Introduction
The very definition of leadership is changing, from one that focuses on the leader’s actions as the force that compels the collective forward toward goal attainment to viewing leadership as a cocreation of leaders and followers collaborating to achieve outcomes (Uhl-Bien et al., Reference Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe and Carsten2014, Reference Uhl-Bien, Carsten and Newstead2026). As Mitchell and colleagues (Reference Mitchell, Haslam, Burke and Steffens2026) suggest it is this leader-centric approach, associated with the outdated definition, that is largely to blame for encouraging narcissistic leaders(hip) in human resources practices. Consistent with this redefining of leadership, we argue that a focus on followers and followership may assist in promoting a shift from “me-ness” to “we-ness.”
Changing the leadership mindset
It is clear that the historical emphasis on heroic forms of leadership (e.g., great man theory), our elevation of the leader role, and the romance of leadership (Meindl et al., Reference Meindl, Ehrlich and Dukerich1985) are largely responsible for creating an image of leaders that attracts narcissists to the leader role and may also encourage leader narcissistic behavior. Before we can change HR practices that discourage this existing phenomenon; however, we must adopt a different, and more accurate, conceptualization of what leadership really is. Simply put, leaders don’t do leadership. Leadership is a complex process of leaders and followers working together in a particular context (Dulebohn et al., Reference Dulebohn, Murray and Stone2022; Kellerman, Reference Kellerman2012), in which they exchange influence to identify and pursue shared goals through collective effort.
This new, and more accurate, conceptualization is part of a growing consensus that leadership is a dynamic, relationally cocreated phenomenon that occurs when leaders lead and followers follow. This is also consistent with the fact that in teams and organizations, leading and following can occur fluidly and shift between those in designated positions of “leader” and “follower” (Uhl-Bien et al., Reference Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe and Carsten2014, 2025). This change in mindset, from viewing leaders as positionally endowed and the epicenter of leadership to seeing leadership as only one side of a fluid leadership/followership equation, promises to negate the prevailing leader centrism (and resultant narcissism) and elevate the profound power and potential in followers, following, and followership. If this orientation is adopted by I-O and HR professionals and scholars more broadly—redefining leadership as composed of both leading and following—it could help suppress the prevalence of leader narcissism, with clear implications for leadership selection and development efforts.
Toward relational leadership development: HR’s cocreation opportunity
Incorporating followers and followership into the leadership equation, we envision three main areas where HR practice and research can combat leader narcissism: in (a) leader selection; (b) leader(ship) development; (c) leader(ship) evaluation and rewards.
Leader selection
Conventional leader selection practices tend to encourage self-aggrandizement by asking candidates to demonstrate individual achievements and their successful “wins,” where such approaches perfectly suit and can be seen to stimulate leader narcissism. There is evidence that good leaders are also good followers (Baird & Benson, Reference Baird and Benson2022). If that is the case, when selecting candidates for leadership positions it makes sense to focus not just on capabilities and accomplishments as a leader but also on success in following and in the follower role. Demonstrated followership capability (i.e., granting influence, supporting others’ initiatives, speaking up, being proactive) suggests an individual may value and enable these capabilities in followers should they assume a leadership position themselves, thereby working to suppress the narcissistic tendency to focus solely on one’s own achievements, instead focusing on accomplishing things through rather than with others.
Given the requirement of followership for any instance of effective leadership, assessing candidates’ understanding of and endorsement of this should help to weed out more “me” focused, narcissistically oriented applicants. Searching for and giving greater weight to candidates who have a more “we-ness” orientation (e.g., a history of promoting others’ achievements; celebrating collective wins) is one strategy. Tweaking leader selection practices to focus more on assessing relational leadership skills and capacity, and less on individualistic accomplishments, is another strategy. To suppress leader narcissism, HR’s leader selection practices need to place greater emphasis on relationship-building skills, team orientation, and a willingness to grant influence to others rather than on focusing primarily on personal attributes and accomplishments.
Research associated with leadership selection practices could work to further suppress leader narcissism through HR and organizational processes by experimenting and evaluating modifications to prevailing approaches. For example, exploring how or if followership-focused evaluations versus conventional leadership competency assessments resulted in the selection of leaders with lower levels of assessed narcissistic behaviors. Simulations or lab-based experiments could also be used to determine how or if a failure to grant influence to others (e.g., put support into objectively superior initiatives owned by someone else)—including others with less positional or legitimate authority—predicted future me-focused, narcissistic leader behavior.
Leader(ship) development
Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent every year on developing leaders and leadership, with very little attention paid to developing followers and followership. This blatantly reinforces the prevailing “me” focus in leadership that stimulates narcissism. Conventional leadership development programs need to change from focusing solely on leader competencies to programs that emphasize both leading and following capability. There are good, but largely unknown, guidelines for developing followers and followership to contribute to the team’s and organization’s leadership (Carsten, Reference Carsten, Clark and Gruber2017; Hurwitz & Hurwitz, Reference Hurwitz and Hurwitz2023). HR professionals need to know about these and incorporate them into development programs in order to negate leader narcissism and develop both sides of the leadership/followership equation.
Another strategy is to move away from development programs that focus exclusively on designated leaders and high potentials, and involve additional team members in the development programs. About 20 years ago, one of us was impressed by participating in an innovative (for the time) “leadership development program” for a pharmaceutical company. Rather than just inviting those in designated leadership positions, the CEO insisted that all of the company’s employees, from the front-office receptionist to the CEO himself, attend. In the CEO’s own words, he wanted “all members of this organization to participate in leadership,” empowering even the lowest ranking employees to initiate strategies that would improve their “sphere within the organization.”
Some critical modules common to leadership development programs, from effective communication to relationship-building skills, and organizational culture development, beg for participation from members other than just those in designated leader positions. Investing in developing only leaders in efforts to develop effective leadership/followership is like trying to salvage a damaged marriage by having only one partner trained in making the relationship better.
Leadership education and development programs should also change by focusing on both the development of leader competencies and behaviors, and also incorporating exemplary follower behaviors. Most leaders (particularly middle managers) play both leader and follower roles in their organizations, working with superiors in order to accomplish goals. Carsten (Reference Carsten, Clark and Gruber2017) suggests that in addition to making these leaders more effective in their follower roles, it can also lead to increased understanding of their own followers, moving them away from the singular focus on leaders and leader behaviors that is so common in most leader development programs. What might this look like? Exercises where leader participants are put in subordinate positions should simultaneously develop follower skills, as well as fueling some empathy with followers and the follower role.
In one exercise that we have used in both developmental and selection-oriented assessment centers, leaders are placed in teams with each given a specific action plan (e.g., a new product or other opportunity). One of the plans is objectively superior, and the exercise requires them to take turns and promote their plan. They are then instructed to choose only one plan. Positive performance involves recognizing the superior plan held by one of the participants and promoting it rather than staying wedded to one’s own plan. A failed score is a narcissistic focus on promoting your own plan, even when it is inferior.
Future research could support leadership education and development efforts to suppress leader narcissism through longitudinal studies using controls to determine how incorporating (a) follower participants and/or (b) followership concepts and capabilities into development programs resulted in more we-focused leaders and leadership with decreased narcissistic tendencies.
Leadership evaluation and rewards
Many current practices in evaluating leaders fuel narcissistic tendencies. For example, in 360-degree evaluations and feedback, the leader is the central figure, receiving upward appraisals from followers and evaluations from higher ups. These evaluations focus almost exclusively on leader attributes and behaviors (e.g., exerting influence, having “presence,” initiating structure). Including followership attributes and behaviors (e.g., granting influence to others, supporting others’ initiatives, giving voice) in these assessments can send the clear message that the leader’s ability to engage in effective leadership and followership is equally valued, as well as acknowledging that the leader has the capacity to step back and let others lead when necessary. These shifts to practice are readily aligned to evaluation research, with further avenues for research testing (e.g., through experimental studies) how the allocation of individual versus communal reward results in higher or lower leader narcissism markers.
Finally, as Mitchell et al., note, reward systems need to focus more on collective outcomes. If we truly understand that leadership is a shared endeavor, and that followers are essential in not only achieving collective outcomes but also are leading and following, then team-based rewards recognize that reality. The leader-centric nature of HR practices, and the excessive attention, perks, and praise, certainly fuel leader narcissism in organizations. Ironically, a (Reference Kelley1988) Harvard Business Review article by Robert Kelley created a stir because, during a time when all eyes were on the role of the leader, he suggested, with the title, “In praise of followers,” that it was time to notice and reward the follower role in enacting leadership. More than 30 years later, it is about time we do so. And the place to start is with modifying conventional HR and organizational leader selection, development, and evaluation practices to more accurately reflect the essential function of followership in effective leadership.
Open access
