Adaptive and maladaptive narcissism, charisma, and leadership performance: A study of perceptions about the presidential leadership of Donald Trump

Williams, Ethlyn A.; Pillai, Rajnandini; McCombs, Kate Marie; Lowe, Kevin B.; Deptula, Bryan Joab

doi:10.1177/1742715020902906

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 73 publications

(163 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(2) a lack of testing, for example, significant testing started only mid-March 2020; (3) epistemic hubris breeding false assumptions and incompetent actions, for example, Trump suggested that disinfectants or ultraviolet light could be used to kill the virus; and (4) a misinformed and mistaken herd immunity policy, for example, Trump's adviser Scott Atlas advocated a herd immunity strategy (Bell, 2020;De Swielande, 2020;Deegan Krause, 2019;Dixon, 2020;Gaouette et al, 2020;Krmack, 2020;Lacatus, 2020;Lacatus and Meibauer, 2020;Mayer, 2020;Renshon, 2020;Rhodes and Sutton, 2017;Schumaker, 2020;Shear et al, 2020;Stokols and Biermann, 2020;Waldman, 2020;Wehle, 2020;Wehner, 2020;Williams et al, 2018Williams et al, , 2020. On the other hand, New Zealand enacted Covid-19 prevention measures promptly 3 days after the WHO announcement on 30th January of Covid-19 as a public health emergency (e.g.…”

Section: Conducive Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Trump’s pandemic leadership was objectively bad: as noted above, the death rate for the United States of America at the time of writing was 2208 persons per million and was the worst amongst English-speaking countries, whilst the death rate for New Zealand was six persons per million (a factor of 368 times lower) and was the lowest death rate for any country (see https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html). The confluence of Trump’s destructive leader behaviours, a conducive context and susceptible followers resulted in: (1) the USA being too late to lockdown, for example, the first case reported in the US was on 20th January, the lockdown was 2 months later; (2) a lack of testing, for example, significant testing started only mid-March 2020; (3) epistemic hubris breeding false assumptions and incompetent actions, for example, Trump suggested that disinfectants or ultraviolet light could be used to kill the virus; and (4) a misinformed and mistaken herd immunity policy, for example, Trump’s adviser Scott Atlas advocated a herd immunity strategy (Bell, 2020; De Swielande, 2020; Deegan Krause, 2019; Dixon, 2020; Gaouette et al, 2020; Krmack, 2020; Lacatus, 2020; Lacatus and Meibauer, 2020; Mayer, 2020; Renshon, 2020; Rhodes and Sutton, 2017; Schumaker, 2020; Shear et al, 2020; Stokols and Biermann, 2020; Waldman, 2020; Wehle, 2020; Wehner, 2020; Williams et al, 2018, 2020). On the other hand, New Zealand enacted Covid-19 prevention measures promptly 3 days after the WHO announcement on 30th January of Covid-19 as a public health emergency (e.g.…”

Section: Background: the Toxic Trianglementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Did destructive leadership help create the conditions for the spread of Covid-19, and what are the early warning signs?

Sadler‐Smith

Akstinaite

2022

Leadership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research asks: ‘were there any objectively identifiable signals in the words leaders used in the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic that can be associated with ineffective management of the crisis?’ We chose to focus on the leaders of the two English-speaking nations that fared worst and best in the pandemic, the United States and New Zealand. By way of background and in order to contextualise the research, we compared and contrasted Trump’s and Ardern’s leaderships using the toxic triangle framework of destructive leadership. We then focused on the leader behaviour element of the triangle by using computerised text analysis (CTA) to analyse Trump’s and Ardern’s public pronouncements during the critical early stages of the pandemic. Based on a similarity index ( S), we identified linguistic markers associated with destructive leader behaviours and negative outcomes (Trump) and non-destructive leader behaviours and positive outcomes (Ardern). We discuss future applications of these linguistic markers for the diagnosis both of incumbent and potential leaders’ responses to crises management.

show abstract

Section: Conducive Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background: the Toxic Trianglementioning

confidence: 99%

Did destructive leadership help create the conditions for the spread of Covid-19, and what are the early warning signs?

Sadler‐Smith

Akstinaite

2022

Leadership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, we explore leader responses to crises that may be perceived as threats by investigating former U.S. President Donald J. Trump, who has been consistently referred to as a narcissistic leader in both the academic literature (Visser et al, 2017; Williams et al, 2020) and popular press (Lunbeck, 2017). Moreover, the unique circumstances of Trump’s first impeachment (i.e., his seeking foreign assistance with a campaign) and the wide criticism of his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic (Jacobson, 2020) present interesting contexts in which to study a narcissistic leader’s charismatic appeal to followers during crises.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Charismatic rhetoric, perceptions of charisma and narcissism, and voting behavior: Leadership under crisis

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although research recognizes the influence of charismatic leadership and rhetoric, their practice in differing contexts and the moderating role of narcissism is understudied. Using a mixed-methods approach, we explore the effects of crises on the way a narcissistic leader employs charismatic rhetoric, and the way charismatic leadership is viewed by followers as they select leaders during a national crisis. In Study 1, we investigate former President Donald Trump’s response to threats to his social power during times of crisis. Content analysis of Trump’s speeches revealed that he used less charismatic rhetoric overall and more self-focused rhetoric during crisis periods, an unexpected outcome given existing findings in the literature. In Study 2, we explore followers’ responses to Trump’s perceived charisma. Three matched waves of data examined responses about perceived charisma, importance placed on the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, and leader choice. Findings from Study 2 suggest that crisis influenced perceptions of charisma and voting behavior, with leader narcissism playing a moderating role. Overall, our findings have implications for understanding the role of crisis in charismatic rhetoric and how narcissism and leader charisma influence followers’ voting behavior.

show abstract

“…Entitlement is activated in response to one’s belief that they were either wronged or unfairly treated (Kimmel and Ferber, 2000; Williams et al, 2020). Earlier psychoanalytic perspectives described entitlement as a defense against shame and guilt by which individuals externalize their self-conscious emotions by directing anger or blame toward others (Bishop and Lane, 2002; Horney, 1950).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entitled and self-conscious? The ego-centric underpinnings of electoral preferences during the 2020 U.S. election

Tatum

Nai

2022

Research & Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate whether entitlement (feeling more deserving than others) and several dimensions of self-conscious affect (broadly reflecting responses to shame and guilt) are associated with voting intentions during the 2020 Presidential election in the USA. We utilized a sample of 443 adults recruited through Prolific. The sample was demographically representative with respect to age, gender, and race. Participants were recruited from 12 October 2020 to 15 October 2020, approximately 3 weeks before the national election held on 3 November 2020. Results reveal that higher entitlement beliefs are associated with support for Republicans, and so are shame proneness vis-à-vis behavioral avoidance (desire to hide) and blame externalization. Inversely, guilt proneness and shame proneness vis-à-vis negative self-evaluation is associated with support for Democrats. Results also suggest that shame proneness and blame externalization most closely correspond with voting preference; specifically, negative self-evaluation drives support for Democrats, whereas blame externalization and behavioral avoidance drives support for Republicans. While these effects are often only in the small-to-medium range in terms of magnitude, their implications for a more nuanced understanding of electoral politics—and its pitfalls—are noteworthy.

show abstract

Adaptive and maladaptive narcissism, charisma, and leadership performance: A study of perceptions about the presidential leadership of Donald Trump

Cited by 7 publications

References 73 publications

Did destructive leadership help create the conditions for the spread of Covid-19, and what are the early warning signs?

Did destructive leadership help create the conditions for the spread of Covid-19, and what are the early warning signs?

Charismatic rhetoric, perceptions of charisma and narcissism, and voting behavior: Leadership under crisis

Entitled and self-conscious? The ego-centric underpinnings of electoral preferences during the 2020 U.S. election

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About