Categories
09. The Narcissist Politician

The Narcissist Politician

Introduction

This article is a summary of one by Rosenthal, S. and Pittinsky, T.L., entitled “Narcissistic Leadership”, published in 2006, in The Leadership Quarterly. The latter article is a thorough review of the literature on the subject. The full article can be downloaded at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223046510_Narcissistic_Leadership

It can be difficult, at first, to distinguish a narcissistic leader from one who simply has power, motivation, or charisma. An individual suffering Narcissistic Personality Disorder must, according to the American Psychiatric Association, show a “pervasive pattern of grandiosity”, “a need for admiration” and a “lack of empathy”. Their diagnostic criteria include:

  1. a grandiose sense of self-importance;
  2. a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success or power;
  3. a belief in “special” or unique status (including fixation on associating with high-status people or institutions);
  4. a requirement for excessive admiration;
  5. an unreasonable sense and expectation of entitlement;
  6. interpersonal exploitativeness;
  7. a lack of empathy;
  8. envy; and
  9. arrogant behaviours or attitudes.

They can also display hostility and fragility of self-esteem. Clearly, such characteristics do not equip a leader to make rational strategic decisions and, when a narcissist is an adversary, they can be dangerous.

The root cause of Narcissistic Personality Disorder is thought to be associated with childhood upbringing, for example indifferent or aggressively rejecting parents. This leads to deep seated feelings of emptiness and inferiority and to a desire for revenge. Narcissists did not have their need for positive regard satisfied as a child, and so, pursue that need through their actions in later life. The need may also be amplified by a negative regard for oneself.

Psychological Defences

Narcissistic leaders resort to the following psychological defences against these deep seated feelings.

  1. An insatiable need for recognition and excessive admiration. This isone of the main ways of coping with deep feelings of inferiority. However, even when regularly flattered by sycophants and in a position of unquestionable authority, narcissists are still unable to sustain positive feelings about themselves.
  2. An insatiable need for superiority and fantasies of unlimited success or power. Another main way of coping with feelings of inferiority is a constant quest to prove their superiority over others.
  3. A belief in their own special or unique status. They tend to have inflated views of themselves in respect of leadership performance, task performance, personality traits, expected academic performance, behavioural acts, intelligence, and/or physical attractiveness. However, these inflated assessments are not accompanied by greater actual ability.
  4. A grandiose sense of self-importance.
  5. An unreasonable sense and expectation of entitlement.

These characteristics explain the attraction of politics to a narcissist. However, pathological narcissists are unable to integrate these idealised beliefs about themselves with their actual inadequacies, and this results in fragility of self-esteem.

Attitudes and Behaviour

These defensive strategies and fragility of self-esteem lead to the following typical attitudes and forms of behaviour:

  1. Arrogance, i.e., an attitude of superiority, self-importance, and pride, together with an overbearing manner.
  2. Seeking leadership positions. The need for recognition causes narcissists to self-promote and self-nominate more than others. The desire to structure the external world in a manner which supports their grandiose needs is also a key motivator, and they will often seek power, therefore. Even when seemingly at the pinnacle of power, they crave yet more, often putting themselves and their followers at great risk. However, their leadership is motivated by their own personal, egotistical needs for power, recognition, and admiration.
  3. Visionary leadership. Because they are inspired by power, glory, and legacy, they often embark on grandiose projects and can see the big picture. However, they tend to leave the analysis and detail to others.
  4. Presentation. There is near unanimous agreement that charisma is key to the popularity and rise of such leaders. Their rhetoric tends to be that which will generate impact and recognition rather than meaning.
  5. Amorality. Narcissistic leaders are likely to employ deception, manipulation, and intimidation to aid their rise to positions of power, including those for which they are not qualified. They are prone to lapses in personal conduct and can ignore or alter rules that do not suit them.
  6. Taking excessive credit for successes whilst blaming others for failures. This is the case even when the successes are due to the efforts of others and the failures due to their own shortcomings. However, this strategy only temporarily alleviates and never entirely eliminates narcissistic leaders’ negative feelings about themselves.
  7. Envy and a fixation on associating with high status people or institutions. This is due to a belief in their special or unique status and the tendency to seek recognition from idealised parent substitutes. In can also be a strategy to gain power through trading favours.
  8. Conspicuous lifestyle. They engage in conspicuous consumption as a symbol of status.
  9. Lack of empathy. Narcissistic leaders are lacking in empathy, i.e., they are incapable of understanding the perspectives of others. Thus, they are not driven by an empathic concern for those that they lead.
  10. Interpersonal exploitativeness. Narcissistic leaders are not only likely to abuse their power but can also use their charisma to convince followers to buy into the abuse and take the blame for it.
  11. Intimidatory behaviour. Followers who are not swayed by the narcissistic leaders’ charisma are often intimidated into subordination.
  12. A demand for loyalty. Because narcissists have an insatiable need for recognition and superiority, they demand unquestioning loyalty from their followers.
  13. Paranoia, hypersensitivity, and anger. It is rational to be wary of the true intentions of sycophantic followers, but narcissists go beyond rationality and distrust, reject, or destroy even their most loyal supporters. In this way they create enemies where there may have been none. Narcissists are hypersensitive to anything which might threaten their psychological defences of superiority and grandiosity, and the slightest misstep by a follower can result in a dangerously exaggerated reaction.
  14. Hostility. Narcissistic leaders can be vengefully hostile in response to an insult and can commit horrific atrocities. They can demand the impossible from supporters and, when they do not get everything that they have asked for, can turn on them. Such behaviour can also be used strategically to gain and hold power.
  15. Failure to recognise reality, complacency, inflexibility, and short-sightedness. Narcissistic leaders often resist adviser’s suggestions, ignore wise counsel, changes in circumstances, and new threats. This is thought to have their arrogant attitude as its root cause.
  16. Irrationality. The transient fears and wishes of narcissists are a poor basis for rational decisions and they are prone to lapses in professional judgement. However, because of their drive and grandiosity, narcissists make poor judgements with greater certainty and confidence than others, and thus, have greater influence.

Consequences for society

These attitudes and forms of behaviour, in turn, have implications for society. Depending on the particular circumstances, these consequences can be neutral, negative, or positive. They can include:

  1. Signifying a need for change. Narcissistic leaders tend to emerge in times that call for a new order to be established. Although such leaders may fail to effect the desired change their rise may signify that change is needed.
  2. Ability to attract followers. The narcissist’s air of confidence, dominance, charisma, and grand vision causes them to appear leader-like and attract followers who may perceive them as super-human, may blindly believe them, and may follow them unconditionally. In turn, these followers fulfil the narcissistic leader’s need for admiration thereby bolstering his confidence and conviction in his visions. Some followers may themselves be narcissistic and feel worthwhile only when they relate to others that they can admire for their prestige, power, beauty, intelligence, or moral stature.
  3. Abuses of power. Because they are driven by personal, egotistical motives, narcissists often use their power to satisfy personal needs rather than those of their followers. They can, however, do better in situations where their personal goals are the same as those of their followers.
  4. Poor, overinvolved, and abusive management. Narcissists are notoriously poor, overinvolved, and abusive managers. They are also unable or unwilling to mentor subordinates.
  5. Difficulties with interpersonal relationships. These are often caused by their arrogant behaviour, lack of empathy, poor management style, and unwillingness to heed advice.
  6. Failures. Narcissistic leaders are more likely to make decisions based on an idiosyncratic, self-centred view of the world and to ignore advice which conflicts with their view. They also suffer from complacency, inflexibility short-sightedness and a failure to recognise reality. Finally, they make riskier decisions and are less interested in low-risk decisions than non-narcissists. These factors combine to result in a high incidence of failure.
  7. Longer Term Sustainability of Leadership. The qualities needed to form a group differ from those needed to sustain it and, whilst a narcissistic leader may readily be able to form a group, the difficulties with interpersonal relationships, the poor talent for management and the failures which ultimately emerge cannot sustain it. Research has shown that narcissists receive higher initial leadership ratings because they are more outgoing and entertaining than non-narcissists, but that this positive effect wanes over time.
  8. Conflict. Paranoia, hypersensitivity, and anger are, of course, dangerous characteristics in a world leader and, in a foreign policy context, particularly in times of crisis, may lead to a desire for revenge, aggressive behaviour, or war.
  9. Downfall. Less rational and amoral behaviours, e.g., engaging in cruelties with no political purpose, undermining their power base by challenging conventional morality, over-reach in foreign engagements, etc., often place narcissistic leaders in a vulnerable position and ultimately result in their downfall.
  10. Damaged Institutions. Even at their best, narcissistic leaders are bound to leave damaged systems and relationships in their wake.

Avoiding the negative consequences of narcissistic leaders

Suggestions that the narcissist is supported by an advisor who is rooted in reality, or that the leader submits to psychotherapy seem doomed to failure as a consequence of the very nature of narcissism. Organisational checks and balances, honest feedback, and the training of sub-ordinates to keep the leader under control are unlikely to be successful for the same reason.

Rather, it is suggested that the problem of narcissistic leaders is avoided by reducing their influence, moving them out of harms way, and keeping inexperienced and insecure subordinates out of their reach.

Further reading

An analysis of US presidents for narcissistic tendencies, published in 2013,  can be found at:

https://scottlilienfeld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Wattsetal.2013narcissismpresidents.pdf

Categories
07. Anti-social Needs and Behaviour

Anti-social Needs & Behaviour

Our normal needs have an evolutionary basis and are those which, in the past, best enabled us to survive and procreate. They are the result of order brought about by life’s struggle against entropy and can be likened to the sandcastle described in my first article “Schrodinger’s Other Paradox”. They have a basis in both genetic and cultural evolution.

Unfortunately, due to the same evolutionary processes, some individuals have anti-social needs which cause behaviour that is a contra-satisfier resulting in harm to others. Note that I do not regard simple differences of opinion or personality as being anti-social. Nor do I regard outrage or disapproval as a harm. There must be a genuine impact on the contra-needs of others. Anti-social needs are the inevitable effect of entropy both on society and on the human genome, and can take many forms, most of which are harmful. Their existence can be likened to the many ways in which the sandcastle can begin to decay into a random heap of sand.

In practice, both normal needs, anti-social needs, and the behaviour they cause are defined by laws, norms, and consensus. These differ from nation to nation, culture to culture, and time to time. Generally, however, crime is subject to laws and punishment by the state, for example, imprisonment for theft. Violation of moral and religious codes has been regarded as punishable by God. Historically, for example, hell has been the ultimate fate of sinners. In some highly religious societies, the state can also intervene and, for example, impose punishment for blasphemy. Violation of social norms is punishable by the community by, for example, shunning. However, acts that cause mental stress or psychological damage to the victim often receive no censure.

Our contra-needs, or those harms that we wish to avoid, also have an evolutionary basis and are largely universal. Any behaviour which impinges on them will, therefore, be regarded by the recipient as unacceptable. If social controls favour normal needs, then the tendency will be towards orderly and healthy societies. However, if religious dogmas, political ideologies, corruption, or any combination of the three gain undue influence, especially control of the state, then incompatibilities can occur. This results in a society which can only be sustained through force, coercion, and repression.

Although normal needs are relatively universal and based on what has best enabled human beings to survive and procreate, disorder can occur in infinite ways. The causes of anti-social needs are, therefore, boundless. Examples include heredity, biological disfunction, drugs, upbringing, poverty, social, political, and economic factors, and so on. Criminologists recognise, for example, that the causes of crime are unique to each individual and that a combination of several factors may be in play.

It is impossible, therefore, to categorise anti-social needs. Furthermore, because an actor with anti-social needs will usually disguise them to avoid social controls, and will not be forthcoming with researchers, it is also extremely difficult to assess the priority that he or she gives to them and to anticipate when anti-social behaviour will occur.

Anti-social needs do, however, lie on a scale of type, which can vary from extreme psychological disorder, to exaggerated normal needs. Once a need is adequately satisfied, we usually move on to the satisfaction of others. However, for a variety of reasons, such as social influences, force of habit, or personality traits, it is possible to become trapped in the satisfaction of a particular need, to the extent that it is indulged in to harmful excess. For example, the pursuit of excessive wealth, power, or celebrity.

Anti-social needs also lie on a scale of harmful intent. At one extreme lie psychopathy, paedophilia, narcissism, etc., where the need is only satisfied by deliberately causing harm to others. At the other extreme lie antisocial behaviour and Schadenfreude or pleasure at the misfortune of others. Anti-social behaviour, as we presently understand it, is inconsiderate behaviour. It incudes, for example, vandalism, graffiti, littering, and dumping rubbish.

Finally, anti-social needs lie on a scale of effect which depends on the priority given by the victim to the relevant contra-need. Death, for example, would be high in the list of a victim’s contra-needs.

Life is a struggle against entropy, and it is inevitable, therefore, that we will always be faced with anti-social needs. However, this does not mean that we should just accept them. They are entropic in nature, and we are compelled by evolution to fight against them.

Most criminologists recognise that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. It is also the case that people are attracted to institutions, organisations, and individuals who they feel will satisfy their needs. Knowing this, risk assessment, deterrence, prevention, and mitigation, based on the priority of the relevant contra-needs and the number of people affected, could be a practical approach. This would, for example, involve assessing the risk of an institution being steered in a harmful direction, and taking measures to reduce the risk that an individual with relevant anti-social needs can take its reins.