Narcissism and Creativity: Intriguing and Troubling Findings

A trio of researchers -- Jack Goncalo and Sharon Kim of Cornell University and Frank Flynn of Stanford -- have done a pair of experiments on narcissism and creativity (see the description here) that are fascinating and have some disturbing implications.  In both studies, they used a questionnaire called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (see the long version of it here and test yourself) to assess if people suffered -- or perhaps enjoyed -- this characteristic. 

In the first study, students were placed in pairs and asked to pitch an ideas to their partner for a movie concept. The results: "the ideas impressed the person evaluating the pitch roughly 50% more than did those from the least narcissistic pitchers."  BUT the interesting twist was when these same ideas were evaluated by two independent observers who only saw the ideas on paper, but did not see the pitches:  "Having only seen the movie pitches in written form, they found the narcissists' ideas to be about as creative as proposals from non-narcissists. The difference, the researchers say, was in the pitch itself: narcissists were more enthusiastic, witty, and charming—all traits, according to past research, that people associate with creativity."

In other words, the live pitches led people to make an attribution error, to confuse stereotypical features of creative people with creative ideas. (This explains, by the way, why creative people who come in bodies that can't pitch need someone on their team to sell their ideas: Steve Wozniak would not have succeeded without Steve Jobs' pizazz.)

The second study bugs me, and even though I don't like it, I am trying to resist rejecting it because it was done quite well.  "The researchers composed 4 person teams of various numbers of narcissists: asked them to draw up proposals to improve the performance of real businesses and other organizations. Teams made up of three or four narcissists came up with incremental proposals and failed to generate and discuss many ideas, but so did teams with no narcissists. The teams that generated the most ideas were half narcissist."  Senior author Jack Goncalo speculated that this finding may have occurred because: "narcissists can help get ideas on the table. If there are too many of them, however, there may be too many egos in the room, preventing anything from getting done."

As I said, I am not especially happy about the findings of this study, in part, because even if these findings do generalize to the real world, narcissists do so much damage that they still may not be worth the trouble.  On the other hand, this research is consistent with more applied and qualitative writings by Michael Maccoby (see this HBR article) that suggest narcissists are high magnitude people, with strong pros and cons.  Maccoby summarized this perspective brillantly:

Leaders such as Jack Welch or George Soros are examples of productive narcissists. They are gifted and creative strategists who see the big picture and find meaning in the risky proposition of changing the world and leaving behind a legacy. Indeed, one reason we look to productive narcissists in times of great transition is that they have the audacity to push through the massive transformations that society periodically undertakes. Productive narcissists are not only risk takers willing to get the job done but also charmers who can convert the masses with their rhetoric. The danger is that narcissism can turn unproductive when, lacking self-knowledge and restraining anchors, narcissists become unrealistic dreamers. They nurture grand schemes and harbor the illusion that only circumstances or enemies block their success. This tendency toward grandiosity and distrust is the Achilles’ heel of narcissism. Because of it, even brilliant narcissists can come under suspicion for self–involvement, unpredictability and—in extreme cases—paranoia.

I'd love your reaction to this research and more generally to the notion that -- contrary to my biases -- that narcissists may at times may be worth the trouble!

Comments

[Project Guru]

I've read the book "Why it is always about me" about Narcissism. It is a great book and brings clarification to narcissists.

[Bob Sutton]

Toxic Handler,

To your point, I spoke with Frank Flynn, one of the authors of the study, and he was quick to point out that, over time, co-workers come to like narcissists less and less. And, as you imply, this is for good reason!

[toxichandler]

The experiments focus on short-term tasks - that's how the "brilliant asshole" is noticed. The real issue with extreme narcissists is the damage they wreak on organizations over the long term.

[Thomas]

Doesn't the real issue here have less to do with epistemic bias and more to do with something like ethical fervor?

The description of the inventory clearly states that "there's no such thing as a good or bad result on this test. Scoring high on the narcissism inventory, or high on any of the component categories, doesn't mean you have a disorder, or that you're a good or bad person."

But these other studies allow you to raise precisely those issues (i.e., allows you to conclude presicely what the test itself does not): "narcissists do so much damage that they still may not be worth the trouble."

So there are two pieces of research, each of which appear to be perfectly objective and non-moralizing, but which ultimately support a highly moralizing attitude. The first tells us whether or not you are a narcissist. The second shows us the social effects of narcissists.

We go from a test that does not question whether or not you are "a good person" to resarch that registers the (good and bad) effects of narcissist on groups to a discourse that raises the question whether or not you are "worth the trouble". Maybe it's just because I'm a narcissist myself (I'm one of those people who refuses to even take such a test), but this moral environment is a bit unsettling to ponder.

[Bob Sutton]

William,

Thanks for the comment. I agree that surveys like this have bias, as would the authors of these studies. But I would not dismiss them completely as this scale has -- from what I understand -- been developed and studied sufficiently that it appears to have decent reliability and validity. This study was reviewed and accepted by a peer-reviewed journal that has high standards. While no doubt there are alternative explanations for the findings (there always are), I would be slow to dismiss this or any other study that has survived the typically quite rigorous peer review process.

[William Cunningham]

Analyzing and measuring something as abstract as a personality trait, particularly with a self-response method of questionnaire, results in a great deal of bias and inaccuracy. I therefore find the study itself questionable due to the lack of a reliable universal definition of narcissism. Since you can argue that narcissism varies depending on culture and environment, as what an American may define as narcissism may not necessarily be what an Italian or Korean may consider as narcissism, and a respondent may skew results simply based on how he or she desires others to view him and her, people who were seen as narcissists in the study may not actually be narcissists. It is equally inaccurate when observers assess another's narcissism, as people may actively engage in impression management, therefore skewing the scale.

[Jan van der Wielen]

This research is somewhat related to the topic you discuss above:

It's by Peter Harms et al. from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and I quote from the public release of their research "To be good, sometimes leaders need to be a little bad":

'Several of the 12 "dark side" traits – such as those associated with narcissism, being overly dramatic, being critical of others and being extremely focused on complying with rules – actually had a positive effect on a number of facets of the cadets' leadership development over time.

"By themselves, these subclinical traits had fairly small effects, but when aggregated, they played a substantial role in determining which cadets developed leadership skills," Harms said.

"Assumptions about how these traits affected performance and development were mistaken … it appears that even negative characteristics can be adaptive in particular settings or job roles."

That's not to say that large doses of these traits will make someone a great leader. "Dark side" traits have always been considered to be adaptive up to point, Harms said. Even moderate amounts can be dismissed as personality quirks by co-workers and subordinates. But at extremely high levels, the characteristics become pathological and can lead to career derailment, Harms said. Leaders must be sensitive to their situation to understand when exactly they are going too far.'

So, yes, one might call this troubling, then again, perhaps it's reassuring as well?
My boss may be a little bit narcissistic, but I can forgive him, because it makes him a better manager...
Well, in that line of thinking anyway!

[Anne]

The people I work with who are narcissists are not at all like Jack Welch or Steve Jobs.
True, they can charm board members, but they aren't at all charming to those who work for them. They are kiss up kick down devisive types, so competitive that they can't collaborate. Staff just do not flock to them. They have highly inflated egos without commensurate accomplishment. Feel they are superior to those who do the work. They overestimate their knowledge so make poor decisions. They can't listen. I've worked for 3 CFOs and the narcissist was the least capable and the least effective.

[Thomas]

A point of clarification. Is "Is Jones a narcissist?" a yes or no question?

[Randy Bosch]

Few can handle the extra fire-power that narcissists bring to a team - I, Me and My - let alone contain the damage that occurs too often. To think one can "use" them to close a deal and contain them may be a self-proof of narcissism!

Anyone is a narcissist who is convinced that they can accomplish that without great damage to them or your organization.

Also, remember that if you decide to let them drive the bus, you will end up under it and they will own it, if it doesn't crash.

[julien]

Would there be a culture twist to it?

Here in Hong Kong, I consider myself lucky to know a few narcissist people that i can "use" time to time to pitch my clients when i wouldn't be able to. They are worst the trouble if you know how to manage/motivate/control them and that you don't give them a power over others.

[DC]

whenever i've looked at a recent picture of myself i am unattractive;yet, when i see a picture from that previous moment in time i think i look good.

i am a narcissist or just getting older?

[Eddie Colbeth]

I can't see myself seeking out and hiring narcissists. One of the most important things when collaborating is, it's not about you.

In Good to Great, we see CEO's who are humble, driven and extremely productive. I'll take that sort of leader over a narcissist any day!

[Jeff Shattuck]

The research makes sense to me. Narcissists run rampant in adland, where I worked, and in general, as long as they were not in positions of too much authority or they were governed in some way, they were great sparks.

[Ellie]

Hmm, tricky.

One of the most important messages I have taken from this blog is that, the more diverse a team is, the more creative it will be, but the harder it will be to keep the group working well together. That has to be true for all personality types, including narcissists, so it has to come down to whether they can be kept from disrupting the team or not. I don't think we can generalise because that will depend on the narcissist in question but also on the ability of the team they are in to handle them - IMO it has to be taken on a case by case basis.

There may also be occasions when, as with excellent techies with no social skills, the narcissists can be found their own niche where they can do what they do best without disrupting those around them. [tries really hard not to write a snark about sales departments: fails]

[Panamomma]

I generally believe that narcissists are not at all worth the trouble; however I have worked with a few that were not all bad. The lesser evil narcissists generally have more control over their narcissism. It takes a special person to learn to control that kind of a gift.

[MaestroCG]

"Are narcissists at times worth the trouble?" Probably so, but I think it pays to find a different way to engage with them. It was only after reading your post that I realized how I'd learned that lesson somewhat by accident.

Years ago, I worked for a wild-eyed entrepreneur -- I won't call him a narcissist, but he was all of the things you described: creative, engaging, risk-taking to the hilt, etc. (No, Dad, I'm not talking about you.)

Over time, the company started going in a different direction, one that I thought was TOO risky (and random). Plus, for various personal reasons I was ready to move on and go back to freelancing.

But when I gave notice, the boss made it clear he didn't want to lose my contribution, and asked if I would still work with them on projects (we were more than fair to each other, which I still appreciate).

So when he asked if I would still do work for them, I said, "Yeah -- I'm not leaving the family; I'm just getting my own apartment." I was happy to hear they still wanted my contribution.

They went on to become one of my biggest clients -- and my impact in some ways grew stronger, because I was tackling higher-level projects. And of course I was happier with the new working relationship, which probably influenced the quality of my work.

So even when that sort of arrangement isn't feasible, we need to look for ways to contain the narcissist's damage, rather than tolerate it, or worse -- reward it!