Content uploaded by Stan Silverman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stan Silverman on Jun 02, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 21
Arrogance: A Formula for Leadership Failure
Stanley B. Silverman
The University of Akron
Russell E. Johnson
Michigan State University
icole McConnell and Alison Carr
The University of Akron
Arrogance has run amok lately. The news and business periodicals are
peppered with stories of executives flying in private jets to ask for govern-
ment handouts, taking large bonuses from employers who took billions in
bailout money, and instigating organization-wide pay cuts and benefit roll-
backs while keeping themselves immune from such changes. Indeed, it has
been said that we are currently in an “age of arrogance” (Gibbs, 2009).
The age of arrogance is clearly illustrated by one former leader at Amer-
ican International Group (AIG), Joe Cassano. Cassano was the president of
AIG’s financial products unit and is credited by some as single-handedly
bringing about the downfall of AIG (Ahrens, 2008). Many accounts describe
Cassano as a quintessential arrogant leader. Former coworkers report that in
stark contrast to his predecessors, Cassano had penchants for yelling, cursing,
bad-mouthing others, and belittling colleagues, as well as little tolerance for
opposing viewpoints. He has also been described as having had an obsession
with profits, particularly as they related to the lucrative credit-default swap
contracts that eventually brought the entire company down (Dennis, 2010;
Taibbi, 2009). In the absence of Cassano’s persistent arrogant behavior (and
unwillingness to tolerate dissent regarding his management practices), it is
possible that AIG’s crisis would have been considerably less severe or alto-
gether avoided. However, despite the fact that it was the practices he sanc-
tioned that led AIG to be regarded as one of the most notable examples of
excess associated with Wall Street, Cassano remains unapologetic about his
role and blames others for the crisis (Nasiripour, 2010).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that interactions with arrogant individuals
can be uncomfortable and that this effect is amplified when the arrogant indi-
viduals occupy positions of authority in organizations. Many jobs require
continuous interaction between employees and their supervisors, effectively
limiting the ability to avoid abuse by an arrogant boss. Managers typically
have power over work assignments, promotion opportunities, and perform-
ance reviews. This can place subordinates of arrogant managers between a
proverbial rock and hard place. The employee who says nothing is subjected
to criticism and unrealistic demands, but the employee who does speak up is
likely to experience backlash (and the manager’s behavior still may not
change or perhaps will worsen).
The effects of arrogance are not limited to the victims of such behaviors.
Rather, arrogance can cause problems for the arrogant leader as well. Execu-
tives are often hired based on experience but fired based on personality, and
behaving arrogantly is one such factor that precipitates executive failure
(Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996). Given the popularity of 360° performance man-
agement systems (Edwards & Ewen, 1996), it is increasingly likely that arro-
gant managers will be paid in kind by poor performance evaluations from
peers and subordinates.
Based on the coverage in the popular press, it appears that arrogance is
related to numerous undesirable organizational outcomes. However, despite
considerable anecdotal evidence of arrogance negatively affecting the work-
place, and wide acknowledgement of the importance of personality for work
outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Day & Silverman, 1989), few studies
have addressed individual and organizational consequences of arrogance.
This paper clarifies current theoretical conceptualizations of arrogance,
reviews recent research investigating arrogance in the workplace, and pro-
vides practical recommendations for dealing with arrogant employees.
What Is Arrogance?
Arrogance is engaging in behaviors intended to exaggerate a person’s
sense of superiority by disparaging others (Johnson et al., 2010). The persona
arrogant individuals attempt to project is one of omnipotence and invincibil-
ity. Through actions associated with this inflated sense of entitlement and
superiority, arrogant employees often impede effective organizational func-
tioning (Johnson et al., 2010). For example, having an exaggerated sense of
superiority reduces feedback-seeking behaviors and causes arrogant man-
agers to discount diagnostic information in their work environment. Arrogant
managers are therefore more likely to pursue failing courses of action that
could otherwise have been prevented. Arrogant behavior can be an especial-
ly challenging problem to deal with due to the fact that arrogant individuals
consider their own behavior acceptable and thus do not monitor their own
actions when interacting with others.
Although arrogance is conceptually related to personality characteristics
like narcissism, hubris, and confidence, there are important distinctions that
set arrogance apart from these other traits. Narcissism (or self-love) involves
fantasies of self-grandeur and excessive self-admiration that can occur in the
absence of others. Arrogance, on the other hand, is manifested in interper-
sonal contexts by disparaging others. Similarly, hubris is also self-focused
and lacks the interpersonal nature of arrogance. Hubris is the result of false
confidence, leading to excessive pride about one’s own abilities, attributes, or
successes, but without contempt towards others. The distinction between
arrogance and confidence is twofold. It first boils down to whether the opin-
ion the individual claims to hold is based in reality and second to how well
22 July 2012 Volume 50 Number 1
espoused beliefs represent actual beliefs. Confidence is simply a factual and
reality-driven belief about ability or standing, whereas arrogance is inflation
of an individual’s self-importance intended to make others feel inferior.
Despite the apparent confidence of those engaging in arrogant behavior,
research suggests that it is actually a defensive display occurring partially in
response to low self-confidence (Johnson et al., 2010). Thus, performance
claims by confident individuals are based in reality, but those of arrogant
individuals are not. Beyond this, confident individuals are expressing gen-
uine beliefs, whereas arrogant individuals may be attempting to hide insecu-
rity and poor performance by exaggerating their own competence and impor-
tance (Bauer, Cho, Johnson, & Silverman, 2008).
In sum, arrogance can be thought of as a cluster of behaviors that com-
municate one’s superiority and importance relative to others (Johnson et al.,
2010; Leary, Bednarski, Hammon, & Duncan, 1997). These behaviors
include disrespecting colleagues and their ideas, purporting to be more
knowledgeable than others, avoiding blame and/or pinning blame on others,
and discounting feedback. As will be discussed, it is noteworthy that arrogant
behavior is typically not associated with actual superior performance or
knowledge. Rather, it seems to be defensive compensation for shortcomings
(Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2010). In the following section we will
elaborate on the development and validation of the Workplace Arrogance
Scales (WARS), a measure that has allowed for more efficient and reliable
examination of arrogance in the workplace. Thanks in part to this measure,
empirical evidence regarding the effects of workplace arrogance has begun to
emerge. As will be discussed, recent studies utilizing this measure indicate
that workplace arrogance predicts important organizational outcomes.
Research on Arrogance
Russ Johnson, Stan Silverman, and colleagues dedicated 4 years of
research to answering important questions about the nature and consequences
of arrogant behavior in the workplace (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2010;
Shyamsunder & Silverman, 2006; Silverman, Shyamsunder, & Johnson,
2007). The product of this research program was the Workplace Arrogance
Scale (WARS), as well as considerable increases in our understanding of the
effects of workplace arrogance. As an initial step prior to developing a work-
place arrogance scale, multiple focus group sessions were conducted with
employees from a variety of companies (Shyamsunder & Silverman, 2006).
During these sessions, employees were asked to think about someone at work
who behaved arrogantly and to describe the behaviors of that person. Using
the specific behavioral examples garnered from these queries, items reflecting
arrogant behaviors were written. The item pool was then refined via an itera-
tive process whereby subject-matter experts reviewed and edited the items
until their meaning was clear and wording was satisfactory. After this, the sur-
The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 23
vey was administered to a new group of employees in order to examine the
validity and refine the scale (Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2007).
The final WARS scale (a= 0.93) comprises 26 self-report items, scored
on a five-point Likert scale. The measure holds its factor structure across
part- and full-time employees, across subordinates and managers, and across
self- and other ratings. Importantly, responses on the measure are not strong-
ly related to social desirability (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2010).
When included in a 360° performance management system of mid-level man-
agers, the WARS scale showed good interrater agreement, particularly among
non self-raters (supervisors, peers, and direct reports). Although lower rates
of agreement have been noted between supervisor and direct report ratings of
arrogance, this is likely due to impression management on the part of the
arrogant individual (e.g., directing fewer displays of arrogant behavior at
superiors than at subordinates; Johnson et al., 2010).
As expected, high scores on the WARS are associated with high social
dominance and trait anger, as well as with several narcissistic tendencies (e.g.,
entitlement, superiority). Conversely, high levels of arrogance are associated
with low humility and Agreeableness. Of most interest, though, are relation-
ships of arrogance with work-related outcomes. To date, three job performance
criteria have been examined: in-role task performance (i.e., fulfillment of
required job tasks and duties), and extra-role citizenship behaviors that help
other people (e.g., helping coworkers with a difficult assignment and mentor-
ing junior colleagues) and those that help the company as a whole (e.g., con-
serving office supplies and volunteering at company functions). Based on sur-
vey data collected from employees across various organizational levels, results
consistently revealed that arrogance is significantly and negatively related to
task performance and citizenship behaviors (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al.,
2010). The negative relationship of arrogance with task performance was
observed regardless of who (self, supervisor, peer, or direct report) rated the
arrogance and performance of the target employee in the 360° assessment. Not
only do arrogant employees have poor task performance, but they also do not
engage in citizenship behaviors that cultivate positive social climates at work.
Instead, arrogant behaviors likely cultivate poisonous social climates.
These results highlight an interesting paradox: Employees who act superi-
or in actuality have inferior performance. What might account for this effect?
As it turns out, empirical research has found that arrogance is negatively relat-
ed to cognitive ability and self-esteem (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al.,
2010). Thus, it appears that engaging in socially demeaning and dominating
behaviors may be defensive compensation for (potentially accurate) percep-
tions of personal inadequacies, as arrogant employees tend to make unfavor-
able evaluations of their ability. Interestingly, arrogance is also negatively asso-
ciated with having a learning orientation (Bauer et al., 2008), which is consis-
tent with the idea that arrogant employees pay little attention to diagnostic
information in their environment. Instead, arrogant individuals adopt a per-
24 July 2012 Volume 50 Number 1
formance orientation, as they are more interested in how their skills and per-
formance levels stack up against others rather than on improving their skills.
Consistent with this idea is the finding that arrogant employees have strong
individual identities (Bauer et al., 2008), which reflects the tendency to view
oneself as separate from—and typically better than—others (Johnson, Selenta,
& Lord, 2006). When employees have a strong individual identity, it is much
easier to act in a harmful and hostile manner towards others because actors are
less sensitive to the well-being of other people (Johnson & Saboe, 2011).
These findings highlight the detrimental effects of arrogance to both indi-
viduals and organizations. This research indicates that although arrogant indi-
viduals tout their superiority, they are unable to substantiate their claims with
regard to actual job performance. High levels of arrogance are associated
with low self-esteem, low general intelligence, poor job performance, and
low organizational citizenship behaviors. This suggests that arrogant individ-
uals are not (and do not believe themselves to be) actually superior, but rather
use arrogance as a way to mask inadequacies. The likely result is a vicious
cycle, with fears of inadequacy driving arrogant behavior, which elicits neg-
ative responses from others, which in turn lowers self-esteem further. Given
the negative outcomes associated with arrogant behavior, organizations could
improve leader effectiveness and ultimately organizational effectiveness by
curtailing arrogance early in a leader’s career.
Assessing and Addressing Workplace Arrogance
As we have detailed, arrogant behavior is associated with an array of indi-
vidual and organizational problems. Individuals who are arrogant at work make
interpersonal interactions difficult, create an uncomfortable and potentially
stressful work environment for others, and have poor performance ratings. This
could ultimately influence feelings of customer satisfaction and loyalty, rela-
tionships among members of a work team or a leader and subordinate, and the
organization’s bottom line. In light of the implications of arrogance in the work-
place, it is important for leaders and organizations to be aware of such behav-
iors and take steps to reduce them. We posit that curtailing arrogant behavior
and instilling humility can provide organizations with a competitive advantage.
Humility is the “personal orientation founded on a willingness to see the
self accurately and a propensity to put oneself in perspective” (Morris, Broth-
eridge, & Urbanski, 2005, p. 1331). Individuals with humility are open to
new ideas and to engagement in accurate self-appraisal (of both strengths and
weaknesses). They are willing to accept the idea of something greater than
the self. Although some believe that humility displayed by a leader projects
weakness, researchers have argued for the utility of humility in leadership
(Nielsen, Marrone, & Slay, 2010). Humility prevents excessive self-focus,
allowing leaders to develop perspective in relationships with employees.
When employees attribute humility to their leaders, they also perceive the
leader as more honest, trustworthy, competent, and confident. Accordingly,
The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 25
the employees of a humble leader should be more committed to the leader’s
vision and more trusting and receptive of the leader’s expectations and ideas
(Nielson et al., 2010). Existing literature argues that leaders who possess a
combination of personal humility and professional will (“Level 5 Leaders”)
have been extremely successful in transforming good companies into great
companies (Collins, 2001). In conjunction with leader humility literature,
empirical findings about the pitfalls of arrogant behavior at work suggest that
arrogant behavior at work is detrimental and that replacing arrogance with
humility will benefit leaders and their organizations.
Fortunately arrogance is a cluster of changeable behaviors, driven by rela-
tively malleable beliefs. Measuring arrogant behavior at work could be valuable
for leaders and organizations, as awareness of such behavior is necessary before
developmental interventions may be designed. As such, the incorporation of a
measure such as the WARS into a performance management system would
allow organizations to diagnose when workplace problems are a function of
arrogant behaviors. This would permit the creation of development plans aimed
at replacing arrogance with more appropriate behavior. Because arrogance is
typified in part by low self-confidence and actual poor performance, one devel-
opmental intervention likely to be of particular use for arrogant managers is
training interventions aimed at improving core (or otherwise deficient) leader-
ship skills. Other interventions might target social interaction skills (e.g., Skar-
licki & Latham, 1996), for example, training aimed at increasing interpersonal
awareness and giving voice to others, so as to make arrogant individuals under-
stand how their behavior affects others. In short, the WARS measure of arro-
gance is potentially beneficial for use as a developmental tool for leaders.
Organizational interventions might also target the weak learning orienta-
tion of arrogant leaders (Bauer et al., 2008), which leads them to disregard
potentially helpful feedback. A weak learning orientation also causes people
to identify others to blame when setbacks or failures are experienced, instead
of revising performance strategies or uncovering why problems occurred.
Companies can combat these consequences by cultivating an environment
where feedback and other diagnostic information are accessible to employees
and where mistakes are treated as learning experiences rather than markers of
personal inadequacies (e.g., Keith & Frese, 2008).
Ideally, arrogant behaviors should be addressed early in an individual’s
career. Doing so will result in more efficient professional development, allow-
ing the employee to become a better leader over a shorter period of time. This
could ultimately lead to more effective organizations in terms of both produc-
tivity as well as social cohesion. Although it is true that some arrogant leaders
have experienced considerable success, we argue that these individuals may
have been even more effective sans the arrogant behavior. Interactions with
others in the organization may have been more successful, more effective
communication could have taken place, and performance could have been
even more impressive if arrogance had been curtailed early on.
26 July 2012 Volume 50 Number 1
Conclusion
Workplace arrogance can be a serious problem. Arrogant employees are
poor performers who negatively impact social exchange in the workplace.
They make little effort to engage in citizenship behaviors and discount feed-
back that would otherwise help improve their performance. Recent research
has led to the development of the WARS, an easily administered and highly
valid measure of workplace arrogance. This research recommends incorpo-
rating an assessment of arrogance into performance management systems.
Doing so will allow arrogant behavior to be identified and the actor’s behav-
ior to be addressed before harm is done to other employees and organiza-
tional effectiveness. It is clearly in the best interest of an organization to redi-
rect arrogant behavior in its leaders. This can be accomplished by organiza-
tional encouragement of (a) continuing leadership development intended to
ensure adequate efficacy for job-related skills, (b) healthy levels of employ-
ee humility, and (c) instilling a learning-oriented climate. In taking steps to
reduce arrogance in the workplace, an organization provides itself with the
competitive advantages associated with effective leadership and productive
social interaction of employees.
References
Ahrens, F. (2008, October 7). Joe Cassano: The man who brought down AIG? The Wash-
ington Post. Retrieved from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/10/joe_cas-
sano_the_man_who_brough.html
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big-Five personality dimensions and job per-
formance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Bauer, J., Cho, E., Johnson, R. E., & Silverman, S. B. (2008, October). Acting superior but
actually inferior? Relationships of arrogance with motivation and cognitive ability. Paper pre-
sented at the 2008 Southern Management Association Meeting, St. Pete Beach, FL.
Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 Leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard
Business Review, 79, 67–77.
Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of incre-
mental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 25–36.
Dennis, B. (2010, June 30). Former AIG financial products leader Joe Cassano to testify on
Capital Hill. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062905100.html?nav=rss_business/industries
Edwards, M. R., & Ewen, A. J. (1996). 360° feedback: The powerful new model for
employee assessment & performance improvement. New York, NY: AMACOM American Man-
agement Association.
Gibbs, N. (2009, November 9). The case for modesty, in an age of arrogance. Time Maga-
zine. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1933209,00.html
Johnson, R. E., & Saboe, K. (2011). Measuring implicit traits in organizational research:
Development of an indirect measure of employee implicit self-concept. Organizational Research
Methods, 14, 530–547.
Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006). When organizational justice and the self-
concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 99, 175–201.
The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 27
Johnson, R. E., Silverman, S. B., Shymsunder, A., Swee, H., Rodopman, O. B., Bauer, J., &
Chao, E. (2010). Acting superior but actually inferior?: Correlates and consequences of work-
place arrogance. Human Performance, 23, 403–427.
Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analy-
sis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 59–69.
Leary, M. R., Bednarski, R., Hammon, D., & Duncan, T. (1997). Blowhards, snobs, and nar-
cissists: Interpersonal reactions to excessive egoism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving Badly:
Aversive Behaviors in Interpersonal Relationships (pp. 111–131). New York, NY: Plenum.
Leslie, J. B., & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment today: orth America and
Europe. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership:
Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58, 1323–1350.
Nasiripour, S. (2010, July 1). Joseph Cassano, Ex-AIG exec, is unapologetic, blames audi-
tors for losses. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/
joseph-cassano-exaig-exec_n_630683.html
Nielsen, R., Marrone, J. A., & Slay, H. S. (2010). A new look at humility: Exploring the
humility concept and its role in socialized charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 17, 33–43.
Shyamsunder, A., & Silverman, S. B. (2006, April). The Workplace Arrogance Scale: Devel-
opment and validation of a measure. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology Conference, Dallas, TX.
Silverman, S. B., Shyamsunder, A., & Johnson, R. E. (2007, April). Arrogance: A formula
for failure. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology Conference, New York, NY.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a public sec-
tor union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 161–169.
Taibbi, M. (2009, April 1). The big takeover: How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout
to stage a revolution. Rolling Stone Magazine, Issue 1075.
28 July 2012 Volume 50 Number 1
New Address or E-mail?
Let SIOP know so you don’t miss
any important I-O news!
Update your information at
www.siop.org/Dues/ContactUpdate.asp