Running head: PAUL’S NARCISSISTIC NATURE 1 · Running head: PAUL’S NARCISSISTIC NATURE 1 ... downfall to their narcissistic splendor. ... narcissistic personality type exists

Running head: PAUL’S NARCISSISTIC NATURE 1

The Redemption of Paul’s Narcissistic Leadership

Andrew T. Babyak

Chowan University

Glen Metheny

Harding University

Author Note

Andrew T. Babyak, Assistant Professor of Management, Chowan University.

Glen Metheny, Associate Professor of Business, Harding University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew Babyak, One

University Place, Murfreesboro, NC 27855. Email: [email protected]

PAUL’S NARCISSTIC NATURE 2 2

Abstract

Narcissistic leadership has been a popular area of study within the field of leadership due to its

prevalence in many organizations. Narcissism, in regards to leadership, is a term that implies

that a leader has an exaggerated feeling of self-importance, a strong sense of entitlement, and an

extreme love of self (Duchon & Drake, 2009). Cooper (2011) posits that the characteristics that

describe a narcissistic leader can be divided into positive and negative categories. This

understanding of narcissistic leadership results in the concept that the positive qualities of strong

leaders can become toxic if they are not tempered. This paper investigates the thin line that often

separates toxic narcissistic leaders and positive leaders. Additionally, an examination of the life

of Paul indicates that narcissistic leaders can change from being toxic to positive as they give

their life to God and follow the Holy Spirit (Strom, 2006). The life of Paul provides a good

example for leaders who possess narcissistic qualities, but want to make a positive instead of a

toxic impact on organizations.


The Redemption of Paul’s Narcissistic Leadership

Americans generally equate positions with leadership as they refer to the individuals who

hold the highest positions in political, military, religious, and for-profit organizations as leaders.

Additionally, in terms of leadership, it is often viewed as a characteristic or quality that some

people possess as it distinguishes them from those who do not have it (Silva, 2014). As such,

leadership can come in a variety of shapes and sizes. It is evident that a significant number of

world leaders possess grandiose belief systems and leadership styles (Rosenthal & Pittinsky,

2006). The history of such leaders connects both the leaders’ rise to power and their ultimate

downfall to their narcissistic splendor. And while every author does not utilize the term

‘narcissistic’ to describe leaders, it is regularly used to portray individuals whose goals,

objectives, judgments, and decisions, both good and bad, are driven by a strong purpose,

arrogance, and self-absorption (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). The extent of purportedly

narcissistic leaders stretches from perceived dictators of history, including Adolf Hitler and

Saddam Hussein (Glad, 2002); historical figures such as Alexander Hamilton (Chernow, 2004); a

diverse group of business leaders, including Steve Jobs (Robins & Paulhaus, 2001) and Kenneth

Lay (Kramer, 2003); and perhaps a surprising list of more recent political figures, such as John

McCain (Renshon, 2001), George W. Bush (Krugman, 2005), and Benjamin Netanyahu (Kimhi,

2001).

While many of these leaders share a perceived history of disgraceful downfalls, the jury

is still out on the eventual success or failure of many. However, what truly ties them together in

their leadership was that they were led by their own egotistical needs for control, power and

esteem (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Judge, Piccolo, and Kosalka (2009) suggested that


narcissistic leaders possess a variety of negative characteristics including self-absorption, self-

love, entitlement, hostility, and arrogance. Accordingly, a key motivation leading narcissists is

that they seek leadership positions are their desire to acquire the power they need to rule their

world that supports their grandiose needs and visions.

Because many leaders have been described as narcissistic, this paper seeks to examine in

detail the positive and negative leadership traits that are associated with narcissistic leadership

and examine the difference between them. Additionally, a case study that examines the life of

Paul discusses some key factors that might determine whether a leader who possesses narcissistic

traits will be a positive or negative leader. Paul was found to be a very good case study for this

paper because of his conversion experience that clearly divides his life into two chapters.

DeSilva (2004) explains that before Paul’s conversion, he was more zealous and radical than his

peers as he tried to destroy Christians, but after his conversion, those sinful acts of leadership

were changed and aligned with God’s purposes.

Narcissism in Organizations

Every organization possesses some type of identity. They have names, occupy physical

space, and employ individuals to carry out specific duties. They possess certain attributes that

separates them from other organizations. Organizational identity can be defined as, “. . . central

and enduring attributes of an organization that distinguish it from other organizations” (Whetten,

2006, p.220). Such attributes of an organization allows them to legitimize claims of uniqueness

that provides them the ability to define a competitive sphere and to present itself as an ideal

player within that sphere. These attributes establish a structure that is shown in its policies and

procedures and provide a point of reference for decision-making and communication (Duchon &


Drake, 2009; Schein, 1992; Trice & Beyer, 1993). This point of reference ultimately serves as a

foundation for which an organization operates and stands as the embodiment of its beliefs and

ideas about the organization’s role and how the organization’s role will be defined. Narcissistic

leaders can have a great impact on organizations and their cultures as they exert their power,

which is often done in a toxic and negative manner.

While followers can be captivated by narcissistic leaders, followers are generally also

uneasy in regard to their relationship to them. Followers love them, hate them, like them, dislike

them, desire them, despise them, seek them out, and shun them, yet their desire to follow them is

endless due to the narcissistic leaders’ positive qualities (Gini & Green, 2012). And while there

is an appeal and fascination with leaders, narcissistic leadership spans the gamut between good

leadership and bad leadership. While the main focus of leadership studies and research has

related to positive leadership outcomes, events such as the collapse of Enron and WorldCom

have prompted debate and consideration of the toxic results of narcissistic and poor leadership

(Benson & Hogan, 2008).

In historic Greek mythology there was a young man named Narcissus. This young man

became so smitten with his own reflection in a pool, falling in love with the perfection of his

own reflection, that he ultimately died due to his own self-centeredness, selfishness and egotism.

Consequently the term narcissism was founded. Havelock Ellis (1898) coined the term to

describe a clinical condition of perverse self-love. Freud (1931/1950) suggested that a specific

narcissistic personality type exists that is characterized by outwardly composed strength,

confidence, and at times, arrogance. Narcissism is a term that typically signifies an individual

who possesses an extreme love of self, holding a strong sense of self-importance and a powerful


sense of entitlement (Duchon & Drake, 2009). The American Psychiatric Association (2000)

defines narcissism as a personality disorder characterized by ‘‘a pervasive pattern of grandiosity,

need for admiration, and lack of empathy… and is present in a variety of contexts’’ (p. 717).

Primary characteristics of narcissism include grandiosity, an exaggerated sense of self-

importance and manipulation of others, lack of empathy, sense of entitlement, self-centeredness,

and a feeling of superiority and vanity (Nevicka, De Hoogh, Van Vianen, Beersma, & McIlwain,

2011). Additionally, narcissistic behaviors are generally viewed as ego-defense mechanism used

to strengthen a fragile sense of self (Duchon & Drake, 2009). Narcissistic individuals crave

admiration and are persistently concerned with how well they are doing as well as how favorably

they are regarded by others. They need constant validation from the external world and require

an audience in order to construct and maintain their grandiose self (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). It

is this narcissistic elaborate sense of self-importance which leads them to believe they are

exceptional individuals relative to others. Research has shown that narcissists generally consider

their abilities above their peers and colleagues. They overestimate their performance (Farwell &

Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998), their leadership potential (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006) and their

contribution in comparison to how they are rated by others (John & Robins, 1994). Additionally

narcissists tend to overestimate their physical and mental attributes, such as their level of

(physical) attractiveness (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008), their intelligence (Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee,

1994), and their positive personality characteristics (Paulhus, 1998). Knowing that narcissists are

concerned with proving their superiority publicly, they would delight in a chance to enter highly

interdependent and interactive social setting where the opportunity exists for them to exhibit


themselves. For a narcissist, then, social interactions signify settings for the representation of

social manipulations and self-presentations (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001).

Cooper (2011) proposes that there are actually two sides of narcissistic leadership as

some of the narcissistic leadership traits are praised, while other aspects of it are shunned.

Table 1: Aspects of Narcissistic Leadership (Cooper, 2011)

Positive Negative

Vision Selfishness

Energy Greed

Creativity Lust for power

Drive

Motivation

Charisma

Star power

Success

Initiative

Innovativeness

Insensitivity

Ambition

Grandiosity/ Arrogance

Ruthlessness

Demands for unquestioned allegiance

Sense of entitlement

Lack of empathy

Cooper’s list of positive and negative qualities of narcissistic leaders is important because it

shows the thin line that often exists between a strong and good leader and a toxic, narcissistic

leader.

Positives Aspects of Narcissistic Leadership


For the past two decades, an ongoing applied research study found that high-performing

business leaders possess a common set of leadership characteristics and practices that allow them

to regularly produce exceptional performance. The successful leaders create clear focus on

desired outcomes, properly equip their operations for high performance and build strong working

relationships. Leaders in this group work diligently to create a climate where processes and

people are constantly developed and employees receive continuing feedback and coaching

(Longenecker, 2011). These qualities that focus on innovation, energy, and creativity are all

positive aspects of narcissistic leadership.

One of the important factors that have evolved in the literature that has helped to separate

toxic, narcissistic leaders from positive leaders is integrity. Integrity indicates that a person is

trustworthy, ethical, and honest. Important indicators of integrity include (a) the ability to keep

promises, (b) the ability to keep confidential information secret, and (c) the ability to take

responsibility for one’s actions (Yukl, 2006). According to Yukl, integrity is customarily linked

to ethical leadership (2006). Furthermore, not only is integrity important to ethical leadership,

but it also appears to be important for effective leadership (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008).

McCall and Lombardo (1983) found a correlation between integrity and successful leadership as

well as an association with lack of integrity and leadership ineffectiveness. Moreover, McCall

and Lombardo suggest that a manager’s actions must be consistent with his/her promises. They

observed, “Integrity . . . seems to be the core method of keeping a large, amorphous organization

from collapsing on its own confusion” (p.11).

In terms of integrity and positive leadership, there are behaviors associated with

narcissism that are important indicators that a leader lacks integrity. Particularly, narcissists fail


to admit when they have made a mistake and often blame others for errors that they might make.

Additionally, narcissists have a tendency to exploit and manipulate others to reach their own

goals (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985). They often want to take superfluous credit for success. As

such, narcissistic leaders are less likely to engage in pro-social organizational behavior and more

likely to deceive and violate integrity principles (Chen, 2010). Essentially, they crave attention

and the acclimation of others so they always want the credit.

Kellerman (2004) makes a strong case for the consideration and studying of both sides of

the leadership equation. While most individuals are generally more drawn to the good guy

scenarios, Kellerman suggests that if one does not also seriously address the “worst-case

scenarios” people will remain susceptible to the famous warning, “Those who cannot remember

the past are condemned to repeat it.” (Kellerman, 2004). Unfortunately, says Kellerman, history

has revealed to us time and time again that people can achieve and maintain power and control

while being completely unethical and narcissistically self-serving.

Kellerman (2004) claims that there are a myriad of reasons for bad leadership. While

leaders can simply be guilty of making an honest mistake, this is not always the case. They can

be lazy, inept, and corrupt. They can also dictators with an autocratic style of leadership. They

can lack cognitive intelligence and emotional intelligence. Worse, they can be malignant

narcissists who are heartlessly aggressive and sociopathic in their relations with all others,

including family, friends, and foes (Gini & Green, 2012). Narcissistic leaders are willing to run

over anybody who is standing in their way.

Toxic, narcissistic leadership can take a toll on corporate culture, organizational morale,

and company profits. Additionally many bad leaders are compulsive liars, sociopathic in their


interactions with others and completely deceitful in their use of power. Because of their

ineffectiveness, these leaders have damaged the lives of both individuals and nations, and who,

in the business world, have had a negative financial impact on corporations (Gini & Green,

2012). They often leave at that point and others are left to fix the problems that they caused.

To consider the positive and negative aspects of narcissistic leadership, researchers have

classified what is referred to as the “bright side” and “dark side” of personality and narcissistic

leadership. On the positive side, researchers have examined and determined that successful

leaders can be characterized by high self-esteem, self-efficacy, and having control over one’s

emotion (O’Reilly, Doerr, Caldwell, & Chatman, 2014). Gupta and Spangler (2012) claimed

that the dominance and extraversion components of narcissism have positive effects on firm

performance in difficult environments and situations. Additional studies found that elements of

narcissism such as dominance and vision have positive results under certain conditions

(Campbell & Campbell, 2009). This is because not all of the traits that narcissistic leaders

possess are negative and they can actually do some good things as leaders.

Exhibited against the potentially positive results of narcissism is an array of evidence

detailing its negative impact. Narcissistic leaders are generally more likely to have unhappy

employees and create damaging workplaces (Thompson, 2011). Narcissists have also been

shown to hinder the exchange of information within organizations (Nevicka, De Hoogh, Van

Vianen, Beersma, & McIlwain, 2011) and to reject negative feedback.

Examining the Leadership of Paul before His Conversion

The biography of the apostle Paul can easily be divided into two sections: life before his

conversion and his life after his conversion. Paul was clearly a narcissistic leader before his


conversion and then the Holy Spirit’s work in his life changed his leadership from being

narcissistic to act as a more positive leader, yet his personality did not change. A closer

examination of the life of Paul reveals that there is often a thin line between a narcissistic leader

who brings negativity and toxic elements to organizations and strong leaders who share the same

general personality of the narcissistic leader but have submitted their lives to the leading of the

Holy Spirit.

Paul was born in Tarsus, the capital city of Cilicia and he was given the Jewish name

Saul by his parents (Goodspeed, 1947). Tarsus was large city that was located on the old trade

route that connected Rome and Asia. This enabled Paul to learn many things from the

Hellenistic traditions and develop a broad understanding of the world during the reign of

Augustus (Harrer, 1940). Paul was a Roman citizen and also a Hebrew, so his father or another

male ascendant would have likely been granted Roman freedom at some point in their family

history (Herrer, 1940). Paul was raised in a middle-class household, but he was not a part of the

wealthy and elite society.

Even though Paul’s family was not in the top level of society in regards to wealth, his

family was very devout in their faith and Paul had a future as a Jewish leader. Paul was raised in

a Pharisaic home in which he studied the Law at a young age and he was very proud of his

Jewish tradition (Deissmann, 1972). As a result of his family’s heritage, education, and time in

Jerusalem, Paul belonged to a committed and elite group of Pharisaic Jews who had the

reputation of strictly interpreting the law (Awwad, 2011).

Paul received a top-notch Jewish education as a child in Tarsus, but then he moved to

Jerusalem to study under the great teacher Gamaliel when he was around 12-13 years old


(Sanders, 1991). He was taught by this group that it was possible for a Jew be in right standing

with God if they lived a pious and good life. This sense of superiority was the basis of the pride

of the Pharisees (Goodspeed, 1947). Thus, Paul was not simply an ordinary Jew, but a fanatic

who thought of himself as blameless before God (Awwad, 2011), which led to an inflated ego.

Paul became very prideful regarding his childhood, training, and education (Martin,

1964). Stom (2006) describes his way of thinking as “A closed circle of elitist logic assured the

noble man of his superiority” (p. 5). In this way, Paul’s childhood developed many narcissistic

tendencies such as: (a) sense of entitlement, (b) selfishness, (c) lust for power, (d) insensitivity,

and (e) demands for unquestioned allegiance (Cooper, 2011). Paul had a very strong personality,

an excellent Jewish education, and the desire to move up the ranks in Judaism. His narcissistic

tendencies were magnified as he persecuted the church.

Paul took the responsibility of persecuting the church with great zeal (Sanders, 1991).

Paul explains this zeal in Galatians 1:13-14,

For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the

church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism

beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely

jealous for my ancestral traditions.

Paul displayed these jealous fits for Judaism by taking his persecution of the church to great

extremes. Paul states in Acts 22:5 that the high priest and all of the Jewish leaders knew of his

extreme zeal as he sought letters from them to have the authority to arrest Christians in

Damascus and bring them back to Jerusalem. This trip to Damascus was a large undertaking as


it was approximately 100 miles north of Jerusalem (Swindoll, 2002). However, Paul did more

than simply imprison Christians for their faith. Acts 26:9-10 states,

So then, I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of

Nazareth. And this is what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up saints in prisons,

having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to

death I cast my vote against them.

Paul’s motives were most likely twofold. On one hand, he viewed himself as a defender

of the Jewish faith, but he also looked forward to the day when he could become a member of the

Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin (Swindoll, 2002). As a narcissistic leader who displayed

arrogance, a sense of entitlement, ruthlessness, and a lust for power, Paul was very successful in

his persecution of the church. Wiersbe (1989) explains Paul’s mindset:

Jesus of Nazareth is dead. Do you expect me to believe that a crucified nobody is the

promised Messiah? According to our Law, anybody who is hung on a tree is cursed.

Would God take a cursed false prophet and make him the Messiah? No! His followers

are preaching that Jesus is both alive and doing miracles through them. But their power

comes from Satan, not God. This is a dangerous sect, and I intend to eliminate it before it

destroys our historic Jewish faith” (p. 438).

The combative tone and competitive spirit that Paul had before his conversion were

characteristics that were common to elite groups in which people were selfish and lusted for

power (Murphy-O’Connor, 1996), which embodies the traits of a narcissistic leader.

Paul’s Leadership after His Conversion


Saul was nearing the end of his journey to Damascus to persecute the church when we

was blinded and finally recognized the ultimate power in life comes God (Wilson, 2014). The

Damascus road conversion was a supernatural and magnificent event that clearly resulted in a

complete overhaul for Paul’s beliefs and theology (Awwad, 2011). As a result of Paul’s

encounter with God on the road to Damascus, Paul lost his sight and waited in a house in

Damascus for Ananias to come, lay hands on him, and pray for him (Acts 9). At this point,

Rabens (2009) explains that Paul had an infusion of the Holy Spirit and the trajectory of Paul’s

leadership changed from being a narcissistic leader to a strong leader that was controlled by God.

Paul’s personality did not change as a result of his conversion, but his spirit, mind, and

body changed as he exchanged a lust for personal power to a desire to serve God no matter the

cost. Paul spent close to three years in solitude after the Damascus road experience and during

that time his entire life, including his leadership style was changed. Stott (1968) explains that:

He went into Arabia for quiet and solitude. He seems to have stayed there for three

years. In this period of withdrawal, as he meditated on the Old Testament Scriptures, on

the facts of the life and the death of Jesus that he already knew and on his experience of

conversion, the gospel of the grace of God was revealed to him in its fullness. Now he

had Jesus to himself, as it were, for three years of solitude in the wilderness. (p. 34)

Paul desperately needed those years to spend with God so that he could rework his theology and

his way of living. It was during this time that Paul was radically transformed from a narcissistic

leader to a positive leader. His personality remained the same, but he gave the control of his life

to God.


After this time, Paul was given the name of Paul, instead of the name Saul that he had

received as a child. Paul means little, but the idea that Paul is small was most likely not given

purely because of his physical stature. McDonough (2006) explains that the name change that is

recorded in Acts 13 is symbolic, as he made the transition from a proud “big man” who

oppressed the church to a servant of the “little” messianic offspring of David. This name change

was significant because Paul’s time, leadership meant rank, position, right, and responsibility as

the social network of the time was like a modern pyramid scheme in which those at the top never

really worked as they worked to impress others (Strom, 2006). Strom (2006) continues to

explain that the entire social network hinged on ancient demarcations of rank such as free, slave,

and many other levels that separated those who were born free. Therefore, it is important to note

that Paul’s entire worldview was changed by God as he no longer desired the prestige and power

associated with Jewish leadership, but he wanted to use his leadership influence to strengthen the

church, many times at his own personal expense and eventually his life (Dailey, 1990). Paul lost

his selfish ambition as his only ambition became one of making Christ known to all people (Rom

15:20).

This attitude change caused Paul to be much less rigid in his interactions with people. He

could no longer gallivant and act as a toxic narcissistic leader. Essentially, Paul’s leadership

changed from one that tried to make everybody conform to his strict understanding of Judaism to

being a leader who became all things to all people (Strom, 2006; 1 Cor 9:22). The leadership

framework that Paul had before his conversion was radically changed and his leadership and

work after his conversion was radical as he worked to “neutralize the grip of every social

convention that tied the hearts and minds of his co-workers and converts to the current world


order” (Strom, 2006, p. 4). Paul still had vision, motivation, charisma, initiative, and many other

positive traits that Cooper (2011) describes as positive aspects of narcissistic leaders, but his

leadership was quite different from the current idea of leadership of Paul’s time. “We think of

Paul as a leader, but in the terms of his own day, perhaps it is becoming clearer that he was anti-

leadership. Leadership equaled rank. But not for Paul, as he had seen in the example of Jesus”

(Strom, 2006, p. 6). The leadership of Paul and Jesus focused on the Kingdom of God and other

people, and often meant suffering and service for the leader.

Effective leaders must demonstrate boldness amid opposition. While Paul was regularly

met with opposition and often hostility, he persisted with his message despite these hardships.

This demonstrated his concern for the truth, not private gain (Morris, 1991). Paul’s leadership

style was one in which he exerted influence without asserting authority. In 1 Thessalonians 2:6

Paul states, “even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.” This refers

to demands that the apostle might have made on the Thessalonians for both physical and

financial support. Instead than doing this, Paul worked diligently so as not to be a burden. He

lived on what he earned as a tentmaker in addition to the offerings from the Philippians. In doing

this, Paul further demonstrated the purity of his motives which, in turn, gave him a platform for

influence that did not rely on the authority of his title or position (Whittington, Pitts, Kageler, &

Goodwin, 2005).

In writing to the church in Ephesus, Paul specifically addressed the relationships between

masters and slaves. In one passage (Eph. 6:5–9), Paul reminds both parties that they are to treat

each other with respect “as to the Lord” and then clearly tells the masters to “give up


threatening.” Although Paul possessed the ability to operate from a narcissistic position, his pure

motives allowed him to operate from position of selflessness.

Because of his pure motives, Paul was able to be honest and open with his followers. In

the ancient Mediterranean world, those who admit publically that they were wrong would be

viewed as weak, but that is precisely what Paul does in 1 Cor 15:8-10 as he admits that he made

some mistake in his understanding of Christ and the actions that he took before he became a

Christian (Joubert, 2013). This added a moral dimension to Paul’s leadership.

Paul used his leadership to influence people on a moral level (Berry, 2010). Rabens

(2009) posits that one’s “moral life should be the natural outflow of the transformed nature of the

believers which results from this infusion” (p. 299). Paul’s life was changed when he had an

infusion of the Holy Spirit and now his entire leadership paradigm was changed. Instead of

using violence and intimidation to force people to change, Paul’s leadership became very

thoughtful and deliberate. As Paul interacted with people, he worked to “get individuals within

the group or the group as a whole to adopt certain values, goals, practices, or behaviors” (Berry,

2010, p. 2). Paul urged his followers to live his new type of lifestyle in which he is imitating

Jesus Christ (Clarke, 1998; 1 Cor 11:1).

Paul’s teaching on sin supports the argument that leaders who are not controlled by the

Holy Spirit are likely to become narcissistic in their leadership (Berry, 2010). Paul even uses the

concept of personified power to illustrate the nature of sin that seeks to enslave and dominate

people (Rom 6:12; 6:20; 7:14). Those who do not know Christ are slaves to sin and under the

power of Satan, but the death to life dynamic that Paul explains in Romans 6 emphasizes the new

life and identity that Christians can have in Christ as they are controlled by the Holy Spirit


(Berry, 2010). Ejenobo posits that “spiritual influence is only possible with those who live and

walk in the Spirit” (p. 70). It is interesting to note that in the life of Paul, God gave him a

physical thorn in the flesh and different health issues to remind him that he was a human being

who was always in need (Deissmann, 1972). This caused Paul to learn that his strengths were

really found in his weaknesses when Christ could be seen most clearly (Deissmann, 1972). It is

easy for leaders to become prideful when they experience success, but God used Paul’s frail

body and health problems to remind him that he was dependent on God for everything that he

does and even for his physical health.

A final aspect of Paul’s change in leadership was that he was able to add a tender nature

to his personality that helped him to balance his harsh side (Deissmann, 1972). Paul frequently

wept with those who were suffering (Deissmann, 1972), which is ironic considering the life that

Paul lived before his conversion. Even after his conversion, Paul retained an attitude of

intolerance that was used by God as he clearly did not tolerate his opponents and those who were

not doing the will of God (Deissmann, 1972). However, it is the balance that the Holy Spirit

provided in the life of Paul that allowed him to use his natural narcissistic leadership style for

God’s glory and to build the church. When Paul became a Christian, he perceived the glory of

God that his main goal in life was the encourage others to follow God (Duff, 2008). His selfish

ambition and pride were washed clean by the work of God in his life.

Implications for Christian Leaders who Possess Narcissistic Traits

Given the many attributes and examples of narcissistic leaders, one might wonder how

any strong case might be made for an upside. Regardless of the advisability of placing

narcissists in leadership positions, the fact is that narcissists lead numerous countries,


organizations, and groups. Because of this, “the challenge . . . is to ensure that such leaders do

not self-destruct or lead . . . to disaster (Maccoby, 2000, p.71). A number of approaches have

been proposed to address this task. For example, Kets de Vries (1997) suggests safeguards such

as organizational checks and balances, honest feedback, and executive training to keep

narcissistic leaders in check. Kets de Vries and Miller (1997) recommend evading the problem

by limiting narcissists’ influence, transferring them out of harm’s way, and keeping

inexperienced and insecure subordinates out of their reach and influence. Finally, Kramer

(2003) suggests that narcissistic leaders should “retain a . . . sense of proportion and . . .self-

awareness” (p.64), ultimately keeping their lives simple, nurturing their humility, understanding

their weaknesses, and regularly reflecting on everything they do. While such suggestions may be

prudent for those who may wish to enhance and improve their leadership abilities, it is far from

clear that they will be the types of practices to which any narcissist would be agreeable

(Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006).

An examination of the leadership throughout the life of Paul indicates that he started as a

toxic narcissistic leader and developed into an effective leader who still retained the personality

of a narcissistic leader. The difference between his two states of leadership was that his positive

leadership style was marked by the leading of the Holy Spirit. As the Holy Spirit worked in his

life, his humility was nurtured and he began to understand that his weaknesses were

opportunities to display the work and glory of God in his life. Paul’s nature was transformed by

God and this is ultimately the difference between toxic narcissistic leaders and leaders who

naturally have narcissistic personalities that are able to be viewed as positive leaders. This is the

crux of Paul’s message in Romans that explains how Christians needs to have their mind and


nature renewed so that they can live a life that is worthy of the calling that God has placed on

them.


References

American Psychiatric Association: 2000, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,

4th Edition. Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) (American Psychiatric Association,

Washington, D.C.).

Awwad, J. (2011). From Saul to Paul: The Conversion of Paul the Apostle. Theological

Review, 32(1), 1-14.

Benson, M.J., & Hogan, R.S. (2008). How dark side leadership personality destroys trust and

degrades organizational effectiveness. Organizations and People, 15(3), 10-18.

Berry, W. (2010). Paul, people, and pointing the way: exploring the relationship between Paul's

anthropology and his practice of leadership. Restoration Quarterly, 52(1), 1-17.

Blair, C., Hoffman, B., & Helland, K. (2008). Narcissism in organizations: A multisource

appraisal reflects different perspectives. Human Performance, 21(3), 254-276.

Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1303–1314.

Campbell, W. K., & Campbell, S. M. (2009). On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the

peculiar benefits and costs of narcissism: A contextual reinforcement model and

examination of leadership. Self and Identity, 8(2), 214–232.

Chen, S. (2010). Bolstering unethical leaders: The role of the media, financial analysts and

shareholders. Journal of Public Affairs, 10(3), 200–215.

Chernow, R. (2004, July 11). Alexander Hamilton's last stand. The New York Times, 13

(Section 4).

Clarke, A. D. (1998). 'Be imitators of me': Paul's model of leadership. Tyndale Bulletin, 49(2),


329-360.

Cooper, M. J. (2011). I’m number one! Biblical perspectives on narcissistic leadership. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Christian Business Faculty Association.

Dailey, T. F. (1990). To live or die: Paul's eschatological dilemma in Philippians 1:19-

26. Interpretation, 44(1), 18-28.

DeSilva, D. A. (2004). An Introduction to the New Testament. Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity

Press.

Deissmann, A. (1972). Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. Gloucester, Mass: Harper

& Row.

Duchon, D., & Drake, B. (2009). Organizational narcissism and virtuous behavior. Journal of

Business Ethics, 85(3), 301-308.

Duff, P. B. (2008). Transformed “from glory to glory”: Paul's appeal to the experience of his

readers in 2 Corinthians 3:18. Journal of Biblical Literature, 127(4), 759-780.

Ejenobo, D. (2009). The mystical element in Paul's theology of the Holy Spirit: An African

interpretation. Asia Journal of Theology, 23(1), 69-81.

Ellis, H. (1898). Auto-eroticism: A psychological study. Alienist and Neurologist, 19, 260−299.

Farwell, L., & Wohlwend-Lloyd, R. (1998). Narcissistic processes: Optimistic expectations,

favorable self-evaluations, and self-enhancing attributions. Journal of Personality, 66(1),

65–83.

Freud, S. (1931/1950). Libidinal types. Collected papers, Vol. 5. London: Hogarth Press.


Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic illusions in self-evaluations of

intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 143–155.

Gini, A., & Green, R.M. (2012). Bad Leaders/Misleaders. Business & Society Review, 117(2),

143-154.

Glad, B. (2002). Why tyrants go too far: Malignant narcissism and absolute power. Political

Psychology, 23(1), 1−37

Goodspeed, E. J. (1947). Paul. Philadelphia, PA: The John C. Winston Company.

Gupta, A., & Spangler, W. D. (2012). The effect of CEO narcissism on firm performance. Paper

presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Boston.

Harrer, G. A. (1940). Saul who also is called Paul. Harvard Theological Review, 33(1), 19-33.

John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual

differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 66(1), 206–219

Joubert, S. S. (2013). “Seeing the error of my ways.” Revisiting Paul’s paradigmatic, self-critical

remarks in 1 Corinthians 15:8-10. Acta Theologica, 33(2), 74-89.

Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of

the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance,

leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4),

762–776.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A

review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership Quarterly,

20(6), 855-875.


Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1997). Leaders who self-destruct: The causes and cures. In R. P.

Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in

organizations (pp. 233−245). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1997). Narcissism and leadership: an object relations

perspective. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power

and influence in organizations (pp. 194−214). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre

Dame Press.

Kets de Vries, M. R., R., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An object relations

perspective. Human Relations, 38(6), 583-601.

Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership: What it is, why it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Review.

Kimhi, S. (2001). Benjamin Netanyahu: A psychological profile using behavior analysis. In O.

Feldman & L.O. Valenty (Eds.), Profiling political leaders (pp. 149−164). Westport, CT:

Praeger.

Kramer, R. M. (2003). The harder they fall. Harvard Business Review, 81(10) 58−66.

Krugman, P. (2005, October 14). Questions of character. The New York Times, A25.

Longenecker, C. (2011). Characteristics of really bad bosses. Industrial Management, 53(5), 10-

15.

Maccoby, M. (2000, January–February). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable

cons. Harvard Business Review, 69−77.


Martin, I. J. (1964). The Faith of Paul: A Study for Inquiring Christians. New York, NY:

Pageant Press, Inc.

McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful

executives get derailed (Tech. Rep. No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative

Leadership

McDonough, S. M. (2006). Small change: Saul to Paul, again. Journal of Biblical

Literature, 125(2), 390-391.

Morris, L. (1991). The first and second epistles to the Thessalonians, revised. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans.

Murphy-O’Connor, J. (1996). Paul: A Critical Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unravelling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-

regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196.

Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A., Van Vianen, A., Beersma, B., McIlwain, D. (2011). All I need is a

stage to shine: Narcissists’ leader emergence and performance. The Leadership

Quarterly, 22(5), 910-925.

O’Reilly, C.A., Doerr, B., Caldwell, D., & Chatman, J. (2014). Narcissistic CEO’s and

executive compensation. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 218-231.

Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A

mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197–1208.

Rabens, V. (2009). The Holy Spirit and ethics in Paul: transformation and empowering for

religious-ethical life. Tyndale Bulletin, 60(2), 299-300.


Renshon, S. A. (2001). The comparative psychoanalytic study of political leaders: John McCain

and the limits of trait psychology. In O. Feldman & L.O. Valenty (Eds.), Profiling

political leaders (pp. 233−253). Westport, CT: Praeger

Robins, R. W., & Paulhus, D. L. (2001). The character of self-enhancers: implications for

organizations. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the

workplace (pp. 193−219). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Rosenthal, S., & Pittinsky, T. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6),

617-633.

Sanders, E. P. (1991). Paul: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Schein, E. H. (1993). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd Edition. San Francisco:

Jossey- Bass.

Silva, A. (2014). What do we really know about leadership? Journal of Business Studies

Quarterly, 5(4), 1-4.

Stott, R. W. (1968). The Message of Galatians: Only One Way. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity

Press.

Strom, M. (2006). Paul and the reframing of leadership. Stimulus: The New Zealand Journal Of

Christian Thought & Practice, 14(2), 2-10.

Swindoll, C. R. (2002). Paul: A Man of Grace and Grit. Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The Culture of Work Organizations. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of

organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219-234.


Whittington, J.L, Pitts, T.M., Kageler, W.V., & Goodwin, V.L. (2005). Legacy leadership: The

leadership wisdom of the apostle Paul. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 749-770.

Wiersbe, W. (1989). The Bible Exposition Commentary. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook

Communications Ministries.

Wilson, B. E. (2014). The blinding of Paul and the power of God: Masculinity, Sight, and Self-

Control in Acts 9. Journal of Biblical Literature, 133(2), 367-387.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Documents

Running head: PAUL’S NARCISSISTIC NATURE 1 · Running head: PAUL’S NARCISSISTIC NATURE 1 ... downfall to their narcissistic splendor. ... narcissistic personality type exists