Narcissistic and Service-Oriented Leadership: Contrasting Perspectives

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

Ehrich, Lisa, Ehrich, John, & Knight, John (2012) Narcissistic and service-oriented leadership: contrasting perspectives. Leading and Managing, 18(2), pp. 34-45.

This ﬁle was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/56358/

c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other speciﬁed license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identiﬁed by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. Narcissistic and service-oriented leadership: Contrasting perspectives

ABSTRACT: Leadership writing has tended to present a positive picture about leadership practice yet, in recent times, researchers have highlighted the ‘dark side’ of leadership. In this exploratory conceptual paper, we juxtapose two contrasting forms of leadership: narcissistic leadership and service-oriented leadership (that draws heavily upon servant leadership) in order to provide a better understanding of both of these forms. In particular, we explore four core constructs of leadership: service, power, role of followers, and morality, to provide a constrast. Given that little empirical works exists on narcissistic and servant leadership in educational contexts, the paper concludes by arguing for further research in the field.

Key words: narcissistic leadership, service-oriented leadership, servant leadership, power.

Narcissistic and service-oriented leadership: Contrasting perspectives

Introduction

Leadership writing and research have typically tended to present a positive picture about leadership and ‘good’ leadership practice rather than poor or inappropriate leadership

(Ashworth, 1994; Higgs, 2009). Many contemporary leadership theories have highlighted humanistic and humane forms of leadership and some examples include moral leadership, transformational leadership, servant leadership, authentic leadership, facilitative leadership, shared leadership and ethical leadership. Common to each of these approaches is the notion of positive, respectful, ethical and productive relationships based on trust between leaders and followers.

Yet there are intense and competing pressures and accountabilities on leaders today that make it difficult for them to live out such humanistic leadership ideals and practices.

Pressures to compete, win, make more profits, and stay on top are not conducive to sharing leadership, sharing power, serving others or putting others’ needs before one’s own. Kets de

Vries (1993, 1994) makes mention of a range of psychological pressures that can also create problems for leaders and stymie their ability to function effectively. He refers to loneliness at the top, envy of others and leaders’ fear of their losing their power and position.

Apart from psychological pressures, other writers have pointed to wider social and cultural trends (Giddens, 1998; Herriot and Scott-Jackson, 2002) that have impacted upon social processes, institutions and the way in which leaders and followers relate to each other.

For instance, Giddens refers to the influence of globalization and how it has shaped current practices that have led to increased individualism in Western society. Increased individualism is evident where people, ‘are primarily motivated by their own preferences, needs, rights, and the contracts they have established with others; [and] give priority to their personal goals over the goals of others’ (Herriot and Scott-Jackson, 2002, para 10).

Thus, as early as 1979, Lasch argued that large business corporations in the United

States of America had become breeding grounds for managers who demonstrate competitive, individualistic and narcissistic qualities. In such organizations, success is achieved through defeat of rivals, strong independence, self absorption and vanity. Some would argue that universities, which have become increasingly corporatized in recent decades, have also become fertile places for particular types of leaders and leadership to emerge. For example, in reflecting on the changes that have impacted upon universities over the last couple of decades, Gunsalus (2007) says

the days of the reluctant academic leader – an accomplished scholar who took on the

role to serve the institution or to give something back – what we call the servant

leader, have been washed away in a tidal wave of narcissistic, corporate-style leaders

(Gunsalus, 2007, para 4).

She gives the example of career academics whose loyalty remains to themselves where they are involved in ‘mercenary job hopping and bargaining for perks’ (Gunsalus,

2007, para 6) rather than showing any loyalty to others or the organization. Some writers have argued that particular types of individuals who have a great desire for power and privilege, tend to be attracted to top leadership positions in organizations where they can

meet their self-serving needs (see Kernber, 1979 in Kets de Vries and Miller, 1985; Kets de

Vries, 1993).

Hence, given the pressures for leaders to succeed and the wider societal forces that have shaped and continue to shape particular types of institutional practices and relationships, there has been a strong call by a number of writers (Ciulla, 2004; Duignan,

2007) for ethical leadership, where leaders use ‘power as a moral force for the common good’ (Duignan, 2007, p. 12). This type of leadership is one that values ethical and social responsibility rather than pursuing self-interests. The recent attention given to ethics in leadership (see Campbell, 1997; Cranston, Ehrich and Kimber, 2006; Duignan, 2007;

Starratt, 1996; 2004) is a testimony to the fact that there is an urgent need for alternative and more humane forms of leadership in organizational settings.

It has only been in more recent decades that attention has been given to the ‘dark side’ of leadership (see Judge, Piccolo and Kosalka, 2009; Khoo and Burch, 2008) or its

‘bad and ugly’ side as Higgs (2009) so poignantly describes it. Higgs (2009) describes some of the ‘bad’ leadership constructs as ‘leadership derailment’, ‘toxic leadership’, ‘evil leadership’ and ‘abusive leadership’. Ashworth (1994) refers to the term, ‘petty tyrants’ as those who lord their power over others. These ‘bad’ examples of leadership practices often involve abuse of power, inflicting damage on others, over-exercise of control to satisfy personal needs, and rule breaking to serve own purposes (Higgs, 2009). Godkin and Allcorn

(2009) give examples of bad leadership practices including ‘management by intimidation’

(p.45), ‘others are frequently blamed and scapegoated’ (p.46) and ‘evidence of distressing and destructive internal competition and open warfare’ (p.46). Goldman (2009) refers to

‘destructive leaders’ and ‘dysfunctional organizations’ and examines ‘hubris and narcissism’ and the ‘obsessive compulsive leader’ as examples of the behaviours of destructive leaders.

The educational leadership literature has mirrored the generic leadership literature by paying little attention to the ‘dark side’ of leadership. Indeed, it has presented a ‘strong stream of bright side empirical studies in the field of educational administration’ (Blase and

Blase, 2002, p. 671). An important exception to this is a body of research by Blase and

Blase who over the last 20 years have used a micropolitical lens to understand the way educators, such as school leaders, use their power to abuse and mistreat others such as teachers. For example, Blase and Blase have studied principal mistreatment/abuse of teachers (2002, 2003), principal’s use of favouritism with regard to appointments (Blase,

1988) and harassment and manipulation by principals (Blase and Anderson, 1995).

Of interest to this paper is narcissistic leadership, a particular type of destructive leadership. Approximately 15 years’ ago, researchers in the broader leadership field (see

Godkin and Allcorn, 2009; Humphries, Zhao, Ingram, Gladstone and Basham, 2010; Judge,

Piccolo and Koslaka, 2009; Rosenthal and Pittinsky, 2006) began to focus on the relationship between narcissism and leadership where narcissism was described as a

‘personality construct’ and ‘trait’ of leaders (Higgs, 2009). In this paper, we draw upon the work of Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006, p.629) who based their understandings of narcissistic leadership on narcissistic personality disorder from the American Psychiatric Association

Manual (2000). Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006) define narcissistic leaders as leaders who are

‘principally motivated by their egomaniacal needs and beliefs, superseding the needs and interests of constituents and institutions they lead’ (p.269). They have ‘grandiose belief

systems and leadership styles and are generally motivated by their needs for power and admiration rather than empathetic concern’ (Rosenthal and Pittinsky 2006, p. 616) for others.

Because they are self-absorbed, they are primarily focused on self-service.

To help us explore the elements of narcissistic leadership we juxtapose it with what we have coined, ‘service-oriented leadership’ that draws heavily upon ideas from servant leadership and uses some insights from Anello and Hernández’s (1996) work on moral leadership. Servant leadership following Greenleaf (2002) is based on service to others where leaders are servants first. Thus servant leaders place the needs and priorities of their communities before their own needs. Anello and Hernández view ‘service-oriented’ as a core element of moral leadership whereby a service orientation is based on consensual models of power sharing and empowerment of others. In this paper we define service- oriented leadership as leadership that is not only other-serving and focused, but also draws upon the moral authority of the leader who uses a ‘power with’ (Fennell, 1999) rather than a

‘power over’ (Fennell, 1999) approach. We prefer to use the term ‘service-oriented’ because of the negative connotation of ‘servant’ in our egalitarian society where a servant might be viewed as a slave or a martyr. This paper, then, seeks to present an initial discussion and critique of narcissistic leadership (self-serving) and how it might look in practice and to situate a more acceptable form of leadership – service-oriented leadership in that context.

We review the literature in the field to provide a picture of what is understood by these two antithetical forms of leadership, their origins and core elements and attempt a comparison of them.

Narcissism and narcissistic leadership

It is my self I love, my self I see; The gay delusion is a part of me (Ovid).

Our early understandings of narcissism have come from psychoanalytic and psychiatric literature (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1985). For example, Freud drew upon Ovid’s story of

Narcissus, who was in love with his own reflected image, to construct a psychoanalytic interpretation of narcissism (Maccoby, 2000). Thus ‘normal narcissism’ referred to a stage in childhood where young children see themselves as the centre of the universe and are

‘mirrored’ by others who confirm the image (Freud in Jorstad, 1995). Jorstad (1995) maintains that this early experience determines whether a person endures ‘narcissistic injuries’ that then lead to pathological narcissism. Kets de Vries and Miller (1985) remind us that while early experiences do play a role in shaping personality of individuals, other experiences and environmental conditions will also impact upon a person’s behaviour.

Jorstad (1995) claims that narcissism needs to be understood in terms of ‘degree’. At the one end is healthy narcissism, which is necessary for self esteem and identity development and at the other is more destructive types of narcissism such as pathological narcissism. Jorstad (1995) identifies five qualities of pathological narcissism as egocentricity; vulnerability; pronounced projective tendencies; lack of empathy; and fantasies of grandiosity. In this framing, pronounced projective tendency refers to ‘little or no ability to recognize weaknesses or faults in oneself’ (Jorstad, 1995, p. 114), meaning others are always blamed for mistakes. Kets de Vries (1994) uses the terms ‘reactive’ and

‘constructive’ narcissism where reactive narcissism is akin to pathological narcissism, while more healthy versions of narcissism are referred to as ‘constructive narcissism’. Reactive

narcissists show many pathological traits such as self-grandisement, preoccupation with fantasies, exhibitionism, indifference to others and lack of empathy. In contrast, while constructive narcissists can be described as ambitious, manipulative and very sensitive to criticism, they tend to get along with others and ‘stress real achievements’ (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1985, p. 595). In a later article, Kets de Vries (1994, p. 86) says, ‘they radiate a sense of positive vitality and are capable of empathetic feelings’ and ‘pose few organizational problems’ (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1985, p. 599). Maccoby (2000) concurs when he says that ‘productive narcissists’ are needed in organizations for their strong vision and risk taking abilities.

Following the ideas of Maccoby (2000) and Kets de Vries and Miller (1985), constructive narcissists may in fact constitute an acceptable form of leadership. Yet

Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006) have a contrary view. They claim it is debatable whether

‘confidence, charisma and optimism’ three traits associated with productive and constructive narcissists, should be labelled ‘narcissistic’ traits but could be seen as ‘positive leadership traits’. These authors maintain the lack of consensus in the literature regarding what constitutes narcissistic leadership has created some contradictory and competing claims being made about narcissistic leadership. In this paper, we follow the lead of Rosenthal and

Pittinsky whose view is more akin to reactive and pathological narcissism than notions of constructive or productive narcissism.

It is this construction of narcissistic leadership which we reframe more broadly as extreme self-serving and self-aggrandising. In practice, such leaders are focused on meeting their ‘egomaniacal needs’. According to the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2000)

there are nine narcissistic behaviours that constitute a narcissistic personality disorder. These behaviours include:

1. ‘grandiose sense of self-importance’ (APA, 2000). Narcissists see themselves as

superior to others;

2. ‘preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power’ (APA, 2000).

Narcissists have a great desire to gain success to demonstrate their superiority

(Rosenthal and Pittinsky 2006);

3. ‘believes that he or she is “special” and unique’ (APA, 2000). Thus, they have

‘an insatisable need for recognition’ (Rosenthal and Pittinsky 2006, p.620),

4. ‘requires excessive admiration’ (APA, 2000). This is due to their ‘feelings of

inferiority’ (Rosenthal and Pittinsky 2006, p.620)

5. ‘has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectrations of especially

favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations’

(APA, 2000),

6. ‘is interpersonally exploitative, i.e. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her

own ends’ (APA, 2000),

7. ‘lacks empathy’ (APA, 2000). Narcissists are unable to understand another

person’s point of view (Rosenthal and Pittinsky 2006, p.621),

8. ‘is often envious of others’ (APA, 2000), and

9. ‘shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes’ (APA, 2000). According to

Rosenthal and Pittinksy (2006), arrogance is the narcissistic trait that is most

often apparent in narcissistic behavior and, not surprisingly, it causes difficulties

in developing healthy interpersonal relationships. 9

For a person to be diagnosed as having a narcissistic personality disorder, they are required to demonstrate at least five of the nine traits (APA, 2000). We would argue that narcissistic leaders are people who demonstrate narcissistic personality traits.

Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006) add to this list by including a couple of other psychological narcissistic behaviors. Two that are discussed here are ‘amorality’ (p.621) and

‘irrationality and inflexibility’ (p.621). Amorality refers to narcissists who are capable of using their power to dominate others through abuse or acts of violence or cruelty. There are many examples in history of leaders who have demonstrated gross acts of violence and cruelty (e.g. Stalin and Hitler). ‘Irrationality and inflexibility’ refers to narcissists who are unable to reason because they are inflexible in their thinking (Rosenthal and Pittinsky 2006).

This type of inflexibility can have dire consequences for an organization as the narcissistic leader will not listen to the advice or others.

The next part of the discussion considers what we have coined, ‘service-oriented leadership’ whose attitudes to and practices of power and service are self-evidently acceptable and effective and grounded in ethical and moral values.

Service-oriented leadership

As alluded to previously, service-oriented leadership draws upon the key ideas of servant leadership since it is based on the moral value of service to others. Greenleaf’s

(2002) view of leadership was heavily influenced by his Quaker religious beliefs that hold that all persons are equal and leadership should not be coercive or manipulative (English,

2008, p.187). Servant leadership and service-oriented leadership, then, challenge a top-

down, controlling approach to power and replace it with empowerment and power sharing.

Thus servant and service-oriented leadership provides a stark contrast to narcissistic leadership.

Our position is similar to the work of Morris, Brotheridge and Urbanski (2005) who claim that ‘the antithesis of narcissism seems to be humility’ (p.1335). In their discussion of humility, they draw parallels between humble leadership and servant leadership, identifying common behaviours such as serving others, supporting followers’ needs, and using power to benefit all. In some respects, their discussion of humility resonates with what we have coined, ‘service-oriented leadership’ in this paper.

In what follows we canvas several cognate forms of service-oriented leadership by referring to two of the best known and long-standing versions of servant leaders: the good shepherd and the example of Jesus Christ who is often associated with servant leadership. In doing this, we acknowledge their scriptural basis, but justify their inclusion not only because of their centrality to much of western ethics, but also in the practice of social justice itself.

While the metaphor of the ‘good shepherd’ is manifestly anachronistic, we would argue that what it represents and exemplifies has continuing contemporary relevance to the theory and practice of humanistic leadership, though perhaps more overtly in religious-oriented settings.

In the discussion that follows, we would enter two key caveats. First, we prefer the descriptor service-oriented or other-serving leadership to the popular usage of servant leadership. Here, given the negative connotations which might, in our allegedly egalitarian society, accompany the notion of servant, granting priority to serving others or to being a

leader committed to the welfare of their community would seem less provocative. Thus, for example, Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King may be seen as exemplary models of leadership through serving others. Rather, second, our concern is with the abuse of servant leadership in the more extreme forms of other-serving. At its best, this might be seen in parents who sacrifice themselves for the sake of a family who take all this for granted, indeed exploit it. More properly, when self-denial becomes self-punishment it can be described as a form of masochism or bondage (American Psychiatric Association, 1987, pp. 373-374). This is indeed pathological.

The leader as good shepherd.

In the scriptural presentation (John 10, pp. 215-216), the good shepherd who will give his life to protect his flock is contrasted with the hireling. The hireling, like the narcissist, is in the job for what they can get out of it. In contemporary terms, they have no real commitment to their organisational community, only to their own welfare. Good leaders, however, are committed to the welfare and nurture of their community, ‘above and beyond the call of duty’ as the common saying has it. Such leaders can still be found in educational settings where their primary commitment and concern remains the care, protection, growth and personal and intellectual development of their staff and students, even against their own personal careers and the political and policy pressures which might distort or deny these processes. The notion of service provides a cognate form of leadership which we now address.

Leadership for service

Greenleaf (2002) identifies some key components of what we prefer to describe as leadership for service or service-oriented leadership. They include placing the needs and priorities of their communities before their own (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 21) rather than leading first. Leaders listen and understand others. They devote time to understanding their concerns. They accept others and show empathy for them. Acceptance is said to refer to receiving others and being tolerant while empathy refers to ‘the imaginative projection of one’s own consciousness into another being’ (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 33). Compassion and forgiveness are displayed when needed (in Greenleaf, 2002, p. 42).

While leadership for service remains an under-researched approach to leadership and an ‘untested theory’ (Bass, 2000), it does have strong philosophical foundations from which key elements can be distilled and explored. Three well-cited examples of servant leaders in history who used their moral authority to lead their people are Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson

Mandela and Jesus Christ. Gandhi engaged in passive disobedience as a key strategy to help free India from British control while Mandela led his people in their struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Both Gandhi and Mandela were servant leaders who placed their lives in the service to an ideal based on freedom and justice for their people.

Jesus Christ, founder of Christianity, epitomizes ‘servant leadership’ also. In the gospels, he is portrayed as a wise and humble teacher who taught democratic values of equality, responsibility and love for all. Leadership for Jesus was service to others which ultimately led to his unwarranted execution. This attitude is nicely captured here:

As you know, the so-called rulers of the nation acts act as tyrants and their great ones

oppress them. But it shall not be so among you; whoever would be great among you

must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you shall make himself

[sic] slave of all (Mark 10, pp. 42-45).

This confronting claim contrasts tyranny and self-service (narcissistic leadership) with service for others. It needs of course to be situated in historical context in which slavery was a fact of life. Here, contra Nietzsche – ‘Christianity is the religion of slaves’ (cf.

The Antichrist, 1895/1920). It may seem as if an emphasis on the ‘servant’ in service- oriented leadership is demeaning or even denying the concept of leadership. We agree that if taken at face value it does indeed imply a radical construction of leadership not simply through service but by example. The servant becomes the exemplar to inspire their followers to do likewise. This is then a community of service.

In what follows (see Table 1), we put forward four core dimensions: service, morality, power and followers that provide an effective way of juxtaposing narcissistic leadership against service-oriented leadership. We have chosen service because it lies at the heart of what we have discussed as servant leadership (Greenleaf, 2002) and service-oriented leadership (Anello and Hernández, 1996); morality because it is central to any understanding of leadership (Starratt, 1996); power because it is ‘intertwined with leadership’ (Dubrin,

Dalglish and Miller, 2006, p.208); and followers because leadership cannot be understood unless considered in relation to others (English, 2008). We would argue that of significance is the different degree to which each of these core dimensions is exercised within the two contrasting leadership perspectives.

A contrast: narcissistic leadership and service-oriented leadership

Table I: Summary of dimensions of narcissistic and service-oriented leadership

Narcissistic Leadership Service-Oriented

Leadership Dimension Leadership

Self serving and self- Service Other serving and focused absorbed

Amorality Morality Moral authority

Power over/Abuse of power Power Power with and power

through

Followers who are Followers Follower empowerment dependent, exploited

As shown above, narcissistic leaders are self-serving and self-absorbed. They are driven by a need to serve only their own needs. ‘Narcissists live under the illusion that they are entitled to be served, that their own wishes take precedence over those of others’ (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1985, p. 588). Narcissists lack any sense of empathy, meaning the ability to understand another person’s perspective or needs (American Psychiatric

Association, 2000) because they are guided by their own ‘idiosyncratic self centred view of the world’ (Rosenthal and Pittinsky, 2006, p.621). Service-oriented leaders, however, are

‘other’ focused and cause focused. They are driven by their desire to provide service to others.

Service-oriented leaders are ‘moral leaders’ or those who use their moral authority to lead and support their communities (Anello and Hernández 2006; Covey, 2002; Sergiovanni,

2007; Starratt, 1996). Moral authority is said to be different from other types of authority because it comes from conscience and the values within the person (Covey, 2002). Moral leadership is based on the assumption that leadership has a moral purpose ((Duignan, 2007;

Fullan, 2003; Sergiovanni, 1992, 2007; Starratt, 2004) with the core values of leaders determining how they act (Sergiovanni, 1992). Moral leadership, then, has close connections to servant leadership which involves ‘serving others but its ultimate purpose is to place oneself, and others for whom one has responsibility, in the service of ideals’

(Sergiovanni, 2007, p. 58).

Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006) note, ‘amorality’ is a component of a narcissist’s behaviour (p.621). Here they refer to narcissistic leaders who may not hesitate to behave in cruel or violent ways. Citing Glad, (2002, p.1-2), Rosenthal and Pittinsky state,

as the leader moves toward absolute power, he [sic] is also apt to cross moral and

geographical boundaries in ways that place him in a vulnerable position. Thus he

may engage in cruelties that serve no political purpose, challenge the conventional

morality in ways that undermine his base.... (p. 621).

Power is a key component of leadership and ‘leadership is the exercise of power’

(Kets de Vries, 1993, p. 22). The difference between the narcissistic leader and the servant

leader is the way the leader exercises power and the motivation that leads him/her to use that power. Narcissistic leaders’ priority is the preservation of their own power base and ego

(Kets de Vries, 1993). They use their legitimate position of power to further their personal agendas and exercise control over others. In contrast, service-oriented leaders’ power is exercised through and with others. Empowerment as a concept resonates with the work of service-oriented leaders since it has been described as a type of ‘power with’ where power is

‘relational power and mutual power’ (Fennell, 1999, p.27). It is also connected to ‘power through’ which refers to leadership that is facilitative and motivating (Fennell, 1999). It lies in stark contrast to ‘power over’ which has little respect for relationships with others and is dominating, coercive and controlling (Blase and Anderson, 1995).

According to Kets de Vries and Miller (1985), narcissists expect others including their followers to see them as exceptionally important people and to hold them in high esteem. Moreover, for narcissists, followers are both dependent and exploited (Humphries et al., 2010). Kets de Vries (1993) claims that narcissistic leaders tend to ignore their followers’ needs and take advantage of their loyalty. Power is misused and abused and ethical and moral standards are neglected. Followers in turn are unlikely to remain unaware of their manipulation. A likely response of followers is to ‘play politics to survive’ (Kets de

Vries and Miller, 1985, p. 596) and to remain compliant and obedient sycophants. In such cases, loyalty is an unlikely commodity whilst cynicism and lack of commitment may increase with time.

In contrast, service-oriented leaders serve their followers and endeavour to accommodate their emotional and other needs. Followers appreciate service-oriented leaders

because they trust and care for them (Dubrin, Dalglish and Miller, 2006). Moreover, service-oriented leaders are committed to the welfare and progress of all their followers – and within an educational context, these followers would be teachers, students, and members of the wider community. They have high ethical standards which are translated into effective practice. They would seek out, facilitate and exemplify best practice in the interests of their staff and students, who in turn would be empowered by the trust and care such leaders demonstrate towards them.

Conclusion

In this paper we explored narcissistic leadership because we believe that in order to understand leadership more fully, it is necessary to consider its dysfunctional and negative aspects as well as its more effective side. As we have shown in this paper, leadership can be destructive or empowering; it can be self-obsessive and self-serving or it can serve others. It can be based in moral authority or amoral in nature and practice. We juxtaposed narcissistic leadership against service-oriented leadership identifying common elements but argued how these elements differed greatly in how they were enacted. While we acknowledged that there are different types of narcissistic behaviour (i.e. reactive and constructive), we concentrated on reactive or pathological narcissism because of the confusion that exists between constructive narcissistic traits and more positive leadership traits (Rosenthal and

Pittinsky 2006).

We would argue that because power lies at the heart of leadership, leadership remains at risk of corruption and abuse particularly when power is used to dominate others. An important message Kets de Vries (1994, p. 88) gives leaders is to ‘check on their narcissism

[since] … glory is a great temptress and the pursuit of glory can be surprisingly self- destructive’”. Yet this advice is problematic for leaders who emit strong narcissistic traits as they are unlikely to have the capacity to reflect on themselves or to acknowledge they need to change in any way (Samier and Atkins, 2010) ‘unless they experience extraordinary psychological pain – typically a blow to their self-esteem’ (Berglas in Samier and Atkins,

2010, p.591).

The strategies at hand for followers to use to help them work with narcissistic leaders are likely to be inadequate (Samier and Atkins 2010). For example, followers who withdraw or comply may be required to discard their own values while those who choose to confront their narcissistic supervisors or leaders may face career limiting consequences including termination of their position. As Samier and Atkins (2010) point out, ‘the damage can be extensive, affecting interpersonal relations by creating a toxic culture or debilitating micropolitics … disrupting careers and the overall welfare of the educational unit, particularly if the narcissist is in an authority position to wield approval power’ (p.591).

As we indicated earlier in the paper, the current context in which leaders are now working characterized by extreme pressures to compete and win, a stress on performance in practice, or more properly performativity, increasing alienated individualism, demands for a narrowly measured accountability, and so on – shape the field of practice (cf. Bourdieu,

1977, 1984) on which contemporary leadership is enacted. We would argue that this field is being reshaped – distorted – in ways which predispose leaders towards self-serving and self- promoting performance. It also predisposes them to demonstrate narcissistic traits. It is in this contested setting where the ‘other’ is increasingly marginalised and denigrated that we

reassert the centrality of service-oriented leadership that seeks to empower staff, students and their communities.

In closing, we would add that a limitation of this paper is that it is conceptual in focus only; empirical work is yet to be done. Further research that explores both narcissistic and service-oriented or servant leadership is required given there is a dearth of empirical studies in both of these areas.

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders, DSM-IV-4th edn, text revision (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric

Association). Available at:

http://www.psychiatryonline.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content.aspx?aID=4052

(accessed 5 February 2011).

American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mentor

Disorders, DSM IIII 3rd edn (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association).

Anello, E. and Hernández, J.B. (1996). Moral leadership (Santa Cruz, Bolivia: Universidad

Nur).

Ashworth, B. (1994) Petty tyranny in organizations, Human Relations, 47(4), pp. 755-778.

Bass, B. M. (2000) The future of leadership in learning organizations, Journal of Leadership

Studies, 7(3), pp. 18-40.

Blase, J. J. (1988) The politics of favouritism: A qualitative analysis of the teacher’s

perspective, Educational Administrative Quarterly, 24, pp. 152-177.

Blase, J. and Anderson, G. (1995) The Micropolitics of Educational Leadership: Form

Control to Empowerment (London: Cassell).

Blase, J. and Blase, J. (2002) The dark side of leadership: Teacher perspectives of principal

mistreatment, Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, pp. 671-727.

Blase, J. and Blase, J. (2003) Breaking the Silence: Overcoming the Problem of Principal

Mistreatment of Teachers (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin).

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press).

Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Campbell, E. (1997) Administrators’ decisions and teachers’ ethical dilemmas: Implications

for moral agency, Leading & Managing, 3, pp. 245-257.

Christian Community Bible (2005) John. New Testament, Catholic Pastoral Edition 37th edn

(Philippines: Claretian).

Christian Community Bible (2005) Leviticus. Old Testament, Catholic Pastoral Edition 37th

edn (Philippines: Claretian).

Christian Community Bible (2005) Mark. New Testament, Catholic Pastoral Edition, 37th

edn (Philippines: Claretian). 21

Christian Community Bible (2005) Matthew. New Testament, Catholic Pastoral Edition, 37th

edn (Philippines: Claretian).

Ciulla, J. B. (2004) Ethics, the Heart of Leadership, 2nd edn (Westport: CT. Praeger

Publishers).

Covey, S. (2002) Foreword in R. Greenleaf (2002) Servant Leadership (San Francisco, CA:

Jossey Bass).

Cranston, N., Ehrich, L.C. and Kimber, M.P. (2006) Ethical dilemmas: The ‘bread and

butter’ of educational leaders’ lives, Journal of Educational Administration, 44, pp. 106-

121.

Dubrin, A., Dalglish, C. and Miller, P. (2006) Leadership 2nd Asia Pacific Edition (Milton,

Queensland: John Wiley & Sons).

Duignan, P. (2007) Educational Leadership: Key Challenges and Ethical Tensions (New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press).

English, F.W. (2008) The art of educational leadership: Balancing performance and

accountability (Los Angeles: Sage).

Fennell, H. (1999) Power in the principalship: Four women’s experiences, Journal of

Educational Administration, 37(1), pp. 23-49.

Fullan, M. (2003) The Moral Imperatives of School Leadership (Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press).

Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Cambridge: Polity

Press).

Godkin, L. and Allcorn, S. (2009) Institutional narcissism, arrogant organization disorder

and interruptions in organizational learning, The Learning Organization, 16, pp. 40-57.

Goldman, A. (2009) Destructive Leadership and Dysfunctional Organizations: A

Therapeutic Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002) Servant Leadership (Mahwah, N.J: Paulist Press).

Gunsalus, C. K. (2007) Ivory tower or hall of mirrors? Are the top leaders of today’s

university increasingly corporate and narcissistic? Off the Page: The Harvard Press

Author Forum. Available at:

http://harvardpress.typepad.com/off_the_page/2007/09/ivory-tower-or-.html (accessed 4

March 2010).

Herriot, P. and Scott-Jackson, W. (2002) Globalisation, social identities and employment,

British Journal of Management, 13, pp. 249-258.

Higgs, M. (2009) The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism, Journal of

Change Management, 9, pp. 165-178.

Humphries, J., Zhao, D., Ingram, K., Gladstone, J. and Basham, L. (2010) Situational

narcissism and charismatic leadership: A conceptual framework, Institute of Behavioral

and Applied Management, 11, pp. 118-136. Available at:

http://www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol11/no2/118%20Situational%20Narcissism.

pdf (accessed 8 April 2011).

John (2005) See Christian Community Bible.

Jorstad, J. (1995) Narcissism and leadership: Some differences in male and female leaders,

Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 49(6), pp. 409-416.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F. and Kosalka, T. (2009) The bright and dark sides of leader traits:

A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm, The Leadership

Quarterly, 20, pp. 855-875.

Kernberg, O. (1979) Regression in organizational leadership, Psychiatry, 42, pp. 29-39.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1993) Leaders, Fools and Imposters (San Francisco, CA: Jossey

Bass).

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1994) The leadership mystique, Academy of Management

Executive, 8, pp. 73-89.

Kets de Vries, M .F. R. and Miller, D. (1985) Narcissism and leadership: An object relations

perspective, Human Relations, 38, pp. 583-601.

Khoo, H. S. and Burch, G. St J. (2008) The ‘dark side’ of leadership personality and

transformational leadership: An exploratory study, Personality and Individual

Differences, 44, pp. 86-97.

Lasch, C. (1979) The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in the Age of Diminishing

Expectation (London: Abacus). 24

Leviticus (2005) See Christian Community Bible.

Maccoby, M. (2000) Narcissistic leaders, Harvard Business Review, 78, pp. 68-77.

Mark (2005) See Christian Community Bible.

Matthew (2005) See Christian Community Bible.

Morris, J.A., Brotheridge, C.M. and Urbanski, J.C. (2005) Bringing humility to leadership:

Antecedents and consequences of leader humility, Human Relations, 58(10), pp. 1323-

1350.

Nietzsche, F. (1895/1920) The Antichrist: Curse on Christianity, trans. H. L. Mencken

(Boston: MobileReference.com). Available at:

http://www.qut.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=37019

5&userid=Dn4fGl3ogms%3d&tstamp=1300242046&id=18222B1D8430DCE2F66D44

26CAB1445D30602B68 (accessed 6 April 2011).

Ovid (2008) Metamorphoses: (‘Transformations’) trans. Sir S. Garth, J. Dryden, A. Pope, J.

Addison, W. Congreve et al., electronic edn (Boston: MobileReference.com, ISBN:

9781605018713).

Rosenthal, S. A. and Pittinksy, T. L. (2006) Narcissistic leadership, The Leadership

Quarterly, 17, pp. 617-633.

Samier, E. and Atkins, T. (2010) Preventing and combating administrative narcissism:

Implications for professional programmes, Journal of Educational Administration,

48(5), pp. 579-594.

Sergiovanni, T. (2007) Rethinking Leadership: A Collection of Articles (Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press).

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992) Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement

(San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass).

Shamir, B., Dayan-Horesh, H. and Adler, D. (2005) Leading by biography: Towards a life-

story approach to the study of leadership, Leadership, 1(1), pp. 13-29.

Starratt, R.J. (1996) Transforming Educational Administration: Meaning, Community and

Excellence (New York, NY: McGraw Hill).

Starratt, R.J. (2004) Ethical leadership (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass).