C.K. Gunsalus on Narcissistic Leaders

I’ve written before about C.K. Gunsalus’s  compelling and useful book The College Administrator’s Survival Guide.   It is a great book that should be read by every college or university administrator — or anyone who wants to become one (plus I love the cover and can’t resist putting it up here again, that poor guy looks like he is in so much pain).  Tina continues to come-up with all sorts of gems about administration (she is one of my email pals), many of which apply to companies just as well as colleges.  Check out her post on the Harvard Press website, which considers the question: Are the the top leaders of today’s universities increasingly corporate and narcissistic?  I am not sure that simply being "corporate"is bad, as the private sector has some splendid leaders, but I agree completely that leaders who suffer from relentless selfishness and hubris are a terrible thing for universities or any organization. Check out Tina’s post. To warm you up, here are two of my favorite gems:

"My current favorite academic
oxymoron is “emergency strategic plan.”  What, exactly, is such a
beast, especially as they tend to be developed following the advice of
external consultants, and have remarkable similarities?"

And:

"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 used to call the
servant-leader, have been washed away in a tidal wave of narcissistic,
corporate-style leaders.  Characteristics of these leaders include
highly personalized “branding” of leadership, often complete with a
theme or tag-line and much publicity for the leader’s individual
virtues.  Web pages often prominently feature images of the leader,
including events where the leader has recently been feted or
headlined."

Tina’s observations are backed by a study
published in 1997 in the Administrative
Science Quarterly by Mathew Hayward and Donald Hambrick.  These researchers concluded that CEO hubris
led companies to pay excessive amounts when buying firms, which in turn
undermined long-term financial performance. The two examined the
"acquisition premiums" (the amount paid above the listed stock price)
paid in 106 large acquisitions. After ruling out numerous other competing
explanations through multiple regression, they found that firms led by apparently
"self-important" CEOs – those who were getting a lot of press, giving
a lot speeches, and that had enjoyed a recent surge in stock price — consistently
paid larger premiums.

So, hubris is not
only a bad thing in academia, it does plenty of damage in corporations too.

P.S. Many of you will also think of Jim Collin’s blockbuster Good to Great when you read these findings, and indeed, the message is similar to his argument and (modest) evidence about Level 5 leaders, those relentless and selfless leaders who are driven to do what is best for their companies rather than best for themselves.  I think that the strength of Collin’s evidence is overrated, but the message is on target and supported by much research (even though almost none of that research was mentioned by Collins — the book is a brilliant piece of writing and I believe has done much good, but the claims about the quality of the evidence and originality of the ideas are overstated).

P.P.S.  Also, forgive my cynicism, but since this hugely influential book came out, I have developed a hypothesis I would love to see tested:  LEADERS WHO TELL YOU THAT THEY ARE LEVEL FIVE LEADERS ARE RARELY IF EVER LEVEL FIVE LEADERS.