Flawed Managers that Flourish

In 1990, psychologists Robert Hogan, Robert Raskin, and Dan Fazzini wrote a brilliant essay called “The Dark Side of Charisma.” It argued that flawed managers fall into three types:
  • the High Likability Floater, who rises effortlessly in an organization because he never takes any difficult decisions or makes any enemies.
  • the Homme de Ressentiment, who seethes below the surface and plots against his enemies.
  • the Narcissist, the most interesting of the three, whose energy and self-confidence and charm lead him inexorably up the corporate ladder.
Narcissists are terrible managers. They resist accepting suggestions, thinking it will make them appear weak, and they don’t believe that others have anything useful to tell them. “Narcissists are biased to take more credit for success than is legitimate,” Hogan et al. write, and “biased to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their failures and shortcomings for the same reasons that they claim more success than is their due.” Moreover:

Narcissists typically make judgments with greater confidence than other people . . . and, because their judgments are rendered with such conviction, other people tend to believe them and the narcissists become disproportionately more influential in group situations. Finally, because of their self-confidence and strong need for recognition, narcissists tend to “self-nominate”; consequently, when a leadership gap appears in a group or organization, the narcissists rush to fill it.

Vote for the type of managers that flourish in your organisation by clicking on the relevant check box in the column to your left.

Comments

Yogesh Shastri said…
A very insightful article.

Well Saurabh, I feel that I fall into each one of these categories at one time or the another. I don't know if all these traits make me charismatic (in darker or the fairer sense) or not, but most of the times, I have found that somehow they get me the job done. I resent many of such managers lurking inside me, but I do not know how to kick them out.
SAURABH SINHA said…
My advice would be to follow your heart and style. Look back at what your values were at the start of your career. See how far you have deviated from them. If you dislike that, try to get back to your original values and style. So even if you have to take on any of these roles due to compulsions of work, you will be able to explain that to your team members. And that comes from my own experience. The fact that you have put it down with honesty proves you are basically not all three.

I find myself in the middle category.
Unknown said…
Well, Saurabh, I beg to differ with you as far as "follow your heart and style" is concerned.

In our organization, at least, anybody who follows his own heart won't be any kind of manager at all! Everytime he has to take up a different kind of managerial mantle, depending on the direction in which the wind blows!

As far as I am concerned, I think I belong to the second and third categories, in 60-40 ratio, but the first kind does not apply to me at all, as I know to my own detriment!
www.twitter.com/@_saurabhsinha said…
I would beg to differ from Bonya. At great personal cost one can follow one's own heart and style.
Avanish Dubey said…
As far as one is not owning the corporation he is representing , a man must honestly fullfill vision of the organization...so if ambuguity is present in role clarity ,it's very obvious that goal achievemnt by all legal means is justified .... we need leaders to do business ..not saints to follow hearts ...(that's the way it works ...not the way we wish )
Saurabh Sinha said…
No one can beat Yogesh on honesty.

My recipe remains the same. I hate becoming someone else. But when a situation forces me to put additional pressure on my team members, they usually understand. I keep the channels of dissent open though, which helps me correct my 'deviant' behaviour in the future.
Yogesh said…
Dear Avinash, you raised an interesting point. Leaders vs. Saints. Of course nowadays nobody needs saints - not even the religions need the saints - they also need leaders - the one who can raise funds, popularize thier activities and all the hoopla the modern day success is often related with.

But can one be leader, without really being a saint. My heart says no, my style says yes. You decide for yourself. Cheers!

Popular posts from this blog

We are what we are - the Lake Wobegon Effect

Back to the Drawing Board or Square One