Narcissistic Leadership Style - Coursework Example

Introduction Narcissistic leadership is a leadership style where leader is only seems to be working for him and give more priority to himself and his interests at the cost of others. Most of the Narcissist leaders make to the top because their confidence and authority is often mistaken as leadership qualities which can bring in positive difference to the organization. The most characteristics depicted by such leaders are mostly arrogance, hostility towards others and a sense of dominance. Though narcissism can be positive however leaders depicting such behaviors tend to show strong resentment to change and resultantly are more destructive than constructive for any organization, city or country. (Pfeffer, 2012) One of the most recent examples of such leadership behavior is that of the Gen. Petraeus who was disgraced and has to resign from the position of CIA Head. It is argued that those in power tend to often forget about others and pursue their own goals and become action oriented. Petraeus was also considered as one such leader who believed that rules are not for them and that they are special and invulnerable. However, the fact that Gen. Petraeus was removed from his position because he acted on his impulses and engaged in activities which were considered as unethical from a leader of his position and power. This paper will discuss the personality of Gen. Petraeus as a Narcissistic leader and what impact he had on his organization, explore as to whether followers were contributing towards this toxic vision and what organizational checks and balances were in place to control his behavior. The Impact on the Organization One of the key requirements of working in an organization like CIA is the extreme confidentiality as well as the secrecy. As per the existing procedures, CIA officials are required to maintain both these aspects of doing their job. It has been argued that the overall behavior of Gen actually compromised the national security because he was not only a four start General in US army but also fought important wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was accused of having unacceptable extramarital affairs with his biographer Paula Broadwell who was studying his leadership behavior during US’s war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Self-Centered model of leadership can result into negative outcomes for the organizations especially if leaders are not productive. A relative alternative of this approach is character centric leadership style which can offer leaders a relative and practical advantage over others. However, for Narcissist leaders, character centered leadership may not be the case as they seem to be too focused upon pursuing their individual goals and aspirations. (Beekun, 2012). Gardner and Pieree(2011) argued that there is a positive relationship between hostility and narricism and as such organizations, while providing feedback on the conduct of the employees as well as leaders need to take into consideration all such aspects. (Gardner & Pierce, 2011). This suggests that organizations need to be careful in designing checks and balances which can not only assist them to identify such behaviors but can also provide a mechanism to offer feedback to the employees as well. One of the key characteristics of Narcissist leaders that they depict inhibited behavior and as such believe that rules do not apply to them. CIA’s basic and most important characteristics are confidentiality, integrity as well as availability. Breaching or compromising any such aspects of employment at CIA therefore can compromise the national security of the country as well as tarnishing the image of the organization. (Pearson, 2010) Some of the evidence which emerged as a result of the overall investigation indicated that there were incidences where Paula was speaking about the overall plan of US in Libya. This clearly outlined as to how the self-centered behavior of General has actually compromised the overall status of CIA in keeping the secrets and working in the best interests of the national security. Under his leadership, CIA therefore was clearly working under a leader who was not interested in following the basic requirement of keeping the confidentiality. This has therefore resulted into questions being asked over the ability of CIA to work as a competent organization to secure the national interests at the domestic as well as global level. At the time of his resignation, there was also a probe going into the Benghazi attack in Libya where US ambassador to Libya was killed in mob attack. His narcissist behavior has also been associated with how CIA failed as an institution to anticipate such terrorist actions against US interests outside US. How followers or Supporters contributed to such Toxic Vision It is important to note that it was FBI which conducted secret inquiry against General after it was revealed that he was communicating through non-secure email service which could have been tracked easily. It also however indicates the inability of CIA to have an effect check and balance over its own boss and evaluate his conduct while performing his duties. Available evidence suggests that CIA officials knew about Broadwell’s security clearance to access CIA information. She disclosed secret information about US’s operation in Libya indicating that either she had the access to CIA information or were told by General himself. What is important to note however the fact that CIA officials did not is reacted to potential threats by divulging the information to an outsider. This indicates that the followers were actually contributing towards this toxic vision by turning a deaf ear to what was happening with Paula Broadwell. Under the leadership of Gen. Petraeus, there was a shift in the way CIA operated i.e. more focus was on collecting intelligence and hitting the targets through drone attacks. There was a clear change in focus in using the traditional intelligence gathering tactics which could have provided a more long term strategic orientation to the CIA’s mission. However, it seems that the change within CIA was accepted by the followers as it was enforced by a person who came from Military background and focused more on tactical operations indicating a lot of action oriented leadership style. It is important to note that US President Barrack Obama also falls into the same category of narcissism and he was the appointing authority also. The decision to post a person like Gen. Petraeus therefore also speaks volumes about how his supporters actually endorsed that toxic vision also. Considering the fact that Gen. Petraeus was a military person with relatively no experience of intelligence world could therefore indicate that the very decision of his supporters to appoint him as CIA chief may have been a bad decision. The military background of Gen. Petraeus also played an important role in actually making his followers in CIA to endorse his toxic vision. In military, a fixed and defined hierarchy exists and orders are strictly followed when they are given by an authority figure like Four Start General. Gen. Petraeus’s inability to actually cope with the culture change at CIA and too much focus on his own personality and ambitions therefore may have resulted into his followers actually supporting the vision. As such there are two important issues which need to be considered while assessing the impact of the behavior of General on the followers and why they actually followed that vision. First, he was appointed by the President of US which itself might have been the strongest endorsement of his vision and narcissistic characteristics to lead an organization which shared different values and traits. In this case, the personal narcissistic characteristics actually prevailed over the self-esteem of the organization itself. Missing Organizational Checks and Balances There are three important and core goals which are followed by CIA i.e. confidentiality, integrity and Availability of information. Keeping information confidential and maintain the integrity is considered as necessary in order to ensure the availability of information. These goals also serve as the implicit checks and balances over the conduct of the employees in order to ensure that not only information targets are met but information is also kept confidential. Oversight on the conduct of Highest Authority within the organization CIA potentially failed to keep an effective check over the conduct of the Director and continued to ignore its basic responsibility of ensuring confidentiality of intelligence information. The overall inquiry into this affair was conducted by FBI and not by the CIA itself. This suggests that there may have been an oversight on the part of CIA to effectively put checks and balances. However, at the macro level, the investigation by FBI suggests that national security agencies were actively engaged in pursuing this case. It is also important to note that the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committee, after reviewing the credentials of General approved his appointment. Even at this level, Committee actually failed to ensure that right person is being placed at the right job. Even FBI failed to find anything negative before his appointment as the director. This suggests that the overall process of appointing Director of most feared intelligence agency of the world may be relatively flawed and without proper checks and balances in place. This is despite of the fact that two had relationships during their stay in Afghanistan where she went to interview with him. (Raman, 2012) It is critical to note that Director of CIA is the final authority at the organization and as such all the access to information flows through the director. The fact that Paula Broadwell had access to some of the classified information clearly suggests that there were missing links in ensuring that all the checks and balances are followed. One of the key reasons behind the rise of narcissist leaders is that their confidence as well as authority is often mistaken as their leadership qualities. Such leaders are often considered as self-obsessed with the fact that they are doing their jobs properly. Such attitude therefore results into leaders being dominating force within the organization. (Pech & Slade, 2007) One of the key aspects related with the appointment of General was the fact that he was chosen on the basis of his military background. As discussed above, personnel from military tend to follow different set of psychology and therefore may not be a perfect fit for an organization. As such President of US ignored the basic assumption of placing right person for the right job. It seems therefore that the overall checks and balances were missing at the start of the process of hiring General for the position of Director. Overall checks and balances may have been performed but they were not effective in ensuring the correct background and psychological mindset of the person. Bibliography Beekun, R. I. (2012). Character centered leadership: Muhammad (p) as an ethical role model for CEOs. Journal of Management Development, 31(10), 1003 - 1020. Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. (2011). A question of false self-esteem: Organization-based self-esteem and narcissism in organizational contexts. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(8), 682 - 699. Pearson, C. (2010). The Cost of Bad Behavior: How Incivility Is Damaging Your Business and What to Do about It. Human Resource Management International Digest, 25-29. Pech, R. J., & Slade, B. (2007). Organisational sociopaths: rarely challenged, often promoted. Why? Society and Business Review, 2(3), 254 - 269. Pfeffer, J. (2012, November 12). Petraeus and the Rise of Narcissistic Leaders. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/11/petraeus_and_the_rise_of_narci.html Raman, B. (2012, November 11). Petraeus failed to impart his stamp on the CIA. Retrieved from Rediff: http://www.rediff.com/news/column/petraeus-failed-to-impart-his-stamp-on-the-cia/20121111.htm Read More