Controlling narratives may protect image, but it erodes trust, blocks feedback and undermines performance. Unsplash+
It’s almost like something out of the X-Files. Since the early 1980s, psychologists have been tracking something they just can’t explain in their data: a steady rise in levels of narcissismin both individuals and organizations. A growing preoccupation with image and controlling what others say about us.
Though social media is often blamed, the rise in narcissism began decades earlier. The exact causes remain debatedshifts in parenting, media and cultural values have all been cited. Whatever the reason, the consequence is clear. This subtle and silent global shift is undermining trust and information flow in the workplace, limiting leaders’ ability to ensure open communication and informed decision-making. It may be one of the least recognized yet most damaging threats to organizational performance facing leaders today. And it is almost entirely self-inflicted.
The tenets of organizational narcissism
The idea that organizations can be narcissistic as well as individuals dates back to the 1970s and 80s. It typically manifests in firms seeking visible loyalty from their employees, tightly managing what employees say about the firm and stressing conformity and “alignment.” Three main forces appear to have accelerated its rise:
- Growing individual narcissism. As levels of narcissism have risen in CEOs and other senior executivesthey have pursued greater levels of loyalty and conformity in employees. Even when firms don’t explicitly demand this, employees—who are more image-conscious themselves—often assume it’s required.
- Rising brand exposure. The greater reputational risk created by the combination of the 24-hour news cycle, social media and call-out culture has heightened reputational risks, prompting firms to increasingly exert tighter control over both internal and external communications.
- Over-curated positivity. The increasing push to foster motivational, upbeat workplaces has, in some cases, tipped over into over-managed messaging. Positivity is healthy, but when it silences openness, it creates a culture of suppression.
Dangerous consequences
The fallout from organizational narcissism is predictable. It breeds insincerity and inauthenticity, as employees are encouraged to remain loyal and overtly positive, and discouraged from saying things that diverge from the company line. It erodes trust and impairs information flow as staff become cautious. Invariably, good news will travel fast while bad news gets buried, effectively undermining decision-making.
One large global manufacturer illustrates the point. Three layers of leaders privately recognized flaws in a major transformation plan but stayed silent for fear of seeming disloyal and negative in a “can-do” culture. The result was stalled change, wasted costs and eventual abandonment of the strategy.
How to navigate narcissism
If organizational narcissism is usually unintentional, then what can leaders do to counteract it? The English writer Somerset Maugham once said, “What we call insincerity is often just a method by which we can avoid an unpleasantness.” By “unpleasantness,” he meant disagreement. And disagreement, handled constructively, is the antidote to organizational narcissism. Leaders must deliberately cultivate a culture of openness, debate and questioning.
Ask “What do you think?”
Effective leaders make a habit of soliciting opinions. One CEO was so consistent in asking this question that anyone entering his office knew to have an opinion ready. He wasn’t concerned with agreement, only with engagement. The lesson: if you want people to speak up, then invite them to. Ask questions, lots of them. Seek out different views and opinions as if they are essential nourishment. Because for leaders, they are.
Disagree positively
When people do speak up, how leaders respond matters. This can be harder than it sounds, but negative or dismissive reactions can quickly silence voices. Adam Neumann, former CEO of WeWork, reportedly labeled executives and employees who urged him to take fewer risks as “B players” and excluded them from meetings. Perhaps they were being too cautious (though history suggests otherwise). But even so, this kind of reaction ensures leaders remain trapped in their own bubbles. Disagreement must be met with curiosity, not contempt.
Make dialogue a two-way street
Some CEOs hold monthly Q&A sessions where employees are invited to ask questions—but the executives never pose any themselves. The result: one-way communication, centered on the CEO. A better approach is a balance where time in a town hall meeting is divided between fielding questions and asking employees for their perspectives on business issues..
Embrace uncertainty
The world is rarely black-and-white, yet leaders often feel compelled to project certainty. Presenting issues this way implies that there are right answers and wrong answers. Using qualifiers, where appropriate, can counter this. Instead of “It is this,” try “The most likely explanation is this.” Acknowledging nuance creates space for dialogue and reduces fears around being “wrong.”
The leadership imperative
Organizational narcissism is rarely deliberate. Setting aside the egos of individual leaders, most cases stem from understandable, often well-intentioned attempts to either manage reputational risk or create a positive environment that go too far. But good intentions don’t erase damage. No matter how it arises, organizational narcissism undermines performance. Leaders who want lasting results must build cultures where openness, disagreement and authenticity aren’t just tolerated, but expected.
Nik Kinley is a London-based leadership consultant, assessor and coach with 40 years’ experience working with some of the world’s biggest companies. An award-winning author, he has written eight books, the latest of which is The Power Trap: How Leadership Changes People and What to Do About Itavailable now.
