9 ms·

How narcissists climb the career ladder quickly

84 points by janvdberg 5y ago

sichtlinkair 5y ago
Seems pretty obvious to me
- tomrod 5y ago
  Right? A bit like the Gervais princple. [0] But in response, I like this HN comment on it. Do our best to be kind. [1] [0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25487605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25487605
  - OneEyedRobot 5y ago
    Thanks for the Gervais article. Good one. I wonder what happens when the 'clueless' layer is replaced by a clueless machine intelligence. I like the idea of the work-at-home folks talking to a sort of cartoon head on a screen about their bug list or how much time they spend on Facebook.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  That doesn't mean it's not worth studying. Gravity is obvious as well, but if we stopped before Newton we'd have never gotten to Einstein.
darksaints 5y ago
Some of them do. The others are content to float around their entire career doing nothing as long as they can blame their failure on anybody but themselves.
mjburgess 5y ago
What's the bet that not only is the paper unreporducible, but the whole field is pseudo-science? I'd give it 8/10.
- sillyquiet 5y ago
  Yeah, these kind of studies are grabbed up by the media and spread uncritically all the time. e.g., 'x % of CEOs are functional sociopaths' '<Members of ideology I don't like> have this negative trait' '<Members of ideology I identify with> have this positive trait' Call me cynical, but I am really dubious of these kinds of stories. edit, I am not saying anything about the research, I am saying something about the narratives and social media chatter that results from these kinds of stories, often with out any criticism if they fit our preconceptions.
  - tokai 5y ago
    What a baffling shallow dismissal. The research might be bunk, but basing your critique of it on popular coverage by non-researchers, is not cynical at all. Its make-believe.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      This type of psychological research is pseduoscientific -- and results can be produced in any direction one likes. Why didnt the study correlate virtuous-sounding personality traits with being a CEO? (Presumably many exist). And were such a study published, why wouldnt it be printed in the BBC? When an entire field is basically incapable of meeting the basic tenants of science (repoducible, modelling, universal, explanatory, etc.) -- the most salient question is "why is it that we have /these particular/ untruths?"
      - alimw 5y ago
        Well a study linking career success to, say, intelligence is unlikely to make the news because it wouldn't be at all surprising.
      - _jal 5y ago
        So in summary, you don't like people's choice of research topics, you don't like the media, and you want to suggest that certain categories of research are PR conspiracies, but won't quite do so. Does that have it about right?
123pie123 5y ago
having worked with a narcissist boss, I can very easily see why they get ahead quicker. IMO - this technical management role had no real way of being evaluated by her seniors - they weren't technical enough, in fact they (directors) pretty muched looked down on technical roles. -(similar to the comedy "The IT Crowd", but a bigger team) The only thing they could judge the management role on was a) was there anything going wrong with the IT systems b) was the manager a good person a) was taken care off by the techies in the IT team and for b) she was extemely charming, boastful and according to her, she was the reason the company IT existed - yet she boasted she wasn't technical - she was extemely not technical I avoided her at all cost and followed the rule of never ever pointing out she'd made a mistake, not even positive criticism. We did put a basic system in place to monitor the responses of fixes and calls - I did laugh when I ran a report on the performance of the team vs her holidays
- someelephant 5y ago
  > never ever pointing out she'd made a mistake This is such a key skill. It's important to judge whether a person is open to feedback or not. A lot people assume others are open to hearing criticism. If your manager is a narcissist and you start pointing out things that they are doing wrong without earning their trust you are as good as toast.
  - throwawaysleep 5y ago
    I would go even further. Every single thing you say at work should be dedicated to improving your career. You should be playing politics with every sentence. Doesn't mean you are sleazy, but if it doesn't make you look better to say or make you friends, don't bother say it. Let that open to the internet server slide if it requires blaming someone higher up.
    - throwaway743 5y ago
      Totally agree with not saying anything in this situation regarding opinions or constructive criticism, and would add not opening up and/or sharing any info regarding your personal life. With narcissistic bosses, all that is used as a weapon against you, whether now or long into the future. Would have to disagree on playing politics, unless you mean minding what one says. Office politics aren't worth the energy or the toll they take on one's morale and character. If you work at a place where the mudslinging is heavy and often, especially among management types who are toxic and target the ones they manage, gtfo of there. From experience, if you stay you're essentially letting them rob time from your short period spent alive, and recovering from the trauma is lengthy. Personally, it's taken nearly a year after being laid off to recover and begin feeling like myself from before the ~7 years of working under 2 bosses of this type (one was the vp of tech and the other was a manager below her, so two levels in hierarchy).
phkahler 5y ago
There is a lot of overlap between positive traits and narcissistic or antisocial ones. Some people have trouble distinguishing between confidence and arrogance for example. How about basic extroversion vs self promotion? OTOH some of the tactics a narcissist uses when they're in trouble are common (good?) for a company to employ when faced with bad publicity. Self promotion is a form of marketing right? It's all superficial, so I think the best we can do is train more people to see through it. Hold people accountable, don't let them blame shift, don't promote them for others accomplishments, etc... Once you've got their number, there may still be good strategic uses for these people. Just don't let them get out of control and ruin the company?
- altacc 5y ago
  I was also going to mention that confidence is a powerful predicter/cause of success & promotion, more so than any skills behind that confidence. Anecdotally, I've noticed people are much more successful in work & personal life when they are confident, as other people use that confidence as a shortcut for assessing actual talent & skills. Narcissism is a mix of unwavering confidence and self-assuredness that exploits this shortcut and lets people progress in life without any test of their actual abilities.
  - redmaverick 5y ago
    maybe it is the inverse. When you are successful in work and personal life you become confident. And they fuels more success/confidence. Basically you become more confident as and when you find more success.
    - dsr_ 5y ago
      Both. Narcissists project confidence without actual success. Experts project confidence based on proven success.
      - chansiky 5y ago
        Just adding to what dsr_ is saying, narcissists project confidence without actual success because their version of reality supports their correctness. Narcissism/NPD is a result of the mind not being able to accept information that disproves their elevated sense of self worth. Anything that proves them wrong therefore is discarded before it can be processed internally. So when they speak with confidence, its because nothing in their reality can disprove what they are saying, even if what you're saying is true to our shared reality.
pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
DISAPPROVING DRAKE: narcissist humans APPROVING DRAKE: narcissist corporations
- hwers 5y ago
  Please no memes on HN
spywaregorilla 5y ago
If someone asks you "are you good", you should say "yes" or even better "very good". Humility gets you nowhere. edit: Assuming you are actually good, but also recognizing that on the bell curve of competency, most people aren't noticeably better than one or another, despite a generally held belief otherwise.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  Tell me about this, after an egotistic crisis I went full humility, I'm now at the bottom of the ladder, watching lazy, vaguely competent people whining about why 2-3x the average salary is not enough for their performance. Thing is, I cannot let myself play politics and mental games just to swim warmer waters. I find it even sadder.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  Except when you’re not in a toxic environment. Those are rare, but should be recognized very fast if one wants to stay there. Throwing away humility is a sure way to be paired with one-uppers for the rest of one’s life (and then say with utter confidence that nobody cares about humility)
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    The "are you good" question is toxic anyway, so unless it's some "are you good at X" where X is not the work you are assigned to do, if people are asking you it it's because the environment is toxic. On "are you good at X", it actually means "are you capable and willing to do X from now on?", so treat it accordingly.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Disagree. It's hard to compare the merit of two people, especially if they work in fields that you're not an expert in. Asking someone their own self evaluation opinion is reasonable. If A is confident about their competency and B says "I could be better"... you're going to go with A. That is how humans work. No toxicity required. Humility is nice and all but it blends deeply with insecurities and a lack of confidence
marvindanig 5y ago
Without reading the article: Using a woman's stock pic next to a headline that talks about workplace narcissism in an industry that's a majority led by men is absolutely not cool. I expect better standards from BBC. On the article next… [edit] Ah, the downvotes from insecure men. Suck it all of you downvoters. :-) [edit 2] Any way, this was a good read otherwise. I think it is important for the founders to identify and separate performant employees on the basis of their optimization. Are they optimized for promotions and self-growth vs. are they optimized for growth of the business as a whole. This is an absolutely difficult thing to do though.
- dang 5y ago
  You broke several of the site guidelines with this comment. Please don't do that again. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Note this one: "Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." Also the ones that ask you not to call names and not to go on about downvotes.
MattGaiser 5y ago
Companies seem to have a very weak understanding of what their workers do day to day, so rely on being told. That was another new to the workforce lesson about industry for me. My direct managers often don’t know what I did last week beyond the general assigned project.
agumonkey 5y ago
The nature of adult behavior in workplaces fascinate me. It's a deep game of tap dancing. I'd love to find places to discuss this at the meta level. I cannot stop watching all the weird games people are playing to get by..
- rjrodger 5y ago
  You'll be wanting https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... - The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to “The Office” - the ultimate meta discussion of office politics.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    it seems interesting but I fail to interpret his definition of sociopath/clueless/losers (I only saw the uk version btw) it also avoids topics like the need for humans to belong, feel safe emotionally, feel valued/listened
everdrive 5y ago
I think some of the blame here should also go to the fact that people appraising performance often have very little idea about the facts of someone's work, and are in fact simply praising personality. In a perfect world, a narcissist couldn't get very far on confidence alone.
- nine_zeros 5y ago
  This is an important point. One of the biggest reasons for management hatred is that actual workers can see that narcissists get promoted while doers don't. Workers thus end up losing trust in upper/mid management. Don't do any work and instead waste their time aping the narcissist. The problem often is merely management. But the asymmetry of power prevents the bad apples in management from getting exposed and removed.
toiletaccount 5y ago
Because nobody pulls the ladder out from under them, causing them to fall and crack their heads open, making one last ugly mess for everyone else around them to clean up?
robertlagrant 5y ago
> MacRae’s second suggestion is to use a diverse hiring panel and to note how the candidate responds to people of different status within the organisation. “Narcissists are very good at 'managing up', but then tend to treat people they perceive as lower status very differently. But if you don't have any diversity of evaluators in the hiring process, you're unlikely to pick this up.” I think this is a bit silly. Fine to have different people interview, good idea, but I doubt many narcissists will treat interviewers that differently.
- bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
  Some interviewees quickly decide who's the boss, or primary decider in the interview, and then totally focus all their charm on them.
nickysielicki 5y ago
Everyone, throughout their career, is going to see people excel that they feel are undeserving. The whole point of this article is that subconsciously, we all imagine so-and-so and think, "Yes! Yes! That's why they did well! They were just a narcissist. And me, not being a narcissist, I could never have adopted those strategies, I couldn't have lived with myself. I'd rather have my character than a career." What does it change? Does it make you feel better? The prevailing thought around SV, or at least around the blogs of people in YC, is to make lossy generalizations about the types of people who should be accepted into an organization. They'll say, "Don't work with assholes". To be fair, I think that's pretty good advice for picking founders and early employees of a company. At the same time, I'm convinced that George Patton was an asshole and a bit of a narcissist, and was simultaneously a great asset in WWII for the US, and to accept both of these as true requires more room for nuance. The organizational structure of the military is not fundamentally different than any organizational structure. This article tries to paint our inability to weed out strong personalities as a bug in human relationships, instead of a feature. I think that's just plain wrong. Humans have had a lot of time to develop instincts when it comes to interpersonal relationships, and we would have a better sense of sniffing them out if it truly was as bad as it seems. It's definitely not fun to not be a narcissist and see one excel, but that doesn't mean that narcissists are toxic and detrimental to every organization they find themselves in. Sometimes, when the stakes are high, you need a George Patton to win a war. I think the corollary of this is that when business is good and the stakes are relatively low, you really don't need or want narcissists. The problem is that it's hard for an entire organization to know what camp they fall into.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  I disagree with this take fundamentally and that's because I want to see the whole world grow kinder. Maybe your goals are different. I'd rather weed out "the assholes" than clamor to them for whatever skillset they possess. If they want to learn the ability to work with others, kindly (also a skillset), while contributing their knowledge, welcome them. But if they continue to harm others on their solo trip to glory, they should be struck down, admonished, called out. What's kind about that? Well, you've just saved tens, hundreds, thousands more from enduring their harm. We can imbue these qualities of kindness into our workplaces, our families, our communities by saying, "No, you will not," to the narcissists of the world. Human progress is good. It does not require the sacrifice of our innocent or benign to Moloch to fuel its engine.
LanceH 5y ago
Leaders vs front-runners. The outgoing, confident person will look great when everything is going well. They get promoted because they've been busy tending their internal resume. They have great answers to the "what have you accomplished this quarter?" type questions during their quarterly reviews. It doesn't really matter if they were the one responsible, there are millions of ways to spin it. Even so, they're practically winning by default with how much care the average employee puts into the corporate game -- and this isn't even playing politics. So when things are going well -- great, I need a promotion, bigger team, and more responsibilities. When things aren't going well -- I need a bigger team to address this problem, quickly followed by the obvious promotion for someone leading such a big team. The narcissist doesn't care if they are actually leading the team to solutions or whether they are running out front of it claiming the credit. The senior management's lack of ability discern the difference paves the way to the top.
njharman 5y ago
Two things; Majority of comments seem to assume narcissist is also incompetent or unskilled. If this study is accurate and you want advantage in career then you could do worse than adopting the narcissist behaviors linked to advancement by study.
ask_b123 5y ago
I don't know… I feel like this statement pairs aren't mutually exclusive: >a) I have a natural talent for influencing people b) I am no good at influencing people Maybe someone is good but has no NATURAL talent. >a) When people compliment me I sometimes get embarrassed b) I know I am good because everyone keeps telling me so You can be embarrassed by compliments and still take them to heart. >a) The thought of ruling the world frightens the hell out of me b) If I ruled the world it would be a better place Being scared of ruling almost sounds like a prerequisite for being a good ruler. That can help keep you honest and humble. Being scared doesn't imply that you think you'd necessarily be bad. >a) I insist on getting the respect that is due to me b) I usually get the respect I deserve Maybe I usually get the respect I deserve, but on the few occasions I don't, then I insist on getting the respect that is due to me. :-)
dennisblue 5y ago
ITT techbros climbing a social hierarchy try to convince us they're not just yuppies.

84 points by janvdberg 5y ago

sichtlinkair 5y ago

Seems pretty obvious to me

tomrod 5y ago
Right? A bit like the Gervais princple. [0] But in response, I like this HN comment on it. Do our best to be kind. [1] [0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25487605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25487605
- OneEyedRobot 5y ago
  Thanks for the Gervais article. Good one. I wonder what happens when the 'clueless' layer is replaced by a clueless machine intelligence. I like the idea of the work-at-home folks talking to a sort of cartoon head on a screen about their bug list or how much time they spend on Facebook.
SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
That doesn't mean it's not worth studying. Gravity is obvious as well, but if we stopped before Newton we'd have never gotten to Einstein.

darksaints 5y ago

Some of them do. The others are content to float around their entire career doing nothing as long as they can blame their failure on anybody but themselves.

mjburgess 5y ago

What's the bet that not only is the paper unreporducible, but the whole field is pseudo-science? I'd give it 8/10.

sillyquiet 5y ago
Yeah, these kind of studies are grabbed up by the media and spread uncritically all the time. e.g., 'x % of CEOs are functional sociopaths' '<Members of ideology I don't like> have this negative trait' '<Members of ideology I identify with> have this positive trait' Call me cynical, but I am really dubious of these kinds of stories. edit, I am not saying anything about the research, I am saying something about the narratives and social media chatter that results from these kinds of stories, often with out any criticism if they fit our preconceptions.
- tokai 5y ago
  What a baffling shallow dismissal. The research might be bunk, but basing your critique of it on popular coverage by non-researchers, is not cynical at all. Its make-believe.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    This type of psychological research is pseduoscientific -- and results can be produced in any direction one likes. Why didnt the study correlate virtuous-sounding personality traits with being a CEO? (Presumably many exist). And were such a study published, why wouldnt it be printed in the BBC? When an entire field is basically incapable of meeting the basic tenants of science (repoducible, modelling, universal, explanatory, etc.) -- the most salient question is "why is it that we have /these particular/ untruths?"
    - alimw 5y ago
      Well a study linking career success to, say, intelligence is unlikely to make the news because it wouldn't be at all surprising.
    - _jal 5y ago
      So in summary, you don't like people's choice of research topics, you don't like the media, and you want to suggest that certain categories of research are PR conspiracies, but won't quite do so. Does that have it about right?

123pie123 5y ago

having worked with a narcissist boss, I can very easily see why they get ahead quicker. IMO - this technical management role had no real way of being evaluated by her seniors - they weren't technical enough, in fact they (directors) pretty muched looked down on technical roles. -(similar to the comedy "The IT Crowd", but a bigger team) The only thing they could judge the management role on was a) was there anything going wrong with the IT systems b) was the manager a good person a) was taken care off by the techies in the IT team and for b) she was extemely charming, boastful and according to her, she was the reason the company IT existed - yet she boasted she wasn't technical - she was extemely not technical I avoided her at all cost and followed the rule of never ever pointing out she'd made a mistake, not even positive criticism. We did put a basic system in place to monitor the responses of fixes and calls - I did laugh when I ran a report on the performance of the team vs her holidays

someelephant 5y ago
> never ever pointing out she'd made a mistake This is such a key skill. It's important to judge whether a person is open to feedback or not. A lot people assume others are open to hearing criticism. If your manager is a narcissist and you start pointing out things that they are doing wrong without earning their trust you are as good as toast.
- throwawaysleep 5y ago
  I would go even further. Every single thing you say at work should be dedicated to improving your career. You should be playing politics with every sentence. Doesn't mean you are sleazy, but if it doesn't make you look better to say or make you friends, don't bother say it. Let that open to the internet server slide if it requires blaming someone higher up.
  - throwaway743 5y ago
    Totally agree with not saying anything in this situation regarding opinions or constructive criticism, and would add not opening up and/or sharing any info regarding your personal life. With narcissistic bosses, all that is used as a weapon against you, whether now or long into the future. Would have to disagree on playing politics, unless you mean minding what one says. Office politics aren't worth the energy or the toll they take on one's morale and character. If you work at a place where the mudslinging is heavy and often, especially among management types who are toxic and target the ones they manage, gtfo of there. From experience, if you stay you're essentially letting them rob time from your short period spent alive, and recovering from the trauma is lengthy. Personally, it's taken nearly a year after being laid off to recover and begin feeling like myself from before the ~7 years of working under 2 bosses of this type (one was the vp of tech and the other was a manager below her, so two levels in hierarchy).

phkahler 5y ago

There is a lot of overlap between positive traits and narcissistic or antisocial ones. Some people have trouble distinguishing between confidence and arrogance for example. How about basic extroversion vs self promotion? OTOH some of the tactics a narcissist uses when they're in trouble are common (good?) for a company to employ when faced with bad publicity. Self promotion is a form of marketing right? It's all superficial, so I think the best we can do is train more people to see through it. Hold people accountable, don't let them blame shift, don't promote them for others accomplishments, etc... Once you've got their number, there may still be good strategic uses for these people. Just don't let them get out of control and ruin the company?

altacc 5y ago
I was also going to mention that confidence is a powerful predicter/cause of success & promotion, more so than any skills behind that confidence. Anecdotally, I've noticed people are much more successful in work & personal life when they are confident, as other people use that confidence as a shortcut for assessing actual talent & skills. Narcissism is a mix of unwavering confidence and self-assuredness that exploits this shortcut and lets people progress in life without any test of their actual abilities.
- redmaverick 5y ago
  maybe it is the inverse. When you are successful in work and personal life you become confident. And they fuels more success/confidence. Basically you become more confident as and when you find more success.
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    Both. Narcissists project confidence without actual success. Experts project confidence based on proven success.
    - chansiky 5y ago
      Just adding to what dsr_ is saying, narcissists project confidence without actual success because their version of reality supports their correctness. Narcissism/NPD is a result of the mind not being able to accept information that disproves their elevated sense of self worth. Anything that proves them wrong therefore is discarded before it can be processed internally. So when they speak with confidence, its because nothing in their reality can disprove what they are saying, even if what you're saying is true to our shared reality.

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago

DISAPPROVING DRAKE: narcissist humans APPROVING DRAKE: narcissist corporations

hwers 5y ago
Please no memes on HN

spywaregorilla 5y ago

If someone asks you "are you good", you should say "yes" or even better "very good". Humility gets you nowhere. edit: Assuming you are actually good, but also recognizing that on the bell curve of competency, most people aren't noticeably better than one or another, despite a generally held belief otherwise.

agumonkey 5y ago
Tell me about this, after an egotistic crisis I went full humility, I'm now at the bottom of the ladder, watching lazy, vaguely competent people whining about why 2-3x the average salary is not enough for their performance. Thing is, I cannot let myself play politics and mental games just to swim warmer waters. I find it even sadder.
makeitdouble 5y ago
Except when you’re not in a toxic environment. Those are rare, but should be recognized very fast if one wants to stay there. Throwing away humility is a sure way to be paired with one-uppers for the rest of one’s life (and then say with utter confidence that nobody cares about humility)
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  The "are you good" question is toxic anyway, so unless it's some "are you good at X" where X is not the work you are assigned to do, if people are asking you it it's because the environment is toxic. On "are you good at X", it actually means "are you capable and willing to do X from now on?", so treat it accordingly.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Disagree. It's hard to compare the merit of two people, especially if they work in fields that you're not an expert in. Asking someone their own self evaluation opinion is reasonable. If A is confident about their competency and B says "I could be better"... you're going to go with A. That is how humans work. No toxicity required. Humility is nice and all but it blends deeply with insecurities and a lack of confidence

marvindanig 5y ago

Without reading the article: Using a woman's stock pic next to a headline that talks about workplace narcissism in an industry that's a majority led by men is absolutely not cool. I expect better standards from BBC. On the article next… [edit] Ah, the downvotes from insecure men. Suck it all of you downvoters. :-) [edit 2] Any way, this was a good read otherwise. I think it is important for the founders to identify and separate performant employees on the basis of their optimization. Are they optimized for promotions and self-growth vs. are they optimized for growth of the business as a whole. This is an absolutely difficult thing to do though.

dang 5y ago
You broke several of the site guidelines with this comment. Please don't do that again. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Note this one: "Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." Also the ones that ask you not to call names and not to go on about downvotes.

MattGaiser 5y ago

Companies seem to have a very weak understanding of what their workers do day to day, so rely on being told. That was another new to the workforce lesson about industry for me. My direct managers often don’t know what I did last week beyond the general assigned project.

agumonkey 5y ago

The nature of adult behavior in workplaces fascinate me. It's a deep game of tap dancing. I'd love to find places to discuss this at the meta level. I cannot stop watching all the weird games people are playing to get by..

rjrodger 5y ago
You'll be wanting https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... - The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to “The Office” - the ultimate meta discussion of office politics.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  it seems interesting but I fail to interpret his definition of sociopath/clueless/losers (I only saw the uk version btw) it also avoids topics like the need for humans to belong, feel safe emotionally, feel valued/listened

everdrive 5y ago

I think some of the blame here should also go to the fact that people appraising performance often have very little idea about the facts of someone's work, and are in fact simply praising personality. In a perfect world, a narcissist couldn't get very far on confidence alone.

nine_zeros 5y ago
This is an important point. One of the biggest reasons for management hatred is that actual workers can see that narcissists get promoted while doers don't. Workers thus end up losing trust in upper/mid management. Don't do any work and instead waste their time aping the narcissist. The problem often is merely management. But the asymmetry of power prevents the bad apples in management from getting exposed and removed.

toiletaccount 5y ago

Because nobody pulls the ladder out from under them, causing them to fall and crack their heads open, making one last ugly mess for everyone else around them to clean up?

robertlagrant 5y ago

> MacRae’s second suggestion is to use a diverse hiring panel and to note how the candidate responds to people of different status within the organisation. “Narcissists are very good at 'managing up', but then tend to treat people they perceive as lower status very differently. But if you don't have any diversity of evaluators in the hiring process, you're unlikely to pick this up.” I think this is a bit silly. Fine to have different people interview, good idea, but I doubt many narcissists will treat interviewers that differently.

bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
Some interviewees quickly decide who's the boss, or primary decider in the interview, and then totally focus all their charm on them.

nickysielicki 5y ago

Everyone, throughout their career, is going to see people excel that they feel are undeserving. The whole point of this article is that subconsciously, we all imagine so-and-so and think, "Yes! Yes! That's why they did well! They were just a narcissist. And me, not being a narcissist, I could never have adopted those strategies, I couldn't have lived with myself. I'd rather have my character than a career." What does it change? Does it make you feel better? The prevailing thought around SV, or at least around the blogs of people in YC, is to make lossy generalizations about the types of people who should be accepted into an organization. They'll say, "Don't work with assholes". To be fair, I think that's pretty good advice for picking founders and early employees of a company. At the same time, I'm convinced that George Patton was an asshole and a bit of a narcissist, and was simultaneously a great asset in WWII for the US, and to accept both of these as true requires more room for nuance. The organizational structure of the military is not fundamentally different than any organizational structure. This article tries to paint our inability to weed out strong personalities as a bug in human relationships, instead of a feature. I think that's just plain wrong. Humans have had a lot of time to develop instincts when it comes to interpersonal relationships, and we would have a better sense of sniffing them out if it truly was as bad as it seems. It's definitely not fun to not be a narcissist and see one excel, but that doesn't mean that narcissists are toxic and detrimental to every organization they find themselves in. Sometimes, when the stakes are high, you need a George Patton to win a war. I think the corollary of this is that when business is good and the stakes are relatively low, you really don't need or want narcissists. The problem is that it's hard for an entire organization to know what camp they fall into.

emptysongglass 5y ago
I disagree with this take fundamentally and that's because I want to see the whole world grow kinder. Maybe your goals are different. I'd rather weed out "the assholes" than clamor to them for whatever skillset they possess. If they want to learn the ability to work with others, kindly (also a skillset), while contributing their knowledge, welcome them. But if they continue to harm others on their solo trip to glory, they should be struck down, admonished, called out. What's kind about that? Well, you've just saved tens, hundreds, thousands more from enduring their harm. We can imbue these qualities of kindness into our workplaces, our families, our communities by saying, "No, you will not," to the narcissists of the world. Human progress is good. It does not require the sacrifice of our innocent or benign to Moloch to fuel its engine.

LanceH 5y ago

Leaders vs front-runners. The outgoing, confident person will look great when everything is going well. They get promoted because they've been busy tending their internal resume. They have great answers to the "what have you accomplished this quarter?" type questions during their quarterly reviews. It doesn't really matter if they were the one responsible, there are millions of ways to spin it. Even so, they're practically winning by default with how much care the average employee puts into the corporate game -- and this isn't even playing politics. So when things are going well -- great, I need a promotion, bigger team, and more responsibilities. When things aren't going well -- I need a bigger team to address this problem, quickly followed by the obvious promotion for someone leading such a big team. The narcissist doesn't care if they are actually leading the team to solutions or whether they are running out front of it claiming the credit. The senior management's lack of ability discern the difference paves the way to the top.

njharman 5y ago

Two things; Majority of comments seem to assume narcissist is also incompetent or unskilled. If this study is accurate and you want advantage in career then you could do worse than adopting the narcissist behaviors linked to advancement by study.

ask_b123 5y ago

I don't know… I feel like this statement pairs aren't mutually exclusive: >a) I have a natural talent for influencing people b) I am no good at influencing people Maybe someone is good but has no NATURAL talent. >a) When people compliment me I sometimes get embarrassed b) I know I am good because everyone keeps telling me so You can be embarrassed by compliments and still take them to heart. >a) The thought of ruling the world frightens the hell out of me b) If I ruled the world it would be a better place Being scared of ruling almost sounds like a prerequisite for being a good ruler. That can help keep you honest and humble. Being scared doesn't imply that you think you'd necessarily be bad. >a) I insist on getting the respect that is due to me b) I usually get the respect I deserve Maybe I usually get the respect I deserve, but on the few occasions I don't, then I insist on getting the respect that is due to me. :-)

dennisblue 5y ago

ITT techbros climbing a social hierarchy try to convince us they're not just yuppies.