Measures of other concepts that are related to CEO narcissism

Evolution of research on CEO hubris

Rather than examine CEO narcissism, many researchers have investigated an overlapping but distinct characteristic: CEO hubris.  The academic investigation into CEO hubris can be traced to the 1980s.  Roll (1986), for example, defined hubris as unwarranted overconfidence.  According to Rolls, because of this hubris or unwarranted overconfidence, many CEOs pay excessive amounts to acquire other firms, because they overestimate their capacity to integrate these organisations and to leverage synergies. CEO hubris thus explains many instances of incurred losses after mergers and acquisitions (for a nuanced perspective, see Aktas et al., 2009).

Over the next couple of decades, researchers then explored other detrimental effects of this unwarranted overconfidence or hubris.  For example,

• if CEOs exhibit hubris—as measured by the degree to which they overestimate the financial performance of their firm—they tend to invest in risky strategies, such as novel technologies, especially if granted more discretion and power (Li & Tang, 2010),
• when CEOs exhibits hubris, they and their executives tend to overlook trends, changes, and opportunities in their industry, culminating in obsolete strategies (Li & Sullivan, 2022)—especially if they have already invested heavily in physical resources in research and development,
• if CEOs demonstrate hubris, rather than caution, their firm is more likely to perpetrate socially irresponsible behaviour rather than socially responsible behaviour—except when the market is uncertain and the organisation must depend on stakeholders to secure resources (Tang et al., 2015),
• if CEOs exhibit various indicators of hubris—such as ownership of more than 5% of the shares—financial misreporting is more common (Cormier et al., 2016),
• when CEOs are characterised as overconfident rather than cautious in shareholder reports, epitomising hubris, the operations at the firm tend to be inefficient—as measured by elevated operating expenses, labour costs, and fixed assets relative to the operating income, net profit after tax, and environmental, social, and governance performance (Lin & Lin, 2025),
• similarly, when CEOs are characterised as overconfident rather than cautious, the research and development activities of the firm tend to be inefficient—as measured by the cost of research and development relative to the market value of the firm and patents (Lin & Lin, 2025).

To characterise this hubris, Owen and Davidson (2009) proposed an attribute called hubris syndrome.  Unlike other personality disorders, these researchers characterised hubris syndrome as acquired—a tendency that evolves over time while leaders retain power, experience success, but with limited constraint. Under these conditions, individuals overestimate the likelihood of future success, underestimate the problems that could unfold, and disparage anyone who challenges their perceptions.  Owen and Davidson (2009) suggested that hubris is a disorder of the position, and not of the person, and thus dissipates when individuals depart from this role.  Although regarded as destructive (e.g., Tourish, 2019), some researchers have also explored the possibility that hubris can be beneficial in particular settings (for discussions, see Picone et al., 2021; Zeitoun et al., 2019). For example,

• CEO hubris may be positively associated with innovation (Arena et al., 2018; Li, Liu, et al., 2025), partly because hubris might encourage the risks that are necessary to pursue novel possibilities,
• when CEOs exhibit hubris, the greenhouse gas emissions of their firm tend to diminish—especially if the board comprises many women (Kwabi et al., 2024)—because these individuals ambitiously pursue goals that enhance their reputation.

Defining features of hubris

In their influential and entertaining paper, Owen and Davidson (2009) delineated 14 clinical features of what they called hubris syndrome—a syndrome that emanates from extensive periods of unmitigated power.  These scholars also indicated which of these clinical features overlap with narcissism, anti-social personality disorder, and histrionic personality disorder. Here are some examples of these clinical features

• Excessive confidence in their judgment—and contempt towards the advice or criticism they receive [overlaps with narcissistic personality disorder]
• An unshakeable belief that, in the court in which they are accountable—history or god—they will be vindicated [unique to hubris]
• A tendency to enable their broad vision, about the moral rectitude of a proposed course, to obviate the need to consider practicality, cost, or outcomes [unique to hubris]
• Diminished contact with reality, often associated with progressive isolation [overlaps with antisocial personality disorder]
• Because of this overconfidence, they show incompetence because they do not worry about details and policy [histrionic personality disorder]
• A propensity to perceive their world primarily as an arena in which to exercise power and seek glory [overlaps with narcissistic personality disorder]
• Restlessness, recklessness, and impulsiveness [unique to hubris].

The distinction between CEO hubris and narcissism: Intoxication of power versus intoxication of self

According to Asad and Sadler-Smith (2020), CEO hubris and CEO narcissism are both related to positions of power but for different reasons.  In essence

• experiences of power and success foster the unwarranted overconfidence that characterises CEO hubris
• therefore, in this sense, unmitigated power is a cause of hubris,
• in contrast, narcissistic individuals often seek power to fulfil their fundamental motives: to attract status and admiration;
• hence, in this sense, positions of power are a consequence of narcissism—a means these individuals utilise to fulfill their needs.

Asad and Sadler-Smith (2020) collate many strands of evidence that show how experiences of power foster the hallmarks of hubris or unwarranted overconfidence.  To illustrate, when people experience a sense of power

• they tend to discount the advice of other people and instead use their personal judgments inordinately (See et al., 2011),
• they also overestimate their capacity to control or to shape outcomes (Fast et al., 2009),
• because of this optimism, they embrace risky decisions (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006)—decisions that often do not generate a return on investment,
• and hence, individuals in positions of power often display features that epitomise hubris.

In contrast, the narcissistic personality inventory and other measures imply that narcissism comprises several distinct facets, such as a need to be perceived as superior, a need to be regarded as special or entitled, and the need to be admired.  Narcissistic individuals, therefore, often seek positions of power as an efficient means to fulfill these needs.  

The distinction between CEO hubris and overconfidence

Many researchers utilise the terms hubris and overconfidence interchangeably. Indeed, hubris is often defined as unwarranted overconfidence (Roll, 1986).  Likewise, researchers frequently utilise the same methods to gauge hubris and overconfidence.   For example

• to measure overconfidence in CEOs, Chen et al. (2015) ascertained the degree to which each individual was depicted as confident in the media—epitomised by words like optimistic—rather than cautious—epitomised by words like conservative, frugal, or not confident,
• other researchers, such as Tang et al. (2015, 2018), utilised the same method to measure hubris.

Nevertheless, over time, the literature seems to imply that hubris and overconfidence may be distinct.  For example,

• hubris, but not necessarily overconfidence, has been ascribed to previous and sustained periods of power, success, and validation (e.g., Hayward et al., 2006)
• some methods that researchers utilise to assess overconfidence have not been applied to gauge hubris,
• for example, to measure overconfidence, Chen et al. (2015) determined whether the CEO, during a specific period, decided to retain rather than exercise their stock options, even when the stock price now exceeded the stock price at the time of purchase by more than 100%.

Perhaps more relevant is a conference paper, published by Oladimeji and Harrison (2021) in the Academy of Management Proceedings.  These authors proposed the differential referents paradigm.  According to this framework, hubris implies the CEO believes their capabilities are superior to the abilities of other people. In contrast, overconfidence implies the CEO believes their capabilities exceed the abilities that are needed to achieve some goal.  After conducting a meta-analysis, Oladimeji and Harrison (2021) revealed that hubris, as they defined this term, tends to compromise various facets of firm performance, whereas overconfidence can enhance the same facets. 

Measures of CEO hubris

Researchers have utilised a variety of methods to gauge or estimate the hubris of CEOs or other leaders.  The following table illustrates some of these methods

Attempts to estimate CEO hubris from the language they express

Arguably, hubris could shape the language that individuals articulate.  If so, researchers and practitioners could analyse the language of leaders to measure hubris.  Several studies have explored this possibility (e.g., Akstinaite et al., 2020; Craig & Amernic, 2014, 2018; Garrard et al., 2014).  To illustrate, in an illuminating study, Akstinaite et al. (2020) identified

• five CEOs who exhibit significant hubris: Steve Jobs, Howard Schultz, Elon Musk, Jamie Dimon, and Travis Kalanick as well as
• five CEOs who do not exhibit significant hubris: Jeff Bezos, Mark Parker, Robert Iger, Mike Bloomberg, and John Chambers.

Specifically, to identify CEOs who exhibit hubris, the researchers first searched terms like CEO and hubris in business journals and media articles.  To identify CEOs who do not exhibit hubris, the researchers identified leaders who prevail on various rankings.  Finally, the authors subjected the responses of these CEOs during interviews to the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program—software that classified text. For example, this program can identify the frequency with which individuals articulate

• words that are related to money
• words that are related to negation, such as no or never
• auxiliary verbs—verbs that support a main verb, such as have, be, and do.

This research uncovered linguistic features that differentiate CEOs who exhibit hubris from CEOs who do not exhibit hubris.  For example, CEOs who exhibit hubris were especially like to

• articulate words that relate to reward, money, or power, such as “spending a lot of money gives me fame, money, and power”,
• express certainty and negation, such a “I can certainly say that I will never try this strategy”,
• refrain from words that seem positive or refer to friendship, such as “I love my job and my colleagues”.

As Akstinaite et al. (2020) suggested, organisations could utilise the results of this study to estimate the degree to which applicants, seeking a leadership role, exhibit the hallmarks of hubris.