You’ve heard of narcissism. But what about organizational narcissism?

Insincerity is the mother of deceit. Whenever we say something we don’t mean, we tell a lie. It may be a small misrepresentation, but it’s still a lie as we are being dishonest to hide what we truly think and feel. Repeated insincerity breaks down trust, communication, and understanding.

So why do organizations, often without even knowing it, encourage insincerity in their employees? The answer lies a little with social media and a lot in narcissism.

NARCISSISTS, NARCISSISTS, EVERYWHERE

Since the early 1980s, psychologists have been tracking a steady rise in narcissism: a growing self-consciousness and preoccupation with our image and what other people say about us. The exact cause remains unclear.

Changes in parenting styles, increasing individualism, and a cultural obsession with self-esteem have all been blamed. Social media has accelerated the trend, but the rise started well before the likes of Facebook arrived, with one large study of college students finding a 30% increase in levels of narcissism in the 25 years leading up to Facebook’s launch.

Whatever the cause, the effect has been widespread. People have grown more sensitive to how others view them. You can see it in how people curate a personal brand on Instagram and a professional one on LinkedIn. Cancel culture and political leaders appearing to prize loyalty over competence have hammered home the message: Be careful what you say and do or risk the consequences. Even if it isn’t top of mind, the pressure sits in our culture and shapes our behavior.

ORGANIZATIONS, TOO

And it’s not just individuals that are becoming more narcissistic, but organizations, too. Because around the same time as psychologists started tracking rises in individual narcissism, they also identified what has come to be called organizational narcissism. Firms increasingly seek visible loyalty from their employees, and emphasize the importance of everyone being “aligned” and “on the same page.” As with individuals, organizations have always focused on image to some degree, but evidence suggests they are doing so more than ever before.

Broad social forces play a role. Leaders, like individuals, now obsess over reputation. Social media and cancel culture have forced firms to guard their online image. With any message able to spread globally in seconds, firms understandably try to control what employees say about them. Some positive factors, such as organizations investing more in motivating and communicating with employees feed into this. But less positive factors matter to. If today’s CEOs are more narcissistic or image-conscious than they were 30 years ago, then they may create a culture in which perceived disloyalty is less tolerated.

All this drives organizations to demand affirmation and alignment from employees. What started as a growing awareness of brand image and employee motivation has often morphed into a preoccupation with positivity and controlling what gets said. Even when firms don’t demand this, because individuals have become more image-conscious, employees may nonetheless perceive organizations as requiring these things.

An environment in which everyone is positive about a firm can be a good thing. But it is too easy for it to tip to become toxic for individuals and dangerous for the organization.

SIGNS AND SOLUTIONS

The warning signs of organizational narcissism resemble the symptoms found in individual narcissism. A preoccupation with image and what people say, punishing perceived disloyalty or noncompliance, and reacting negatively to questioning. What matters most is not whether firms behave this way, but whether employees believe they do.

The consequences are always damaging. Just as with individuals, organisational narcissism erodes trust, communication, and understanding. Studies show that trying too hard to create a culture of positivity can undermine information flow and decision-making, making them blind to their weaknesses.

Some argue that organizational narcissism is an inevitable consequence of a capitalist-driven need to succeed against all competition. They may be correct to some degree. But not entirely. Firms can avoid a slide into overdone loyalty and positivity.

The writer Somerset Maugham once said, “What we call insincerity is often just a method by which we can avoid an unpleasantness.” By “unpleasantness” he meant a disagreement. And that disagreement is exactly what breaks insincerity. Leaders and organizations, must actively seeking out, encourage, and reward debate and questioning. They must step back from a preoccupation with whether internal communications make leaders look authentic and inspiring. Instead, they should focus on whether they enable employees to be authentic and inspiring themselves.

Because there’s only one thing worse than a negative and disgruntled employee, and that’s an insincere one.

View the full article