The psychodynamic approach offers a plethora of insight into the inner world of leaders and how this inner world ripples out to affect followers and the immediate environment. Leaders hold unique qualities that are both proactive and detrimental in nature, ranging widely from nurturing to authoritarian styles (PSU WC, 2018). Certain aspects of the psychodynamic approach are widely criticized for a lack of empirical testing methods and scientific process. Some of these criticisms include the aspect of the “shadow-self” which is a subconscious realm of being, negative and dark, hidden beneath an individual’s personal awareness (PSU WC, 2018). The shadow-self in a leader interacts with followers, perhaps wreaking havoc on the leader-follower relationship. This may seem silly, but some sense can be made of this colorful notion. A leader’s personality certainly interacts with his or her followers’ personalities, and some traits are certainly better fitting or more desirable than others in assigned or emergent leadership (PSU WC, 2018).
Despite the psychodynamic approach’s valid criticisms, there are certainly useful concepts that can be analyzed through empirical testing and scientific survey. The concept of the “shadow-self” may be deciphered as possession of dark-triad personality traits (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) which are both measurable and present in many individuals of leadership status (Blair et al. 2017). While a “shadow-self” or warrior archetype might not be easily defined or measured, personality traits certainly are. The big 5 personality traits of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism are often tested for in leadership roles, as levels of specific personality traits are quite desirable in a leader, particularly extraversion (Northouse, 2016).
Strangely enough, extraversion is also a trait often present among leaders scoring high on narcissistic and other dark-triad traits (Volmer et al. 2016). Currently, there is a heightened interest in dark-triad traits and their relationship with individuals of leadership status. Throughout history, examples have emerged of authoritarian, manipulative dark-triad leadership figures, from Julius Caesar to Adolf Hitler. History continues to repeat itself, as leaders displaying dark-triad traits extend the bounds of country borders and political divides, from multi-billion dollar CEO’s to middle-class restaurant managers.
In order to understand the effect dark-triad traits have on subordinates, we must first weigh the differences each aspect possesses. Narcissistic traits tend to manifest in behaviors that are self-serving and manipulative, overwhelmingly authoritarian in nature. In addition, Narcissistic individuals are especially passive-aggressive and defensive in response to criticism (Blair et al. 2017). Narcissists are individuals who refuse to share the stage and will do anything to keep dissenting voices and perceived competitors down.
According to Northouse, (2016) there are two types of narcissists: constructive or reactive. Constructive narcissists can actually be quite beneficial for some organizations, as they hold high self-esteem and self-control, and use their charisma to inspire others to create positive change (Northouse, 2016). Studies indicate that a level of narcissism in leaders may be positive for subordinates’ career growth, as narcissists may use raises and promotions to create positive feedback and cultivate their personal self-esteem and the loyalty of their followers (Volmer et al. 2016). While this is certainly manipulative behavior, it does offer benefit for the subordinate, rather than gratification simply for the narcissistic leader.
On the other hand, reactive narcissists can spell absolute disaster for an organization as they are defensive, aggressive, power-fixated, and starving for superiority (Northouse, 2016). Reactive narcissists will take highly unethical steps to get ahead, often creating their own distortions of reality to validate and gratify themselves.
Up until a few weeks ago, I did not know exactly how much trouble a reactive narcissist could cause for an organization. I had the the unfortunate chance of hiring one for a leadership role. The wound for myself, my organization, and my staff members that are left is still very real and very fresh. Allow me to explain.
I currently work as the General Manager of a fast-casual restaurant. My company spends a great deal of time perpetuating a positive business culture, and aims to direct the leadership team in perpetuating this prosocial culture. Democratic leadership and a coaching approach to subordinates’ progress is highly stressed. Narcissistic or dark-triad traits in managers can be incredibly toxic to this type of environment, as the team is a small group of individuals, usually 8-12 at a time. Quite frankly, if there is a bad apple in the bunch, the toxicity can spread at breakneck speed. Transversely, a leader with a positive attitude and affect can spread the cheer just as quickly. We must pick our leaders wisely, as they are the face and forefront of our company.
At Zoup! Fresh Soup Company, this small group of individuals must work in harmony for organizational success. An understanding, supportive approach is the best way to promote individual and organizational success in this type of environment, and our corporate philosophy includes a golden rule of “no jerks.” Unfortunately, narcissists will often tell you what you want to hear, and hide their true intentions as long as possible. They will put fear into their subordinates to remain silent, administering emotional abuse for their own perceived gain. They live by the moniker of “divide and conquer.”
This unnamed individual came into a leadership role and within weeks began to complain about upper management to subordinates, projecting her feelings onto them. This behavior quickly caused a Folie à Deux, (Northouse, 2016) among some subordinates, as they began to adhere to the rogue leader’s delusions. The leader emotionally abused subordinates for mistakes they made, while passing their successes off as her own. Meanwhile, she would do everything she could to make them solely reliant on her so she could receive gratification and self-esteem from their loyalty.
As is typical for this behavior, the “leader” eventually self-destructed and quit her position in a fit of rage, taking a few employees down with her. A few weeks later, and half of my staff were either fired or quit alongside of her. The ones that were left behind were shell-shocked, what the hell just happened here?
In retrospect, the narcissistic individual polluted any staff that were hired after her. For her self-gratification, she created a little army on her side, feeding them with illusions about the state of upper management, an “us against them” mentality. This narcissistic individual ensured that seasoned employees and upper managers did not know the dissent that she was creating among the newest, most naive of employees. She conditioned them to her illusions from the first day they stepped foot into the door. Her charisma and extraversion was just enough to create a following, as well as shield her intentions behind a charming facade.
Simply put, Sigmund Freud would have a field day psychoanalyzing this individual. Of course, the psychodynamic approach offers insight about an individual’s upbringing, and how these past experiences lead to the manifestation of dark-triad traits. Conversely, the psychodynamic approach can also offer clues about how we can understand ourselves, in order to be the best versions of ourselves. Sometimes it takes observing a narcissist at work, to know that we would never want to treat people that way. Other times, it gives us insight in our own “shadow-selves” our goals, and our aspirations and whether they are ethical, fair and balanced. Do we want to be remembered as mentors and teachers, guiding individuals supportively in the right direction, or do we want to be remembered as the nefarious narcissist, coercing others in an authoritarian manner? The choice is ours as leaders to learn from those that have made horrific mistakes before us, and understand ourselves so that we may always be empathetic and ethical in regard to others.
References
Blair, C. A., Helland, K., & Walton, B. (2017). Leaders behaving badly: The relationship between narcissism and unethical leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(2), 333-346.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2018). PSYCH 485: Lesson 3:Psychodynamic Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1972967/modules/items/25704845
Volmer, J., Koch, I. K., & Göritz, A. S. (2016). The bright and dark sides of leaders’ dark triad traits: Effects on subordinates’ career success and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 413-418.
kfs5265 says
Cue30,
I appreciated reading your blog post and was surprised to see that we both chose somewhat similar topics for our blogs. I was fascinated about the fact that our notes addressed the fact that leaders don’t repress their “shadow-self”. If you happen to have the chance to read my post, I elaborate from a different perspective. I noticed that in your example, a manager in charge of “Zoups”, did in fact hide her shadow-self, which ultimately caused some serious destruction in that store. Personally, I referenced the similarities of “owning oneself”, many of us studied in earlier psychology courses as an internal locus of control. Not only do those who have an internal locus of control accept responsibility for their short-comings, they also practice other successful traits such as delayed gratification. I believe that not repressing the shadow-self is only the tip of the iceberg when referencing the psychodynamic approach to leadership.
Kirk