Although some researchers have suggested that narcissistic CEOs may have a positive influence on organizational performance (e.g., Maccoby, 2007; Patel & Cooper, 2014), a growing body of evidence ...suggests that organizations led by narcissistic CEOs experience considerable downsides, including evidence of increased risk taking, overpaying for acquisitions, manipulating accounting data, and even fraud. In the current study we show that narcissistic CEO's subject their organizations to undue legal risk because they are overconfident about their ability to win and less sensitive to the costs to their organizations of such litigation. Using a sample of 32 firms, we find that those led by narcissistic CEOs are more likely to be involved in litigation and that these lawsuits are more protracted. In two follow-up experimental studies, we examine the mechanism underlying the relationship between narcissism and lawsuits and find that narcissists are less sensitive to objective assessments of risk when making decisions about whether to settle a lawsuit and less willing to take advice from experts. We discuss the implications of our research for advancing theories of narcissism and CEO influence on organizational performance.
In spite of the importance of organizational culture, scholarly advances in our understanding of the construct appear to have stagnated. We review the state of culture research and argue that the ...ongoing academic debates about what culture is and how to study it have resulted in a lack of unity and precision in defining and measuring culture. This ambiguity has constrained progress in both developing a coherent theory of organizational culture and accreting replicable and valid findings. To make progress we argue that future research should focus on conceptualizing and assessing organizational culture as the norms that characterize a group or organization that if widely shared and strongly held, act as a social control system to shape members’ attitudes and behaviors. We further argue that to accomplish this, researchers need to recognize that norms can be parsed into three distinct dimensions: (1) the content or what is deemed important (e.g., teamwork, accountability, innovation), (2) the consensus or how widely shared norms are held across people, and (3) the intensity of feelings about the importance of the norm (e.g., are people willing to sanction others). From this perspective we suggest how future research might be able to clarify some of the current conflicts and confusion that characterize the current state of the field.
How do people establish and maintain cultural fit with an organization? Prior research has offered two perspectives that have heretofore been conceptually disconnected. One focuses on personal ...values, whereas another emphasizes perceptions of the cultural code. We develop a theoretical account that integrates these approaches by linking them to distinct mechanisms and behavioral consequences of cultural fit. We propose that
value congruence
—the match between one’s values and those that prevail in an organization—relates to the mechanism of group attachment and shapes behavior when one periodically steps back from day-to-day interactions, assesses one’s identification with an organization, and determines whether to stay or voluntarily depart. In contrast, we argue that
perceptual congruence
—the degree to which one implicitly understands an organization’s prevailing values and norms—relates to the mechanism of interpersonal coordination and influences behavior when one engages in routine peer interactions. Accordingly, we theorize that these two forms of cultural fit relate to distinct behaviors,
voluntary exit
and
linguistic conformity
with peers, respectively. Drawing on email and survey data from a midsized technology firm, we find support for our theory and discuss the implications of our findings for research on person-culture fit, dual-process models of culture and cognition, and the pairing of surveys with digital trace data.
Funding:
This work was supported by the Berkeley Culture Center, the Cortese Distinguished Chair in Management, the Grether Chair of Business Administration and Public Policy.
Knowing Your Place Anderson, Cameron; Srivastava, Sanjay; Beer, Jennifer S ...
Journal of personality and social psychology,
12/2006, Letnik:
91, Številka:
6
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Status is the prominence, respect, and influence individuals enjoy in the eyes of others. Theories of positive illusions suggest that individuals form overly positive perceptions of their status in ...face-to-face groups. In contrast, the authors argue that individuals' perceptions of their status are highly accurate-that is, they closely match the group's perception of their status-because forming overly positive status self-perceptions can damage individuals' acceptance in a group. Therefore, the authors further argue that individuals are likely to refrain from status self-enhancement to maintain their belongingness in a group. Support for their hypotheses was found in 2 studies of status in face-to-face groups, using a social relations model approach (
D. A. Kenny & L. La Voie, 1984
). Individuals showed high accuracy in perceiving their status and even erred on the side of being overly humble. Moreover, enhancement in status self-perceptions was associated with lower levels of social acceptance.
Transformational leaders challenge the status quo, provide a vision of a promising future, and motivate and inspire their followers to join in the pursuit of a better world. But many of these leaders ...also fit the American Psychiatric Association classification for narcissistic personality disorder. They are grandiose, entitled, self-confident, risk seeking, manipulative, and hostile. This article reviews the literature on narcissism and shows how what we think of as transformational leadership overlaps substantially with grandiose narcissism. As grandiose narcissists can appear as transformational leaders, it is important to distinguish between what leadership scholars have characterized as “transformational” and these “pseudo-transformational” candidates.
Narcissistic CEOs and executive compensation O'Reilly, Charles A.; Doerr, Bernadette; Caldwell, David F. ...
The Leadership quarterly,
04/2014, Letnik:
25, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Narcissism is characterized by traits such as dominance, self-confidence, a sense of entitlement, grandiosity, and low empathy. There is growing evidence that individuals with these characteristics ...often emerge as leaders, and that narcissistic CEOs may make more impulsive and risky decisions. We suggest that these tendencies may also affect how compensation is allocated among top management teams. Using employee ratings of personality for the CEOs of 32 prominent high-technology firms, we investigate whether more narcissistic CEOs have compensation packages that are systematically different from their less narcissistic peers, and specifically whether these differences increase the longer the CEO stays with the firm. As predicted, we find that more narcissistic CEOs who have been with their firm longer receive more total direct compensation (salary, bonus, and stock options), have more money in their total shareholdings, and have larger discrepancies between their own (higher) compensation and the other members of their team.
Studies of organizational culture are almost always based on two assumptions: (a) Senior leaders are the prime determinant of the culture, and (b) culture is related to consequential organizational ...outcomes. Although intuitively reasonable and often accepted as fact, the empirical evidence for these is surprisingly thin, and the results are quite mixed. Almost no research has jointly investigated these assumptions and how they are linked. The purpose of this article is to empirically link CEO personality to culture and organizational culture to objective measures of firm performance. Using data from respondents in 32 high-technology companies, we show that CEO personality affects a firm’s culture and that culture is subsequently related to a broad set of organizational outcomes including a firm’s financial performance (revenue growth, Tobin’s Q), reputation, analysts’ stock recommendations, and employee attitudes. We discuss the implications of these findings for future research on organizational culture.
We develop a theory explaining how collectivism causes people to “blur” demographic differences, that is, to see less diversity than actually exists in a group, and reconciling contradictions in how ...collectivistic norms influence group performance. We draw on the perceived diversity literature, hypothesizing that collectivistic norms cause group members to blur demographic differences, resulting in perceptions that group members are more similar than they actually are. Whether this benefits or harms group performance depends on the group’s objective diversity and the relevance of the perceived diversity attribute for accomplishing the task. For conjunctive tasks, the group’s performance is determined by its weakest member, demanding high levels of cohesion. Our theory suggests that collectivism benefits group conjunctive performance when objective national diversity is high by blurring divisive relational differences but has no effect in groups with low objective national diversity. In contrast, for disjunctive tasks, the group’s performance is determined by its best member. We predict that collectivism harms group disjunctive performance when objective expertness diversity is high by blurring differences in task-relevant expertness but has no effect in low objective expertness diversity groups. We find support for our theory in two studies, an archival study of 5,214 Himalayan climbing expeditions and a laboratory experiment assessing 366 groups. Our results show that collectivism has benefits and detriments for diverse groups and that these contradictory effects can be understood by identifying how the collectivistic blurring of perceived group diversity helps or hurts groups based on the type of tasks on which they are working.
Three studies examine how organizational mindset—whether a company is perceived to view talent as fixed or malleable—functions as a core belief that predicts organizational culture and employees’ ...trust and commitment. In Study 1, Fortune 500 company mission statements were coded for mindset language and paired with Glassdoor culture data. Workers perceived a more negative culture at fixed (vs. growth) mindset companies. Study 2 experimentally manipulated organizational mindset and found that people evaluated fixed (vs. growth) mindset companies as having more negative culture norms and forecasted that employees would experience less trust and commitment. Study 3 confirmed these findings from more than 500 employees of seven Fortune 1000 companies. Employees who perceived their organization to endorse a fixed (vs. growth) mindset reported that their company’s culture was characterized by less collaboration, innovation, and integrity, and they reported less organizational trust and commitment. These findings suggest that organizational mindset shapes organizational culture.
The relationship between organizational culture and financial performance remains elusive even though researchers have studied it for some time. Early research suggested that a strong culture that ...aligns members’ behavior with organizational objectives boosts financial performance. A more recent view is that, because strong cultures promote adherence to routines and behavioral uniformity, they are less effective in dynamic environments. We suggest that the relationship between culture and performance can be reconciled by recognizing that culture encompasses three components: (1) the content of norms (norm content); (2) how widely members agree about norms (culture consensus); and (3) how intensely organizational members hold particular norms (norm intensity). We hypothesize that “strong cultures”—where a high consensus exists among members across a broad set of culture norms—can contribute to better financial performance even in dynamic environments if norm content intensely emphasizes adaptability. We test this hypothesis in a sample of large firms in the high-technology industry. Firms characterized by higher culture consensus and intensity about adaptability performed better three years later than did those characterized by lower consensus, lower intensity about adaptability, or both. We discuss how parsing culture into content, consensus, and intensity advances theoretical and empirical understanding of the culture–performance relationship.
PDF
