The research is clear: when we choose
humble, unassuming people as our leaders, the world around us becomes a better
place.
Humble leaders improve the performance of a company in the long run
because they create more collaborative environments. They have a balanced view
of themselves – both their virtues and shortcomings – and a strong appreciation
of others’ strengths and contributions, while being open to new ideas and
feedback. These “unsung heroes” help their believers to build their
self-esteem, go beyond their expectations, and create a community that channels
individual efforts into an organized group that works for the good of the
collective.
For example, one study examined 105
small-to-medium-sized companies in the computer software and hardware industry
in the United Studies. The findings revealed that when a humble CEO is at the
helm of a firm, its top management team is more likely to collaborate and
share information, making the most of the firm’s talent.
Another study showed that a leader’s humility can be contagious: when
leaders behave humbly, followers emulate their modest attitude and behavior. A
study of 161 teams found that employees following humble leaders were
themselves more likely to admit their mistakes and limitations, share the
spotlight by deflecting praise to others, and be open to new ideas, advice, and
feedback.
Yet instead of following the lead of these unsung heroes, we appear
hardwired to search for superheroes: over-glorifying leaders who exude
charisma.
The Greek word Kharisma means “divine gift,” and
charisma is the quality of extraordinary charm, magnetism, and presence that
makes a person capable of inspiring others with enthusiasm and devotion. German sociologist Max
Weber defined charisma as “of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis
of it, the individual concerned is treated as a leader.” Researchevidence on
charismatic leadership reveals that charismatic people are more likely to
become endorsed as leaders because of their high energy, unconventional
behavior, and heroic deeds.
While charisma is conductive to orchestrating positive large-scale
transformations, there can be a “dark side” to charismatic leadership. Jay
Conger and Rabindra Kanungo describe it this way in their seminal book: “Charismatic
leaders can be prone to extreme narcissism that leads them to promote highly
self-serving and grandiose aims.” A clinicalstudy illustrates that
when charisma overlaps with narcissism, leaders tend to abuse their power and
take advantage of their followers. Another study indicates that narcissistic
leaders tend to present a bold vision of the future, and this makes them
more charismatic in the eyes of others.
Why are such leaders more likely to rise to the top? Onestudy suggests that
despite being perceived as arrogant, narcissistic individuals radiate “an image
of a prototypically effective leader.” Narcissistic leaders know how to draw
attention toward themselves. They enjoy the visibility. It takes time for
people to see that these early signals of competence are not later realized,
and that a leader’s narcissism reduces the exchange of information among team
members and often negatively affects group performance.
It’s not that charismatic and narcissistic people can’t ever make good
leaders. In some circumstances, they can. For example, one study foundthat narcissistic CEOs
“favor bold actions that attract attention, resulting in big wins or big
losses.” A narcissistic leader thus can represent a high-risk, high-reward
proposition.
And it’s not that humble leaders can’t ever be charismatic. Researchers
agree that we could classify charismatic leaders as “negative” or “positive” by
their orientation toward pursuing their self-interested goals versus those of
their groups. These two sides of charismatic leadership have also been called personalized and socialized charisma. Although the socialized charismatic leader has the aura
of a hero, it is counteracted with low authoritarianism and a genuine interest
in the collective welfare. In contrast, the personalized charismatic leader’s perceived
heroism is coupled with high authoritarianism and high narcissism. It is when
followers are confused and disoriented that they are more likely to form
personalized relationships with a charismatic leader. Socialized relationships,
on the other hand, are established by followers with a clear set of values who
view the charismatic leader as a means to achieve collective action.
The problem is that we select negative charismatic leaders much more
frequently than in the limited situations where the risk they represent might
pay off. Despite their grandiose view of themselves, low empathy, dominant
orientation toward others, and strong sense of entitlement, their charisma
proves irresistible. Followers of superheroes are enthralled by their
showmanship: through their sheer magnetism, narcissistic leaders transform their
environments into a competitive game in which their followers also become more
self-centered, giving rise to organizational narcissism, as onestudy shows.
If humble leaders are more effective than narcissistic leaders, why do
we so often choose narcissistic individuals to lead us?
The “romanceof leadership” hypothesis suggests that we generally have a biased tendency
to understand social events in terms of leadership and people tend to
romanticize the figure of the leader.
Myown research shows
that our psychological states can also bias our perceptions of charismatic
leaders. High levels of anxiety make us hungry for charisma. As a result,
crises increase not only the search for charismatic leaders, but also our
tendency to perceive charisma in the leaders we already
follow.
Economic and social crises thus become a unique testing ground for
charismatic leaders. They create conditions of distress and uncertainty that
appear to be ideal for the ascent of charismatic figures. Yet at the same time,
they also make us more vulnerable to choosing the wrong leader. Crises and
other emotionally laden events increase our propensity to romanticize the
grandiose view of narcissistic leaders. The paradox is that we may then choose
to support the very leaders who are less likely to bring us success. In a time
of crisis, it’s easy to be seduced by superheroes who could come and “rescue”
us, but who possibly then plunge us into greater peril.
While this may sound hopeless, there is another way of looking at it.
Essentially, we have the leaders we deserve. As we collectively select and
construct our leaders to satisfy our own needs and desires, we can
choose humility or socialized charisma over narcissism.
-Margarita Mayo
Comments