Narcissism, extreme self-interest, refers to a set of personality characteristics including arrogance, self-centeredness, need for admiration, sense of entitlement, grandiosity, lack of empathy, and interpersonal exploitation, which can range from normal to a diagnosable mental disorder, narcissistic personality disorder. Narcissism, deriving from the Greek myth of Narcissus who fell in love with his reflection in a pool of water which led to his demise, is part of our human nature and is associated with aggressive behaviour, conflict and war, counterproductive work behaviour, "bad" leadership, and weaker environmental ethics. Evidence suggests that individual and collective narcissism is increasing worldwide. Correspondingly, individualism is increasing while collectivism is declining. Furthermore, leadership attracts narcissists with its allure of power and prestige, who then affect their organisations' performance, and those higher in narcissism tend to attain higher leadership levels. These trends are increasingly problematic as our world shifts toward greater interdependence. Add the challenges of narcissism with its corresponding threats to sustainable institutions to the challenges of sustainable development, "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987: 43), and this identifies an overlooked barrier to education for sustainable development. We developed a testable model to address this barrier. Since the determining factors for institutional sustainability are generated largely by activities of specific teams, departments, and task forces, our framework stresses interactions at the group level in education systems. This model presents seven sets of impacts of a narcissistic leader's actions upon the outcomes for her or his group, generates fourteen propositions, and outlines research strategies.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The methods by which managers make decisions in the face of inaccurate data, changing environments and other pervasive uncertainties, have been studied by researchers and business practitioners for many decades.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Much attention is given to highly quantitative decision-theoretic techniques; such methods generally deal with these inherent impediments to rational decisions using mathematical concepts from the theories of probability, stochastic processes, estimation and optimization, fuzzy sets, etc.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The very act of quantification itself has great implications for managers&rsquo; cognitive processes, the impact upon various groups within the organization, and the final outcomes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Indeed, use of formal methods and actual reliance on hard numbers improves decision quality and speed by providing efficient cognitive simplifications and convergent expectations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>This paper synthesizes findings from several relevant streams of literature and proposes several simple propositions for further discussion and future research. It applies these ideas to two illustrative examples of major complex business decisions.</span></span></p>

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis study addresses the question, How does CEO power affect, and respond to, corporate performance transitions over time? Drawing on insights culled from the top management and organizational life-cycle literature, we assumed that CEO power rises and falls in tandem with a firm's upward or downward performance cycles. However, our examination of four CEO "power characteristics"-structural, ownership, expert, and prestige-at 38 major U.S. corporations over a period of 12 years showed, instead, that CEOs' power (1) rises and falls within both upward and downward performance transitions and (2) does not rise and fall in a steady, monotonic fashion. In fact, some dimensions of CEO power are clearly more tied than others to changes in firm performance, and shifts in CEO power can also be linked to either the early or the late part of each transition cycle. These results have several implications for competitive intelligence (CI) professionals: First, the four power characteristics seem to behave independently of each other and seem to influence performance in their own unique ways. Each characteristic seems to play a very special role in the scheme of things and contribute uniquely to our understanding of performance transitions. Because of the special role that each power characteristic assumes in driving a firm's performance, CI professionals must track all four power indicators (and not simply any one of the indicators) to fully comprehend the performance changes.

Managers use a myriad of formal and informal assessment methodologies, both quantitative and qualitative, to make key business decisions when the available data comprise at best “weak signals” of an impending problem and/or opportunity. Accepted paradigms, fundamental theories, and their personal and group frames of reference inform their choice of methods and metrics. Quantification itself and formal methods facilitate the amplification of initial signals into stronger forms, allowing problem identification, and then reformulation, and the activities of the decision chain. This paper develops an evidence-guided model for problem identification and management decisions with focus on the overall stakeholders, rather than purely stockholder model for corporate governance.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Quantitative approaches have long dominated the management literature and influenced practice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>But why??<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The emphasis on quantification constitutes part of intended rationality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Yet it is not mathematical elegance or logical rigor that ultimately shapes the course of decision and final outcomes, but rather the experience of quantification and the use of the numbers. Building on classical sources from Aristotle to Herbert Simon, and Diesing&rsquo;s five rationality types, this essay positions quantification as one determinant of performance, within an overall model framework employing rationality as an intervening variable. </span></span></p>