Category Archives: Business Communication

Business Communication

Executive Presence: “Gravitas,” Communication…and Appearance?

6 Replies

Professional advancement requires demonstrated knowledge, skill, and competence, coupled with perceived “cultural fit,” “collaboration,” and “executive presence.”

Sylvia Ann Hewlett

Sylvia Ann Hewlett

These requirements appear prone to subjective definition and biased judgments.
What is “executive presence”? How is it measured?

Sylvia Ann Hewlett, CEO of Center for Talent Innovation, conducted 18 focus groups and 60 interviews to investigate behavioral and attitudinal aspects of Executive Presence (EP).

Perceived Executive Presence includes three components:Executive Presence

“Gravitas” – Authoritative Behavior

    • Confidence, composure,
    • Decisiveness,
    • Integrity,
    • Emotional Intelligence: Self-awareness, self-regulation, interpersonal skills,
    • Personal reputation,
    • Vision for leadership,

Communication

    • Speaking skills:  Voice tone, articulation, grammatical speech conveying competence,
    • “Presence,” “bearing,” “charisma” including assertiveness, humour, humility,
    • Ability to sense audience engagement, emotion, interests,

Appearance

    • Grooming, posture,
    • Physical attractiveness, average body weight,
    • Professional attire.
      According to Hewlett’s interviewees, “Executive Presence” accounts for more than a quarter of factors that determine a next promotion.

Harrison Monarth

How can Executive Presence be developed?

 Harrison Monarth suggested that Executive Presence behaviours can be cultivated with Image Management tactics including:

-Maintaining a positive personal reputation to influence others’ favourable perceptions and willingness to collaborate,

-Effectively managing online “brand”,

-Gaining followers online and in the “real world,”

-Influencing and persuading others,

-Demonstrating “Emotional Intelligence” through self-awareness, awareness of others (empathic insight), and regulating one’s own emotions.

He focused less on appearance than Hewlett and Stanford Law School’s Deborah Rhode, who summarized extensive research on Halo Effect and “The Beauty Bias”.

Deborah Rhode

Rhode estimated that annual world-wide investment in appearance was close to $USD 200 billion in 2010.
She contended that bias based on appearance influences career and life outcomes and is:

  • Is prevalent,
  • Infringes on individuals’ fundamental rights,
  • Compromises merit principles,
  • Reinforces negative stereotypes,
  • Compounds disadvantages facing members of non-dominant races, classes, and gender.

Executive Presence is widely recognized as a prerequisite for leadership roles, yet its components remained loosely-defined until Hewlett’s investigation and Rhode’s human rights analysis.

-*Which elements seem most essential to Executive Presence?

See related posts

©Kathryn Welds

Women Who Express Anger Seen as Less Influential

1 Reply
Jessica Salerno

Jessica Salerno

Women who expressed anger were less likely to influence their peersin computer-mediated mock jury proceedings, found Arizona State University’s Jessica Salerno and Liana Peter-Hagene of University of Illinois. 

Liana Peter-Hagene

Liana Peter-Hagene

More than 200 U.S. jury-eligible volunteers reviewed opening arguments and closing statements, eyewitness testimonies, crime scene photographs, and an image of the alleged weapon in a homicide.

Participants made individual verdict choices, then exchanged instant messages by computer, with “peers” who were said to be “deliberating their verdict decisions.”

In fact, “peer” messages were scripted, with four of the fictional jurors agreeing with the participant’s verdict, and one disagreeing.
In different test conditions, the dissenting participant had 1) a male user name or 2) a female user name or 3) a gender-neutral name.

Victoria Brescoll

Victoria Brescoll

Half of the dissenting messages contained no emotion, anger, or fear, and had no influence on participants’ opinions.

However, when a single “male dissenter” sent angry messages, characterized by “shouting” in all capital letters, participants’ confidence in their verdict decision significantly dropped.
This confidence-eroding effect of one “male dissenter” held even when the majority of “jurors” shared the same opinion.

A single female dissenter who expressed disagreement in an angry message did not undermine the other juror’s confidence in their decisions.

This finding suggests that a single male dissenter’s angry communication causes people to doubt their opinions, and that “female” anger was less influential than “male” anger.

In contrast, volunteers became more confident in their initial verdict decisions when their vote was echoed by the majority of other participants.

Eric Luis Uhlmann

Eric Luis Uhlmann

Male and female evaluators assigned lower status to female CEOs and female trainees when they expressed anger, compared with angry male professionals in research by Yale University’s Victoria Brescoll and Eric Luis Uhlmann, now of INSEAD.

Kristi Lewis Tyran

Kristi Lewis Tyran

Men who expressed anger in a professional context were conferred higher status than men who expressed sadness.

Likewise, women who expressed anger and sadness were rated less effective than women who shared no emotion, according to Kristi Lewis Tyran of Western Washington University.

Evaluators judged men’s angry reactions more generously, attributing these emotional expressions to external circumstances, such as experiencing pressure and demands from others.

These differing judgments of emotional expression suggest that women’s anger is more harshly evaluated because anger expressions deviate from women’s expected societal, gender, and cultural norms.

-*What impacts and consequences have you observed for women and men who express anger at work?

RELATED POSTS:

©Kathryn Welds

 

Costs of Workplace Incivility

4 Replies

Christine Pearson

A single incident of incivility in the workplace can result in significant operational costs, reported Christine Pearson of Thunderbird School of Global Management and Christine Porath of Georgetown University.

Additional consequences of workplace incivility include:

  • Decreased work effort due to disengagement,

    Christine Porath

    Christine Porath

  • Less time at work to reduce contact with offensive co-workers or managers,
  • Decreased work productivity due to ruminating about incivility incidents,
  • Less commitment to the organization,
  • Attrition.

Pier Massimo Forni

P.M. Forni

Other organizational symptoms include:

  • Increased customer complaints,
  • Accentuated cultural and communications barriers,
  • Reduced confidence in leadership,
  • Less adoption of changed organizational processes,
  • Reduced willingness to accept additional responsibility and make discretionary work efforts.

Workplace incivility behaviours were described as “rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others,” noted Pearson and Lynne Andersson, then of St. Joseph’s University.
“Uncivil” behaviors were enumerated in The Baltimore Workplace Civility Study by Johns Hopkins’ P.M. Forni and Daniel L. Buccino with David Stevens and Treva Stack of University of Baltimore:

  • Refusing to collaborate on a team project,
  • Shifting blame for an error to a co-worker,
  • Reading another’s mail,
  • Neglecting to say “please,” “thank you”,
  • Taking a co-worker’s food from the office refrigerator without asking.

Respondents classified more extreme unacceptable behaviors:

  • Pushing a co-worker during an argument,
  • Yelling at a co-worker,
  • Firing a subordinate during a disagreement,
  • Criticising a subordinate in public,
  • Using foul language in the workplace.

Gary Namie

Workplace bullying was included in Gary Namie’s Campaign Against Workplace Bullying.
He defined bullying as “the deliberate repeated, hurtful verbal mistreatment of a person (target) by a cruel perpetrator (bully).

His survey of more than 1300 respondents found that:

  • More than one-third of respondents observed bullying in the previous two years,
  • More than 80% of perpetrators were workplace supervisors,
  • Women bullied as frequently as men,
  • Women were targets of bullying 75% of the time,
  • Few bullies were punished, transferred, or terminated from jobs.

Costs of health-related symptoms experienced by bullying targets included:

  • Depression,
  • Sleep loss, anxiety, inability to concentrate, which reduced work productivity,
  • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among 31% of women and 21% of men,
  • Frequent rumination about past bullying, leading to inattention, poor concentration, and reduced productivity.

Choosing CivilityWidespread prevalence of workplace incivility was also reported by Forni, who suggested ways to improve workplace interactions and inclusion:

  • Assume that others have positive intentions,
  • Pay attention, listen,
  • Include all co-workers in workplace activities,
  • Acknowledge others,
  • Give praise when warranted,
  • Respect others’ opinions, time, space, indirect refusals,
  • Avoid asking personal questions,
  • Be selective in asking for favors,
  • Apologize when warranted,
  • Provide constructive suggestions for improvement instead of complaints,
  • Maintain personal grooming, health, and work environment,
  • Accept responsibility for undesired outcomes, if deserved.

More than 95% of respondents in The Baltimore Workplace Civility Study suggested, “Keep stress and fatigue at manageable levels,” a challenging goal for leaders who shape workplace cultures.

Organizational change recommendations include:

  • Institute a grievance process to investigate and address complaints of incivility,
  • Select prospective employees with effective interpersonal skills,
  • Provide a clearly-written policy on interpersonal conduct,
  • Adopt flexibility in scheduling, assignments, and work-life issues.

-*How do you handle workplace incivility when you observe or experience it?

©Kathryn Welds

Range Offers vs Point Offers for Better Negotiation Settlements

Leave a reply
Daniel Ames

Daniel Ames

Many people avoid making negotiation offers as a range of values, because they expect that co-negotiators will “anchor” on the range’s lower value or higher value. 

Malia F Mason

Malia F Mason

However, range offers led to stronger outcomes in experiments by Columbia University’s Daniel R. Ames and Malia F. Mason.
This team suggested that these “dual anchors” signal a negotiator’s value awareness and politeness.

Range offers and point offers have varying impacts, depending on the proposer’s perceived preparation, believability, respectfulness, and reasonableness.

Negotiators’ credibility, interpersonal style, and understanding of value  were associated with the anchor value’s influence on agreements.

Ames and Mason tested three types of negotiation proposal ranges:

  • Bolstering Range in which the target point value as the bottom of the range and an aspirational value as the top of the range.
    This strategy usually yields generous counteroffers and higher settlement prices. They recommend using Bolstering Range Offers in negotiations.  
  • Backdown Range features the target point value as the upper end of the range and a concession value as the lower offer.
    This approach often leads to accepting the lower value and they do not recommend this approach.
  • Bracketing Range includes the target point offer and often has neutral settlement outcomes for the offer-maker.
    This tactic can be perceived by co-negotiators as more collaborative and less aggressive.
Martin Schweinsberg

Martin Schweinsberg

Extreme anchors are often seen as aggressive and unrealistic, may lead to negotiation breakdown, according to INSEAD’s Martin Schweinsberg with Gillian Ku of London Business School, collaborating with Cynthia S. Wang of University of Michigan, and National University of Singapore’s Madan M. Pillutla.
Even experienced, skillful negotiators said they were offended by extreme offers.
Likewise, less capable negotiators were more likely to walk away from these negotiations.

Gilliam Ku

Gilliam Ku

Point offers and range offers operated independently and interacted to  influence settlement values. 
They concluded that Bolstering Range Offers imply the co-negotiator’s reservation price and can positively influence negotiation outcomes, whereas Precise Offers influence the perception of offer credibility

  • When do you present a precise negotiation offer instead of a negotiation range?

RELATED POSTS:

Group “Intelligence”=Social Skills+Number of Women Members

7 Replies
Anita Wooley Williams

Anita Wooley Williams

A group’s “general collective intelligence factor” is related to social and communication skills, NOT to the average individual intelligence or even maximum individual intelligence of group members, found Carnegie Mellon’s Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F. Chabris of Union College, with MIT colleagues Alex (“Sandy”) Pentland, Nada Hashmi, and Thomas W. Malone.

Group intelligence was most closely associated with:

  • Group member social sensitivity and empathy,
  • Equal conversational turn-taking,
  • Proportion of females in the group.
Christopher Chabris

Christopher Chabris

Nearly 700 volunteers completed an individual I.Q. test, then worked in teams on tasks including:

  • Logical analysis,
  • Coordination,
  • Planning,
  • Brainstorming,
  • Moral-ethical reasoning.
Simon Baron-Cohen

Simon Baron-Cohen

Each participant also completed a measure of empathy and social reasoning based on identifying emotional states portrayed in images of people’s eyes.

This instrument, Reading the Mind in the Eyes, was developed by University of Cambridge’s Simon Baron-Cohen, Sally Wheelright, Jacqueline Hill, Yogini Raste, and Ian Plumb.

Reading the Mind in the Eyes

Sally Wheelright

Individuals’ ability to infer other team members’ emotional states correlated with team effectiveness in solving workplace tasks, but not with extraversion or reported motivation.

Teams that performed best in online and face-to-face situations, also demonstrated stronger social and communication skills:

  • Accurate emotion-reading, empathy, and interpersonal sensitivity,
  • Communication volume,
  • Equal participation.

David Engel

High-performing teams accurately inferred others’ feelings even when emotional state was conveyed without visual, auditory, or non-verbal cues, reported Wooley’s team collaborating with MIT’s David Engel and Lisa X. Jing.

CONCLUSION: Teams increase task performance when members have well-developed “Emotional Intelligence,” social insight, and communication skills and when there is a high proportion of women in the team.
These factors are more important than when members have the highest average IQ. 

  • How do you enhance a work group’s collective intelligence in performance tasks?

RELATED POSTS:

©Kathryn Welds

Nothing to Lose: Effective Negotiating Even When “Powerless”

2 Replies
Michael Schaerer

Most negotiators prefer to have a “fall back position.”
However INSEAD’s Michael Schaerer and Roderick Swaab with Adam Galinsky of Columbia found that having no alternatives and less power than co-negotiators can improve outcomes.

A weak alternative can establish an unfavourably modest “anchor point,” according to Hebrew University’s late Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman of Princeton.

Adam Galinsky
Adam Galinsky

These “lowball” first offers usually undermine a negotiator’s final outcome.

Professional athletes and their agents provided examples of negotiating better deals when they had no “back up” offers and “nothing to lose.”  They set more ambitious anchor points, and often negotiate a more favourable settlement.

Amos Tversky
Amos Tversky

Schaerer and team asked a hundred people whether they would prefer to negotiate a job offer with a weak alternate offer or without any alternative.
More than 90 percent of participants preferred an unattractive alternative offer, confirming that any alternative is usually seen as better than no alternative.

Schaerer asked volunteers to sell previously-owned music when they had:

  • No offers (no alternative),
  • One offer at USD $2 (weak alternative),
  • A bid at USD $8 (strong alternative).
Roderick Swaab
Roderick Swaab

Volunteers in each group proposed a first offer, and rated the degree of power they felt.
People with the “strong” alternative felt most powerful and those with no alternative felt least powerful.

Volunteers with a weak alternative felt more powerful than those with no alternative, but they made lower first offers.
This indicated that they had less confidence than participants with no alternative.

Conclusion: Having any alternative can help people feel powerful but can undermine negotiation performance.

Schaerer’s team asked a volunteer to “sell” a coffee mug to a potential “buyer,” who was a confederate of the researchers.

The volunteer “seller” received a phone call from “another buyer,” who was a confederate of the researchers, before the volunteer seller met the original potential buyer.
When half the “sellers” met the original purchase prospect, the “buyer” made a low offer.
The “buyer” declined to bid for the other half of “sellers.”

Daniel Kahneman
Daniel Kahneman

Sellers without an alternative offer said they felt less powerful, but made higher first offers and received significantly higher sales prices than negotiators with an unattractive alternative.

In another situation, half of the “sellers” concentrated on available alternatives (none, weak, or strong) and the remaining negotiators focused on the target price.

Volunteers with unappealing alternatives negotiated worse deals than those with no options when they focused on alternatives.
“Sellers” avoided this pitfall by concentrating on the target price.
Conclusion:  Focus on the goal when alternatives are weak.

Negotiators with non-existent or unappealing alternatives can set audacious goals and make an ambitious opening offer because they have “nothing to lose.”
This strategy usually renders better results for the disadvantaged negotiator.

  • How do you overcome lowball anchoring when you have few negotiation alternatives?

RELATED POSTS:

©Kathryn Welds

Women, Minorities Increase Performance by Resisting Stereotype Threat

Leave a reply
Claude Steele

Claude Steele

Stereotype threat occurs when stigmatised group members receive information about the group’s expected behavior, potential, and outcomes.
Typically, stereotype threat reduces performance among stigmatised group members.

Joshua Aronson

Stanford’s Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson of NYU, substituted a positive shared identity for typical stereotypes of women and African American participants in academic tasks. 
This intervention was associated with improvee performance compared with the control group of volunteers.

Anthony Greenwald

Stereotypes can be invoked by “implicit primes” even when people explicitly disavowed stereotypes, found University of Washington’s Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji, then at Yale.
However, when volunteers focused on tasks rather than beliefs, participants were less likely to render discriminatory decisions.

Laura Kray

Laura Kray

Women and men resisted stereotypic negotiation behaviour when they activated a shared identity.
Participants maintained these less-biased behaviours despite receiving explicit stereotype primes, reported University of California, Berkeley’s Laura Kray, Leigh Thompson of Northwestern, and Columbia’s Adam Galinsky.
This finding suggests that vulnerability to stereotype threat can be modified and sustained.

Gordon Moskowitz

Gordon Moskowitz

People can distance themselves from stereotypes with contrast primes that provide alternatives to a stereotype, noted Lehigh University’s Gordon B. Moskowitz and Ian W. Skurnik of University of Utah.

Ryan P. Brown

Ryan P. Brown

Even members of dominant groups can be affected by stereotype threat:  Men from majority groups can perform less effectively after receiving a positive stereotype prime.
University of Oklahoma’s Ryan P. Brown and Robert A. Josephs of University of Texas suggested that this performance suppression among members of dominant groups can occur when participants sense a “pressure to live up to the standard”.

Robert A Josephs

Robert A Josephs

People can manage stereotype threat by mentioning the stereotype to activate stereotype resistance.
Another mitigation strategy is to focus on a shared identity that transcends the stigmatized group identity, and provide examples that contradict the stereotype.

  • How do you manage stereotype threat for yourself and others?
  • How effective have you found activating stereotype reactance?

RELATED POSTS:

©Kathryn Welds

Precise Negotiation Offers Yield Better Bargaining Results

2 Replies
Malia F Mason

Malia F Mason

Opening negotiation offers usually anchor the discussion and shape settlement values.
Many people make opening offers in “round” numbers like USD$10 instead of “precise” numbers like USD$9.
This strategy rendered less effective results in negotiation experiments, reported Columbia’s Malia Mason, Alice J. Lee, Elizabeth A. Wiley, and Daniel Ames.

Y Charles Zhang

Y Charles Zhang

Negotiators can improve negotiation outcomes by specifying offers in precise values because they more potently anchor the negotiation range.
 In addition, negotiators who proposed precise offers were perceived as more confident, credible, and “well-informed” regarding actual value.

Norbert Schwartz

Norbert Schwartz

In a study of consumer confidence in various offer types,  University of Michigan’s Y. Charles Zhang and Norbert Schwarz of University of Southern California reported that some recipients of precise offers viewed these proposals as “inflexible.“

However, recipients of precise offers made more conciliatory counter-offers with smaller adjustments and more favorable final settlements.
Precise offers were associated with more favourable final deals even when the negotiator opened with a less ambitious precise offer.

Martin Schweinsberg

Martin Schweinsberg

Precise offers are less likely to be seen as “aggressive” by a co-negotiator, according to INSEAD’s Martin Schweinsberg collaborating with Gillian Ku and Madan M. Pillutla of London Business School’s and Cynthia S. Wang of Oklahoma State University.
This enables negotiators to present ambitious first offers while avoiding “offending” a negotiation partner and stalling progress toward settlement.

Gillian Ku

Gillian Ku

This risk of stalemated negotiation increases if negotiators see themselves in a lower-power position and receive an extreme offer.
These negotiators may be more willing to end negotiations,

Manoj Thomas

Manoj Thomas

Precise offers can obscure their actual value, noted Cornell’s Manoj Thomas and Vrinda Kadiyali with Daniel H. Simon of Indiana University.
Buyers underestimated the size of precise prices, particularly under uncertain conditions:  U.S. homebuyers paid more when list prices were precise.

Vrinda Kadiyali

Vrinda Kadiyali

Precise offers provide some of the benefits of favorably anchoring negotiation discussions while reducing risks of “offensive” extreme offers.

-*How effective have you found “precise” opening offers in achieving your negotiation goals?

RELATED POSTS:

©Kathryn Welds

Performance Excellence linked to Preventing Failures, Corrective Coaching

8 Replies

Atul Gawande

Simple behavior changes, such as following a structured checklist, can prevent crucial workplace errors and increase quality in medical settings, found Harvard’s Atul Gawande.

He found that people effectively improved their performance when they recognized weaknesses in organizational processes, and took proactive steps to remedy these shortcomings.

Three elements of better performance can be applied across industries:

  • Diligence – Attending to details can prevent errors and overcome obstacles.
    Gawande’s The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right suggests best ways to structure these memory aids,
  • Doing Right –Ensuring that skill, will, and incentives are aligned to drive excellent performance,
  • Ingenuity – Deliberately monitoring potential failures, continuously seeking innovative ways to improve performance and solutions.

These elements can be improved with attentive observation and feedback to prevent errors of omission when people don’t:

  • Know enough (ignorance),
  • Make proper use of what they know (ineptitude).

Ignorance occurs less frequently than ineptitude because relevant information is widely available, Gawande noted.
He suggested that both errors can be improved by systematic analysis and consistent use of tools like checklists.

Geoffrey Smart

Checklist-based analysis was also linked to Internal Rate of Return (IRR) in Geoffrey Smart’s study of investments by Venture Capital (VC) firms,

He found a correlation between IRR and leadership effectiveness in new investment ventures.
Selecting capable leaders is critical to business outcomes, so Smart also evaluated VC firms’ typical approach to assessing potential leaders:

  • The Art Critic is the most frequent approach in which the VC assesses leadership talent at a glance, intuitively, based on extensive experience,
  • The Sponge conducts extensive due diligence, then decides based on intuition,
  • The Prosecutor interrogates the candidate, tests with challenging questions and hypothetical situations,
  • The Suitor woos the candidate instead of analyzing capabilities and fit,
  • The Terminator eliminates the evaluation because the venture firm replaces the company’s originators,
  • The Infiltrator becomes a “participant-observer” in an immersive, time-consuming experientially-based assessment,
  • The Airline Captain uses a formal checklist to prevent past mistakes.
    This last approach was linked to the highest average Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the new ventures.
    In addition, this strategy was significantly less likely to result in later terminating senior managers.

Venture Capitalists in these studies reported that two of their most significant mistakes were:

  • Investing insufficient time in talent analysis,
  • Being influenced by “halo effect” in evaluating candidates.

Systematic reminders to execute all elements required for expert performance can prevent failure and signal potential failure points.

-*How do you improve performance?
-*What value do you find in expert coaching?

Related Post:
Developing a SMARTER Mindset for Resilience, Emotional Intelligence – Part 2

©Kathryn Welds

Ask a Narcissist

2 Replies

Confidence is correlated with career effectiveness and advancement.
However, people who exhibit too much of a good thing may be seen as “narcissistic.”

Jean Twenge

Jean Twenge

Narcissistic personality is characterized by:

-Inflated views of the self,
-Grandiosity,
-Self-focus,
-Vanity,
-Self-importance,

according to San Diego State University’s Jean M. Twenge, with Sara Konrath and Brad J. Bushman of University of Michigan, collaborating with University of South Alabama’s Joshua D. Foster, and Keith Campbell of University of Georgia,

Calvin S Hall

Calvin S Hall

One well-validated assessment instrument to identify narcissism is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, developed by University of California Berkeley’s Robert Raskin and Calvin S. Hall.

Sara Konrath

Sara Konrath

Raskin and UC Berkeley colleague, Howard Terry examined responses from more than 1000 volunteers and found seven constructs related to narcissism:

  • Authority,
  • Exhibitionism,
  • Superiority,
  • Vanity,
  • Exploitativeness,
  • Entitlement,
  • Self-Sufficiency.
Timothy Leary

Timothy Leary

They related ratings of “self” and “ideal self” to participants’ responses on the Leary Interpersonal Check List, developed by Harvard’s Timothy Leary before he investigated psychedelic drugs.

Brian P Meier

Brian P Meier

An alternative to Leary’s lengthy NPI was developed by University of Michigan’s Sara Konrath, Brian P. Meier of Gettysburg College, and Ohio State’s Brad J. Bushman of Indiana University.
The Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS) measures grandiosity, entitlement, and low empathy characteristic of “narcissistic” behavior.

The team asked more than 2,200 participants to rate their answer to a single question on a scale of one to seven: To what extent do you agree with this statement? “I am a narcissist.”

Brad J Bushman

Brad J Bushman

Konrath’s team demonstrated that the Single Item Narcissism Scale is a valid, reliable alternative to longer narcissism scales because it is significantly correlated with scores on the NPI and is uncorrelated with social desirability.

Erika Carlson

Erika Carlson

People who score high on the NPI and SINS say that they are more arrogant, condescending, argumentative, critical, and prone to brag than people who score low on the NPI, according to University of Toronto’s Erika Carlson.

Narcissism was also related in Konrath’s validation studies to:

People who scored high for narcissism also showed behaviors that can be problematic at work:

However, people who scored high for narcissism displayed positive attributes including:

Interacting with a narcissist in the workplace can be challenging, and a previous blog post identifies recommended strategies.

-*How do you identify narcissists in the workplace and in personal life?
-*What are more effective ways to work with them?

RELATED POSTS:

©Kathryn Welds