ArticlePDF Available

Arrogance: A Formula for Leadership Failure

Authors:

Abstract

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.
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
... Since the 1980s, the effects of arrogance and its relationship with traits such as narcissism, hubris, pride, humility, confidence, self-esteem, vanity and personality have been sporadically examined across a range of psychology disciplines, including clinical, cognitive, developmental, personality, social, motivational and emotional psychology. However, arrogance has attracted minimal research interest outside of managerial and organisational psychology (Johnson et al., 2010;Silverman et al., 2012;Toscano et al., 2018), parts of the business sector, particularly health (Cleary et al., 2015), and philosophy (Dillon, 2019;Tanesini, 2018). ...
... 423) and that high workplace arrogance is correlated with low levels of organisational citizenship behaviours (OCBs), poor in-role task performance, decreased feelings of likeability and respect for the arrogant actor, increased feelings that the arrogant actor is deserving of failure, increased stress in individuals working around and for the arrogant actor and reduced feedback-seeking behaviours by subordinates of arrogant leaders. This can lead to a negative social climate, poor working relationships, burnout, reduced customer satisfaction and, ultimately, reduced profits (Borden et al., 2018;Cleary et al., 2015;Silverman et al., 2012;Toscano et al., 2018). ...
... Existing literature focuses mainly on the deleterious effects of workplace and workplace leader arrogance on the organisational climate, workplace relationships and behaviours, individual and organisational performance and individual well-being (Borden et al., 2018;Coppola, 2023;De Clercq et al., 2021;Johnson et al., 2010;Silverman et al., 2012). However, this research has neither identified the antecedents to workplace and workplace leader arrogance nor continued to develop the theory. ...
Article
This study aims to clarify the meaning of arrogance in the context of the workplace and leadership. Arrogance is reported to have detrimental workplace effects, yet there is no synthesis of the literature nor identification of future research directions. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the definitions, antecedents and outcomes of workplace and workplace leader arrogance, with the aim of advancing theory and identifying potential oversights in the literature to create opportunities for future researchers. We identified 42 scholarly articles on workplace arrogance and workplace leader arrogance published between 2000 and September 2023. Arrogance, including workplace and workplace leader arrogance, is generally defined as a misplaced sense of superiority, manifested as disparaging behaviour towards others. Of the 42 studies reviewed, 18 (15 empirical and 3 non‐empirical) purposefully investigated workplace and workplace leader arrogance. Using definitions from 37 of the studies, we discerned that workplace and workplace leader arrogance comprised a sense of superiority that manifested as unacceptable behaviour towards others, usually with damaging consequences. Further, we differentiated arrogance from similar constructs such as narcissism, hubris and pride by examining the purpose and role of each, as well as points of confusion. Whereas the antecedents of workplace and workplace leader arrogance include belief and bias, conceptions of the self and the broader work environment, the outcomes include people, culture and business. Our findings advance arrogance and leadership theory by clarifying the construct of workplace and workplace leader arrogance and providing a novel framework for understanding its antecedents and outcomes.
... Arrogance involves displaying behaviors that overtly signal one's superiority relative to others and is often perceived as an undesirable trait negatively impacting interpersonal interaction (Cleary et al. 2015;Senyuz and Hasford 2022). Management literature has documented that displaying arrogance in the workplace negatively impacts peer-to-peer relationships and organizational outcomes (Silverman et al. 2012). Arrogant chief executive officers (CEOs) inhibit engagement and cohesiveness (Toscano, Price, and Scheepers 2018), while subordinates with arrogant supervisors report lower morale, higher burnout, and greater fear (Borden, Levy, and Packard, Gershoff, and Wooten 2016). ...
... Drawing on the above theoretical perspective, we propose that some (more dominant) brands may be able to deploy an arrogant appeal that compares itself favorably to competitors more effectively than others. Empirical research has documented that arrogance is more tolerable when the individual has expended significant effort or earned the achievement and, thus, is seen as credible in making a claim that it is superior to the competition (Packard, Gershoff, and Wooten 2016;Silverman et al. 2012). Consumers may perceive that dominant brands have earned arrogance because of their market position. ...
... " Market share is a widely accepted indicator of a brand's dominant position within an industry, and a higher market share indicates greater dominance (Borah and Tellis 2016;Shamsie 2003). Because market share is a controllable characteristic, it aligns with the theoretical premise that arrogance may be acceptable for achievements the source has earned (Silverman et al. 2012). We selected these percentages for the initial study to ensure participant perception of dominance for fictional brands. ...
... Preliminary observations suggest that approximately 60% of fitness centers struggle with implementing successful change initiatives, often attributing failures to leadearship-related issues (Doe et al., 2015;Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008;McCartney & Campbell, 2006;Nixon et al., 2012;Price, 2000;Silverman et al., 2012). This statistic underscores the critical need for a comprehensive examination of how leadership deficiencies impede organizational change. ...
... There is a wealth of research to show that the style of Leadership reflected in Levels 1 and 2 behavior, are detrimental to organizational performance whether through e.g., Exploitation or Bullying (Boddy 2011;Spain et al., 2016) and Dominance and Arrogance (Silverman et al., 2012) resp., while the latter found, as predicted by UDT, that Arrogance is in fact, negatively correlated with Self-Esteem. Furthermore, in a study of Resilience, Kavanagh (2021) found that pre-pandemic UDT Maturity predicted better outcomes during the crisis. ...
... In organizations with a high power distance [75] and strict hierarchies [76], such as in healthcare, gossip can also protect employees from feeling powerless at a team level. Gossiping about toxic leaders, for example, has been identified to reduce the possibility of suffering from victimization [77]. When employees gossip about their leaders, they often feel better as gossip helps mitigate the effects of a bad leader's behavior; when the relationships between the employees are frequent and trusting, more negative gossip about the boss occurs [70]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Healthcare management faces significant challenges related to upward communication. Sharing information in healthcare is crucial to the improvement of person-centered, safe, and effective patient care. An adverse event (AE) is an unintended or unexpected incident that causes harm to a patient and may lead to temporary or permanent disability. Learning from adverse events in healthcare is crucial to the improvement of patient safety and quality of care. Informal communication channels represent an untapped resource with regard to gathering data about the development of AEs. In this viewpoint paper, we start by identifying how informal communication played a key factor in some high-profile adverse events. Then, we present three Critical Challenge points that examine the role of informal communication in adverse events by (1) understanding how the prevailing trends in healthcare will make informal communication more important, (2) explaining how informal communication is part of the group-level sensemaking process, and (3) highlighting the potential role of informal communication in “breaking the silence” around critical and adverse events. Gossip, as one of the most important sources of informal communication, was examined in depth. Delineating the role of informal communication and adverse events within the healthcare context is pivotal to understanding and improving team and upward communication in healthcare organizations. For clinical leaders, the challenge is to cultivate a climate of communication safety, whereby informal communication channels can be used to collect soft intelligence that are paths to improving the quality of care and patient safety.
... Research has also indicated that arrogance elicits negative reactions from other people in the workplace. As well as the difficulty of dealing, communicating or interacting with arrogant individuals, as they are considered less likely to be respected or admired (Borden et al, 2018:2), While Silverman & Johnson (2012) found that arrogant behavior is linked to a variety of personal and organizational issues. Arrogant people struggle with interpersonal interactions, make the workplace uneasy and stressful for others, and receive poor performance reviews. ...
Article
Full-text available
The current study aims to understand the nature of the relationship between conceited leadership behavior and organizational zombies in the workplace at Najaf Teaching Hospital in Najaf Governorate. This is significant because it addresses two critical aspects of the organizational environment and establishes the right foundations and treatments to deal with a real issue that has a direct impact on the working environment in one of the most important institutions in the country. 200 questionnaires were given out to both male and female hospital personnel using the random sample approach by the researcher. The advanced statistical program AMOS.V.24 and the statistical program SPSS v.27 were used to examine the 190 questionnaires that were retrieved and the 182 that were appropriate for statistical analysis, with a response rate of 91% of the retrieved questionnaires. Theoretical findings revealed a knowledge gap about the connection between haughty leadership and workplace zombies in organizations generally and Najaf Teaching Hospital specifically.
... As market share is a widely accepted indicator of a brand's dominant position within an industry, we operationalized brand dominance with market share, where a higher market share indicates greater dominance (Borah and Tellis 2016;Shamsie 2003). Because market share is a controllable characteristic, it aligns with the theoretical premise that bragging may be acceptable for achievements the source has earned (Silverman et al. 2012). ...
Chapter
This chapter examines love as described in 1 Corinthians 13: 4–6. Using the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory as a framework, Biblical love in its different manifestations is explored, and how they are relevant in the modern workplace to build leader–follower relationships and impact organizational performance. Using the Word of God as inspiration and Jesus as an example of a leader who showed love to His followers, the following concepts emerged, encapsulating the Biblical features of love: patience, kindness, contentment, care, justice, acceptance, and optimism. A leader’s demonstration of love in its different manifestations positively impacts employee performance, contributing to leadership and organizational effectiveness.
Article
The acceptability of the behaviors exhibited in the administrative sense depends on the social value judgments. Value judgments, in a sense, express cultural ethical codes. What behavior is meaningful when, how and why? The answers to the question reveal the ethical codes of a society in the cultural context. In this research, it is aimed to draw a conceptual portrait on the ethics value judgments related to the management phenomenon in Turkish culture. For this purpose, the Kutagu Bilig work of Yusuf Has Hacib, which is the first policy book of the Turks, has been examined and the author’s perspective and thoughts on ethical and unethical behaviors in the administrative sense have been tried to be described. Qualitative data analysis techniques were used to obtain the findings. In this context, 11 ethical behaviors and 9 unethical behaviors in managerial sense were determined by adhering to Yusuf Has Hacib’s use of concepts about management and the methodological features of the work. Although the findings have both exploratory and confirmatory qualities, it has been seen that the majority of the themes offer a very different perspective in terms of content, although there are names similar to the concepts in the existing literature. Therefore, it can be argued that the study provides complementary and enriching contributions to the literature.
Article
Arrogant behaviors negatively affect relations and communication within the organization. The primary purpose of the research is to determine the effects of colleague arrogance on collaboration, organizational gossip, and emotional exhaustion. Quantitative research method was adopted. Within the scope of the research, a questionnaire form was prepared on an online platform and applied between 16 January-10 February 2023. The questionnaire was sent to the academicians via e-mail, and 391 academicians participated. Looking at the results of the regression analysis, the perception of colleague arrogance has a negative and significant effect on the collaboration of academicians. The perception of colleague arrogance positively and significantly affects the emotional exhaustion of academicians. When we look at another finding, colleague arrogance positively and significantly affects negative work gossip. At the same time, the perception of colleague arrogance does not have a significant effect on positive work gossip. In conclusion, we think this research has brought a different and vital perspective to the perception of colleague arrogance. In organizational arrogance research, the importance of investigating the emotions and behaviors that occur in individuals has been put forward first.
Article
Full-text available
Error management training (EMT) is a training method that involves active exploration as well as explicit encouragement for learners to make errors during training and to learn from them. Past evaluation studies, which compared skill-based training outcomes of EMT with those of proceduralized erroravoidant training or of exploratory training without error encouragement, have yielded considerable variation in effect sizes. The present meta-analysis compiles the results of the existing studies and seeks to explain this variation. Although the mean effect of EMT across all 24 identified studies (N = 2,183) was positive and significant (Cohen's d = 0.44), there were several moderators. Moderator analyses showed effect sizes to be larger (a) for posttraining transfer (d = 0.56) than for within-training performance and (b) for performance tasks that were structurally distinct (adaptive transfer; d = 0.80) than for tasks that were similar to training (analogical transfer). In addition, both active exploration and error encouragement were identified as effective elements in EMT. Results suggest that EMT may be better suited than error-avoidant training methods for promotion of transfer to novel tasks.
Article
This study investigated the relation of the "Big Five" personality di- mensions (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Consci- entiousness, and Openness to Experience) to three job performance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) for five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled). Results indicated that one dimension of person- ality. Conscientiousness, showed consistent relations with all job per- formance criteria for all occupational groups. For the remaining per- sonality dimensions, the estimated true score correlations varied by occupational group and criterion type. Extraversion was a valid pre- dictor for two occupations involving social interaction, managers and sales (across criterion types). Also, both Openness to Experience and Extraversion were valid predictors of the training proficiency criterion (across occupations). Other personality dimensions were also found to be valid predictors for some occupations and some criterion types, but the magnitude of the estimated true score correlations was small (p < .10). Overall, the results illustrate the benefits of using the 5- factor model of personality to accumulate and communicate empirical findings. The findings have numerous implications for research and practice in personnel psychology, especially in the subfields of person- nel selection, training and development, and performance appraisal.
Article
This theoretical piece advances humility’s role in socialized charismatic leadership by considering humility’s impact on the behaviors and effectiveness of this type of leadership. First, the authors propose humility as an important but overlooked antecedent to effective socialized charismatic leadership. As described primarily in extant personality and social psychology literatures, humility prevents excessive self-focus and allows for an understanding of oneself, in addition to perspective of one’s relationship with others. Second, the effects of humility on the display and effectiveness of three key socialized charismatic leader behaviors are considered. Theoretical contributions and future research directions are discussed.
Article
As noted by McGill and Slocum (1998), effective leadership tends to operate as a contingency theory. The romanticized notion of celebrity CEOs that has been lionized in the popular business press has its place in the leadership pantheon, but, like any other approach to leadership, has limitations in its application. In particular, as discussed by Collins (2001a), sustained organizational functioning is more likely to be the result of the celebrity’s antithesis, a person possessing a blend of humility and strong personal will. This article draws from a diversity of sources in order to explore this potential nexus between humility and leadership. It offers a precise conceptualization of the concept of humility, identifies traits that are predictors of humility as well as the specific leadership behaviors that are likely to be the outcomes of high levels of humility.
Article
Accounts of arrogant employees abound, yet there is little systematic research on arrogance within organizations. In response to this oversight, this article presents the findings from four studies. In Studies 1 and 2, the authors developed the Workplace Arrogance Scale and found support for its convergent and discriminant validity. In Study 3, the Workplace Arrogance Scale was included as part of a 360-degree performance feedback survey. Results revealed that there was satisfactory agreement between self- and other-ratings of arrogance. The authors also found that arrogance was negatively related to self- and other-rated task performance. Findings from Study 4 suggested that arrogance is negatively related to cognitive ability and self-esteem. The authors conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.
Article
Our interest in this chapter is on the interpersonal aspects of egotism—why egotistical behavior evokes such strong negative reactions in other people, the consequences of egotism for both the egotistic individual and others who are present, and why, given the negative reactions of others, people often act egotistically. The authors suggest 6 factors that may contribute to the nearly universal dislike of egotistical people: self-esteem threat, misrepresentation, entitlement and exploitation, defensiveness, illegitimate self-esteem, and boredom. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
It is suggested that personality variables are significant predictors of job performance when carefully matched with the appropriate occupation and organization. The present study investigates the relationship between specific personality variables and job performance in a sample (N= 43) of accountants. The results indicate that even with the effects of cognitive ability taken into account, three personality scales (orientation towards work; degree of ascendancy; and degree and quality of interpersonal orientation) are significantly related to important aspects of job performance. It is suggested that the overall validity of selection strategies might be improved with the addition of measures of relevant personality dimensions when appropriately matched to an occupation and organization.
Article
Values, attitudes, and goals are often automatically activated, yet organizational research has relied predominantly on techniques that measure these phenomena at explicit or conscious levels. In this study, the authors validated an indirect measure designed to assess employee self-concept at implicit levels. Because self-concept is believed to operate primarily at implicit levels, it was hypothesized that an indirect measure would be an effective predictor of work criteria. The criteria examined were task performance, citizenship and counterproductive behavior, and the quality of supervisor—subordinate relations. Consistent with predictions, the indirect measure—a word fragment completion task—contributed more to the prediction of criteria than the direct measure— self-report survey items with summated rating scales. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for the use of indirect measures in applied settings.
Article
In two studies, we examined the joint effects of employed participants’ self-concept levels and perceptions of fairness on organizational attitudes and citizenship behavior intentions. We examined the effects of chronic self-concept activation in Study 1, whereas we primed the working self-concept in Study 2. Combining the results of both studies, we found support for our hypotheses that particular self-concept levels and organizational justice dimensions interact to predict various work-related outcomes. Specifically, we observed interactions between the relational self-concept and interactional justice, and between the collective self-concept and procedural justice, such that the justice–outcome relationships were stronger for those experiencing higher activation on the relevant self-concept level. Thus, as hypothesized, justice information is weighted differently depending on the particular level of self-concept that is active. In addition, interesting direct effects of employees’ self-concepts were also observed. We discuss the implications of these findings and the importance of considering the self-concept in conjunction with organizational justice.
Article
Boards of directors typically believe that transforming a company from merely good to truly great requires a larger-than-life personality--an egocentric chief to lead the corporate charge. Think "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap or Lee Iacocca. In fact, that's not the case, says author and leadership expert Jim Collins. The essential ingredient for taking a company to greatness is having a "Level 5" leader at the helm--an executive in whom extreme personal humility blends paradoxically with intense professional will. Collins paints a compelling and counter-intuitive portrait of the skills and personality traits necessary for effective leadership. He identifies the characteristics common to Level 5 leaders: humility, will, ferocious resolve, and the tendency to give credit to others while assigning blame to themselves. Collins fleshes out his Level 5 theory by telling colorful tales about 11 such leaders from recent business history. He contrasts the turnaround successes of outwardly humble, even shy, executives like Gillette's Colman M. Mockler and Kimberly-Clark's Darwin E. Smith with those of larger-than-life business leaders like Dunlap and Iacocca, who courted personal celebrity. The jury is still out on how to cultivate Level 5 leaders and whether it's even possible to do so, Collins admits. Some leaders have the Level 5 seed within; some don't. But Collins suggests using the findings from his research to strive for Level 5--for instance, getting the right people on board and creating a culture of discipline. "Our own lives and all that we touch will be better for the effort," he concludes.