive and subtractive.
The additive argument is called love. It tells us to add to the self.
The subtractive argument is called disgust. It tells us to remove from the self.
Codependents are addicted to the chemical rewards of love, while narcissists are addicted to the chemical rewards of disgust.
Narcissists therefore have an overwhelming need to eject things as "not good enough" from their extended self. If I tell a stranger his haircut looks stupid, I don't get a disgust reward. If I tell my son that, I do get the reward because he is part of my extended self.
Basically, narcissists have extremely high standards for themselves. They want to become fast friends because they want (need, really) to share that terrible burden.
You can't police feelings into evidence of pathology. Some people are more disgust sensitive than others. There is light and dark to everything, including love and disgust.
If you're addicted to a feeling then that is a pathology. You're right that love and disgust can both be good or bad, but nobody said otherwise.
>You're right that love and disgust can both be good or bad, but nobody said otherwise
You did when you made disgust a fundamental negative and love a fundamental positive. But whatever.
>If you're addicted to a feeling then that is a pathology.
Not necessarily, some people deliberately go through bad feelings for the sake of getting to the bottom of something and integrating that answer. That can seem like an addiction from the outside.
You do you.
I said subtractive and additive. Chiseling is subtractive. Do you think chiseling is fundamentally negative?
What point are you trying to make with your "bad feelings" comment? That narcissists are actually fiercely introspective? What are you even on about?
You say "You do you" but you're the one who butted in. Next time, first know what you're talking about.
You said: "There are two fundamental arguments of the self"
You conflated criticizing haircuts with a disgust reward and constructed a view on narcissists that is defined by feelings nearly everyone feels. Your view on feelings is too limited to identify a narcissist, as demonstrated by the idea that you can go through feelings and appear to be an addict from outside, but not be one.
Butted in to what? A public thread?
The mask idea comes from psychology. A narcissist suffers narcissitic wounds at an early age and learns to develop a false persona to please abusive parents instead of a healthy self that grows over time. They stay locked in a cycle of abuse trying to escape past trauma instead of dealing with it and it is unleashed on those around them when the tension becomes too much. They frequently rely on charm and a single talent to get them achievements to please said relationship and are found to be brittle or liars when challenged. They will suck the life-force out of others to fuel their own lack of a self. There is a whole bunch of psychological information on this.
This all has an overlap with the external version of the story, the narcissus myth. Narcissus is a spirit that embodies the story of self love, being so captivating to some. He has multiple outcomes. In one he captures the attention of another so completely that their life becomes drained away and the adorer becomes no more than an echo in a forest, which mirrors the fueling the self & abuse cycle from psychology. In another part he sees his reflection in a pool and becomes unable to leave his own reflection and eventually suicides or recognizes that the love cannot be reciprocated and becomes a flower, which mirrors a lot of the empathy focused therapy techniques.
Now that person is a senior director at Google. Good luck to anyone affected! I am still thinking I should have destroyed him back then and stop the tumor right in the beginning...
No surprise there. A fish rots from the head down.
Jobs was a textbook Narcissist.
Can you please point out some of the many ways he was supposedly manipulating people to run a business better, and how they aren't a byproduct of narcissism?
https://www.cultofmac.com/2613/steve-jobs-still-parking-in-h...
I’ve worked in places where executives had to be narcissistic or sociopaths just to survive. People with intact emotions have difficulty coping with the toxicity.
Most places aren’t like that.
Nonetheless chose to in the first place, insofar as nobody's forcing anyone to climb the exec ladder, and there are lots of places to do it — in fact, it requires several in a career usually, to reach the highest ranks, unless it's a familial-type affair.
“God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which causes they cherish.” (Bossuet)
I have this general KPI for myself: if it makes me become a worse human being, then it's bad for me, thus I should either run away the other direction, or buckle up and change things. It can't be ignored or 'endured' for it's the 'bad' kind of pain, the kind that doesn't make you grow but just eats at you. The kind that commands you to fight or flee but certainly not freeze.
And you're right, most places aren't like that. I never forget that >90% of businesses in most rich countries employ less than 10 people. Also know that in an average crowd, there are likely between 3% and 15% sociopaths depending on who you ask, 1 in 10, likely much more in achievers' social circles (because sociopaths are fundamentally not average statistically and tend to outperform the rest of us).
Now you just have to look at your reality and map these numbers. The mediocrity principle probably applies to most of us.
These are not narcissistic characteristics on their own. More like positive attributes on their own.
OTOH
>They tend to seek power and they are very good at convincing the people above them that they deserve it.
>entitlement, hostility when challenged, and a willingness to manipulate — are seen as part of the package.
These are not positive attributes, instead they are characteristics narcissists use to create a facade of the former.
When you accept the latter as part of a supposedly worthwhile package you are not doing a careful enough evaluation.
Plus
>Isn't narcissism among those who rise to an executive rank at some point in their career more the norm rather than the exception?
Common enough to have given rise to the stereotype.
The damage depends on the organization.
When _People Are Our Biggest Asset_ the loss in value can be more devastating than resource-oriented or hard-asset companies, even when growth appears visible, the unrealized possibilities can be more significant than shareholder returns in a capitalist venture.