Bold Visionary or Steady Hand? Narcissism in the Corner Office

Boards often choose between flashy, larger-than-life leaders and quieter, steadier ones, and the choice carries big stakes. Highly self-centered chief executives have grand opinions of themselves and chase bold, eye-catching moves to feed their hunger for public praise (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). They make dramatic deals, take daring stands, and grab attention, which can look like exactly the visionary leadership a company needs to stand out from the crowd.

The key insight: choosing a flashy leader isn't a bet on higher returns — it's a bet on bigger swings in both directions.

Less self-centered leaders act very differently. They tend to make small, steady improvements and avoid betting the whole company on risky, dramatic moves (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). Their time in charge is quieter and rarely makes headlines, marked by careful tuning rather than grand reinvention. To a board hungry for change, such leaders can seem timid, while to a board burned by past gambles they can seem reassuringly safe.

The temptation is to assume one type is just better, and a lot of popular talk favors the bold visionary. The cult of the heroic boss treats a huge ego as a plus, as if big personalities always mean big results. But that assumption deserves a second look, because confidence and boldness are not the same as good judgment, and the moves that grab the most attention are not always the moves that create the most value.

Research complicates the popular favorite. Self-centered leaders do not produce better results on average. Instead, they produce wilder swings, leading to either spectacular wins or spectacular, headline-making disasters (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). The flashy leader does not raise the typical return so much as widen the range of what might happen. Two companies run by such leaders might end up at opposite extremes, one triumphant and one ruined, with little in between.

Seen this way, picking a flashy leader is less a bet on higher returns than a bet on bigger ups and downs. A board that chooses one is quietly accepting a riskier set of outcomes, which might suit a company with little to lose far more than a company that mainly needs to protect what it has. The real decision is not bold versus steady in the abstract, but how much wild swinging the company can afford to invite.

Where this fits in the SalesEvolution system

The same calculus applies to promoting the charismatic top rep into a sales leadership seat (the strategic-behavior mechanics are in it's all about me). The flashy hire may deliver a spectacular quarter — or a spectacular blowup that costs you the base. Match the temperament to what the team actually needs: a turnaround that needs a swing-for-the-fences bet, or an established book that mainly needs steady protection. Selecting and developing sales leaders for the right risk profile is part of what our coaching and business development training address.

Every claim above links to its peer-reviewed source; browse the full research & sources.