APA Citation
Watts, A., Lilienfeld, S., Smith, S., Miller, J., Campbell, W., Waldman, I., Rubenzer, S., & Faschingbauer, T. (2013). The Double-Edged Sword of Grandiose Narcissism: Implications for Successful and Unsuccessful Leadership Among U.S. Presidents. *Psychological Science*, 24(12), 2379-2389.
Summary
This study examined the relationship between grandiose narcissism and presidential performance across all U.S. presidents through George W. Bush. Using personality assessments from historians and biographers, researchers found that grandiose narcissism was associated with both positive outcomes (rated greatness, public persuasiveness, crisis management, agenda-setting) and negative outcomes (impeachment proceedings, unethical behavior, congressional relations problems). The findings reveal narcissism as a "double-edged sword" in leadership—traits that help achieve power can undermine its responsible exercise.
Why This Matters for Survivors
This research explains why narcissists often rise to positions of power despite their destructive potential. The traits that make them compelling leaders—confidence, vision, willingness to take risks—are the same traits that lead to ethical violations and poor judgment. Understanding this helps explain how narcissists become bosses, politicians, and authority figures, and why organizations repeatedly elevate them despite evidence of their destructiveness.
What This Research Establishes
Narcissism predicts achieving leadership. Narcissistic traits—confidence, dominance, boldness—help people attain leadership positions. Selection processes often favor these traits.
Narcissism is a double-edged sword in leadership. The same traits predict both positive outcomes (persuasiveness, crisis management, bold action) and negative outcomes (ethical violations, damaged relationships, poor judgment).
The positives and negatives aren’t separable. You can’t get narcissistic boldness without narcissistic recklessness. The vision that inspires comes with the grandiosity that distorts judgment.
Institutional constraints matter. Because narcissistic leaders have both strengths and serious vulnerabilities, institutional checks are essential to limit damage while potentially benefiting from their strengths.
Why This Matters for Survivors
Understanding how they got power. If you’ve wondered how the narcissist became your boss, your community leader, or your political representative, this research explains the selection process that favors narcissistic traits.
Their initial appeal made sense. The confidence and vision that initially attracted you (or your organization) were real. The problem isn’t that you were fooled by nothing—it’s that the same traits that attracted you predicted the damage that followed.
Early success doesn’t predict later judgment. Narcissistic leaders may achieve impressive early results. But their narcissism predicts eventual problems—ethical violations, relationship damage, poor decisions driven by ego.
Systems need protection. Whether in workplaces, communities, or politics, systems need checks on narcissistic leaders. Their strengths don’t compensate for their vulnerabilities without institutional constraints.
Clinical Implications
Context matters for narcissistic traits. The same narcissistic traits may be adaptive in some contexts (achieving leadership) and destructive in others (maintaining relationships). Assessment should consider context.
Understand patient context. Patients in organizations led by narcissists face predictable challenges. Understanding the double-edged sword helps validate their experience while explaining the dynamics.
Consider selection effects. Leadership positions are enriched for narcissism due to selection. Patients dealing with narcissistic leaders are dealing with a systematically skewed sample, not random individuals.
Support institutional thinking. Help patients think about institutional constraints—formal and informal checks that limit narcissistic damage—rather than just individual coping strategies.
How This Research Is Used in the Book
Watts et al.’s presidential research appears in chapters on narcissism in leadership:
“Research on presidential narcissism reveals the ‘double-edged sword’: narcissistic traits help leaders achieve power (confidence, boldness, persuasiveness) but undermine its responsible exercise (ethical violations, poor judgment, damaged relationships). The same traits that made them compelling candidates predict their later problems. This explains why narcissists keep getting selected for leadership despite track records of damage—and why institutions need constraints on narcissistic leaders to limit inevitable costs.”
Historical Context
This 2013 study brought rigorous methodology to questions long debated informally. Observers had noted that many successful leaders seemed narcissistic, but whether this helped or hurt leadership was unclear. The study’s finding—that narcissism predicts both kinds of outcomes—resolved the paradox while creating new questions about how to manage narcissistic leadership.
The research has been widely cited in discussions of political narcissism, corporate leadership, and organizational selection processes. Scott Lilienfeld, one of the lead authors, continued to study the intersection of personality disorders and social outcomes until his death in 2020.
Further Reading
- Campbell, W.K., & Campbell, S.M. (2009). On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the peculiar benefits and costs of narcissism. Self and Identity, 8(2-3), 214-230.
- Rosenthal, S.A., & Pittinsky, T.L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617-633.
- Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D.C. (2007). It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351-386.
- Grijalva, E., et al. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1-47.
About the Author
Scott O. Lilienfeld, PhD (1960-2020) was Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Psychology at Emory University, known for research on personality disorders and pseudoscience. W. Keith Campbell, PhD is a leading narcissism researcher at the University of Georgia.
This study brought together expertise in personality psychology, political psychology, and historical analysis to systematically examine the role of narcissism in political leadership across American history.
Historical Context
This 2013 study appeared amid growing popular interest in narcissism in leadership and politics. It provided rigorous empirical support for what observers had long suspected: that narcissism helps people achieve power but creates problems in wielding it. The research has been widely cited in discussions of political narcissism.
Frequently Asked Questions
Narcissistic traits help leaders achieve power (confidence, vision, boldness) but undermine responsible exercise of power (ethical violations, poor judgment, damaged relationships). The same traits have both positive and negative effects depending on context.
Researchers used personality assessments completed by historians and biographers who had studied each president extensively. Multiple experts rated each president on personality traits, including narcissism dimensions. This allowed systematic comparison across all presidents.
Positive: rated greatness, public persuasiveness, agenda-setting, crisis management, willingness to take risks. Negative: impeachment proceedings, unethical behavior, problems with Congress, poor relations with cabinet. The same trait predicted both kinds of outcomes.
Narcissistic traits like confidence, dominance, and boldness are attractive in leaders—they seem decisive and visionary. Organizations and voters select for these traits. The problems emerge later, after power is achieved and the destructive aspects manifest.
Both, in different ways. Narcissistic leaders may take bold actions that more cautious leaders wouldn't, potentially achieving great outcomes. But they're also more likely to act unethically, damage relationships, and make poor decisions driven by ego rather than judgment.
No. Some successful leaders score low on narcissism. But there's elevated narcissism in leadership positions overall. Selection processes often favor narcissistic traits, even though leadership effectiveness doesn't require them.
Expect both the positives (vision, boldness, persuasiveness) and negatives (ethical violations, poor judgment, relationship damage). Their early successes don't guarantee continued good judgment. Institutions need checks on narcissistic leaders to limit damage.
It's difficult because the same traits that raise concerns are those that make candidates appealing. Organizations can: look beyond charisma to track records, check references carefully, build in institutional constraints, and avoid being dazzled by confidence and vision.