Does your leadership behavior help or hurt your people and organization?

Does your leadership behavior help or hurt your people and organization?

Leadership, Culture and Narcissism:

Dr. Patricia Gianotti

Woodland Group, US

Dr. Hoh Kim

THE LAB h, Korea

Leadership, Narcissism, Flexibility

01

“The Blind Side” (2009), a movie based on a true story that won Sandra Bullock an Academy Award for Best Actress, starts with a scene showing one of the most tragic incidents in American football history. On November 18th, 1985, during a match between Washington Redskins and New York Giants, Theismann, Washington Redskins quarterback, was blitzed by New York Giants linebackers Lawrence Taylor. As Taylor pulled Theismann down, Taylor's knee came down and drove straight into Theismann's lower right leg. Giants’ other players then joined Taylor in the sack, fracturing both the tibia and the fibula of Theismann's lower right leg. Theismann’s career abruptly ended as a result of the incident, and the promising football player had to give up his career as a football player and turn into a sports commentator. This tragic incident brought some change to the football community. The salary of a left tackle rose to the second highest in the team as the left tackle is in charge of protecting a right-handed quarterback, serving as a team leader, from being hit from behind known as his “blind side”.

What life lessons can be learned from this tragic story? For corporate leaders, three major lessons come to mind. The first is that everyone has a blind side, no matter how successful or skillful you become. For example, when a CEO has a meeting with executives or gives a presentation to employees, the only person who unable to act as an observer in the situation is the CEO her/himself. In other words, as leaders we are often the last person to see ourselves objectively. Second, reliable feedback is the only way to counter the blind side. Just like we check ourselves in the mirror to make sure that nothing is

Does your leadership behavior help or hurt your people and organization1?

Leadership, Culture and Narcissism:

1 The Korean version of this article was originally published in Dong-A Business Review ( July 2017, Issue 1, No. 228, pp. 134-141) in Seoul, Korea (in Korean language). This is the full translation of the Korean article.


02

on our faces or rely on rear view mirrors to check any danger, leaders need someone to help them find their own blind sides. The blind side, as the name suggests, is nearly impossible to recognize on one’s own. Leaders who are unwilling or disinterested in receiving feedback are no different from those who don’t have a mirror to reflect their image back or who have only a distorted mirror that doesn’t tell the truth. Third, while everyone has a blind side, the higher you go up, the wider your blind side can be as it becomes harder to get candid feedback. If leaders keep turning a blind eye to the blind side, it is likely to create a risk that will eventually endanger not only their career, it often affects the profit and stability of an organization as well.

It is risky business not to build in safeguards to counteract the blind side. In the corporate world, that risk ultimately boils down to a failure of leadership. Good leadership involves creating systems and structures where honest feedback can “catch” an organization before it falls. That requires implementing a system of checks and balances, where the potential blindsides of those in positions of power and authority are required to receive frequent, honest, and direct feedback.

1 One of the authors (Hoh Kim) had an opportunity to analyze the movie <Blind Side> with a film producer from a leadership context for a conglomerate and ran a seminar. At this seminar, the first scene was one of the most important discussion topics.

When it comes to being at the helm of an organization, leaders essentially have two major responsibilities.

First, they are responsible for generating results (e.g. maximizing profits). For this, they control costs and improve customer satisfaction. In most companies structures have been put into place to help leaders manage these areas of responsibility. More importantly, a CEO comes with a leadership team, comprised of individuals who are appointed to critical positions within the organization that allow them access to the CEO to give feedback around potential blindspots. This feedback, however, is largely centered on how to maximize profits.

The second domain of leadership responsibility is securing sustained growth by managing risks. To this end, leaders must be committed to improving their business practices and employee skills, and make efforts to meet the needs of stakeholders. This way, leaders try to maintain business sustainability. (Please refer to Table 1)


03

Making Results Managing risks

Goal Maximizing profit Maintaining sustainability

What to do Controlling costs & Improving business practices & employee skills

Improving customer satisfaction Meeting the needs of stakeholders

Outcome High profit vs. low profit Open culture vs. closed culture

Analogy Making investment Buying insurance

Our focus in this article is on managing risks for leaders. We wish to shed particular light on how leaders influence the companies to form corporate cultures and how corporate cultures in turn influence the organization and the leadership. And ultimately we’d like to talk about the following three issues.

• First, why is it that many leaders fear honest feedback while they say that they encourage open corporate cultures? Does it have to do with psychological triggers such as feeling embarrassed if the leader’s blind spots get exposed? If so, is that psychological trigger possibly connected to ingrained cultural assumptions around what it means to receive feedback from those who are in a subordinate position? For example, is voicing a concern to upper management seen as an act of disloyalty or insubordination? Or, is the act of disagreeing with the leader seen as an attempt to shame the leader in front of others?

• Second, we are going to explore what characteristics open corporate cultures and closed corporate cultures have respectively. Toward that end we will be using a model called Continuum of Flexibility developed by the Woodland Group. This continuum provides leaders with identifiable areas where blind spots may emerge. The continuum also illustrates choices leaders can make when conflicts arise or they are given feedback that is negative or troublesome.

• Third, we will offer suggestions around what leaders can do to create flexible corporate cultures so that organizations remain vital and open to new ideas, thus giving them a competitive edge in the marketplace.


04

01

01Why it’s often difficulty to give and receive honest feedback:

“Employees feel forced to obey whatever instructions their boss gives them and often times, employees don’t think that sharing ideas is allowed. Bosses are not just coercive, but sometimes it feels like they treat their employees like servants. Superiors must fix their oppressive attitudes and should not yell at their employees.” This is part of what employees at one of Korea’s top 10 companies anonymously described about their bosses (September 19th, 2014) at a corporation evaluation social media site where only existing and former employees of the companies are allowed to write.

Few people would deny that the best place to feel the culture of an organization is the meeting room. Imagine a conference room at the Blue house, the presidential compound in Seoul or a boardroom at a big Korean company. It would be very common to see the highest-ranking leader speaking at the center of the room and the rest nodding and taking notes. Also, it is not difficult to find in Korea that presidents, lawmakers and CEOs refuse to take questions even at press conferences. In closed corporate cultures where sharing ideas between superiors and subordinates is not encouraged, employees are reluctant to speak out and report business risks to their bosses even when such dangers could be critical to the company’s survival. Every year we see big Korean companies faced with various crises. And their poor preventive measures and responses often make things worse.

Let’s take Korean Air and Samsung for example. In 2014 Korean Air came under fire when a daughter of the airline’s chairman threw a fit, angrily having the plane return to the gate of an airport, and last year Samsung had to recall all of its flagship model, Galaxy Note 7 smart phones, because of critical defects. Both companies fell into crisis because of the scandals and had to pay a huge price. Worse, in both cases, their inappropriate responses aggravated the situations they were in.

Korean Air was severely criticized by the public as the blame was placed on its employees for the crisis, and Samsung had to stop producing Galaxy Note 7 altogether as another defect was found in the second model which supposedly had addressed the defect in the original model. We wonder if things could have been better if the leaders and the employees of the companies actively communicated with each other to solve the problems.


05

01

In fact the lack of communication between members of an organization is quite common among businesses in many parts of the world. But it is especially so among Korean companies partially due to the tradition of Confucianism and the country’s two-year compulsory military service. It is CEOs and executives who are responsible for leading businesses. But it is, in fact, impossible for them to keep track of all the things happening including risk signals in their organizations.

So it seems only natural for them to have a blind side. If employees inform the leaders of the organization’s possible blind side, one would think that it ought to be viewed as a positive – because new information is what generally can avert a potential crisis. However, in reality that’s not always what happens. Often times, information is ignored or pushed under the rug in hopes of maintaining the status quo.

Therefore, by way of beginning, we invite you to treat this article as an invitation to press the pause button. We then ask that you to reflect upon areas that may not often be highly valued as measuring sticks, areas such as corporate culture and communication flow. We have found that inattention to these two components of leadership have the potential to create enormous risk to organizations. So, instead of trying to analyze a crisis after it has occurred, we invite you to explore with us several psychological factors often make it difficult for leaders to figure out their blind sides.

Many leaders say that they are open to different new ideas and are determined to make ensure that corporate cultures are open to new input. But, unfortunately the words and behaviors of many leaders’ often don’t match. Many employees report than when they do give feedback to their bosses, they are often dismissed, told they are wrong, or admonished for speaking out of turn. In Predictable Surprises, Max Bazerman of Harvard Business School and Michael Watkins of IMD warned that in a culture where candid feedback is not recognized and respected, people will wait until an actual crisis happens rather than trying to persuade their bosses to prevent one. Then, if corporations come under media attack for a misstep, feedback or “listening sessions” with employees will often follow.

However, in the majority of instances, once the media publicity dies down, very little significant change happens on an operational level. Needless to say, this leaves employees feeling demoralized, believing that their voices don’t matter, and as a result employee productivity often decreases. In addition, if the company does not address the source of the problem, it is likely to resurface at a future point in time.


06

01

Understanding the relationship between the positional power of a leader and the dynamics of giving and receive open feedback is a critically important aspect of corporate health and sustainability. Advancing up the corporate ladder means that leaders have less chance of getting honest feedback the higher the individual rises within an organization. Furthermore, the greater degree of positional power the individual has within an organization, the less challenging or opposing feedback the leader is likely to hear. Non-management employees have been reinforced to believe that it doesn’t pay to “speak truth to power”. Employees who agree with the leader and with management in general are rewarded far more frequently than those who raise concerns about safety, equity, or the potential risk of crossing ethical lines.

Because of this reluctance to give feedback to leaders, it means that the leader’s blind side gradually expands, leading to the potential for greater and greater risks. The stock market crash of 2008 in the US is a perfect example of the bubble bursting once the blind side had been exposed. In addition, due to the sense of personal pride that tends to increase over time for many leaders in positions of power, they falsely begin to believe that they know more than their employees about what is happening externally as well as within the day-to-day functioning of the organization as a whole. Rather than taking a periodic pulse from the various levels of the organization, leaders expect their employees to swiftly respond to their instructions because they believe that employees are not in touch with the bigger picture. Furthermore, many Korean leaders dismiss honest feedback from their employees as “negative” or disloyal.

This is partially attributable to Korea’s traditional culture. Koreans are, from an early age, expected to obey older people such as parents, teachers and even older friends. Being quiet is considered being good in Korea, and as a result Koreans grow to become reluctant to express their ideas in front of people who are older or have higher social status. This, combined with authoritative attitudes of bosses, reinforces closed corporate cultures in the country. According to the research by Erin Meyer of INSEAD, the author of Culture Map, Korea is one of the representative countries in delivering negative feedback indirectly, having a bigger psychological power distance between boss and subordinates, making top-down decisions, and avoiding conflicts.

In leadership communication, “assertive” is an important word. According to a dictionary definition, being assertive refers to “behaving in a confident way in which you are quick to express your opinions


07

01

and feelings”. It is important to note that being assertive is different from being aggressive. When speaking out, assertive people give the audience psychological space so that the audience themselves can be assertive about their own opinions. By contrast, aggressive people are only interested in pushing forward their ideas, not listening to others. While it is not difficult to find either aggressive or passive leaders, only a few leaders are truly assertive.

What is interesting about the former types of leaders is that both aggressive leaders and passive leaders are psychologically defensive. You may wonder how being aggressive is considered being defensive. It is because people tend to become aggressive when they are afraid that other people might disagree with them. They become aggressive in advance to prevent others from saying “no” to them. Of course, it is common sense that leaders should be mature enough to embrace different ideas, but that’s not always the case.

Another reason that some leaders are reluctant to create truly open corporate cultures where honest feedback is more than welcome has to do with their own personal sense of vulnerability or “narcissistic injury”. Saving face or pushing oneself to rise to the top is what drives most “narcissistically” reactive and defensive behavior. It is also one of the major causes of blind spots in the personality.

Power is intoxicating, even in the most psychologically healthy of individuals. However, if a person has latent or hidden insecurities around feelings of competency or self worth and they are given a position of power, the individual will likely be tempted to use that position of leadership to “prove” a sense of worthiness by acting superior. Insecure leaders need to make other people feel smaller in order to prove their position. Disagreement or criticism is threatening to self-esteem because these actions are experienced as shameful. In other words, the narcissistic leader often reacts to negative feedback as a personal attack, even if that feedback may ultimately be helpful to an organization. For the narcissistic leader, it is more important to punish individuals who disagree in order to reestablish a sense of superiority and regain a positive sense of self worth than it is to make modifications that will improve the stability and sustainability of the organization. Leaders are a part of a larger system, and as such they have an enormous amount of influence on that system. Using a framework of systemic analysis, we can quickly see that the leader sets the tone for how employees are treated, is responsible for how decisions are made, creates consistent accountability


08

structures to ensure that performance is rewarded fairly, oversees how information flows within the organization, and sets an example for how change is implemented.

Core questions to ask from a systemic vantage point are: 1. Does the leader think and behave in ways that help produce a closed system by not encouraging honest and open feedback? 2. Is the leader curious about new ideas, encouraging dialogue and feedback from all ranks in the organization?

One way to determine whether the leader is open or closed (and therefore whether a system is open or closed) is to measure how carefully the leader listens to what is being said, and how quickly the leader implements suggestions from feedback received.

Severely narcissistic individuals come across as being “impenetrable”. No matter what new ideas or concerns are presented, nothing gets in. In general, narcissist leaders are very difficult to influence, especially if what they are being told runs counter to their own prescribed beliefs and assumptions. Narcissistic leaders cannot readily accept new information and are often rigid in their thinking and behavioral expectations.

If no new information is allowed to get in to create an adjustment in the leaders views or strategies, this is the definition of a closed system. Narcissistic behavior is a style that doesn’t listen. It is a style that embodies an underlying attitude that the leader is most important and all knowing. If others challenge, the leader feels offended and punishes the individual rather than listen to feedback.

In contrast, the dynamics of healthy leadership allows for power to be shared and distributed, thus ensuring that decision-making and risk management is more comprehensive. In summary, when a leader respects the employee’s point of view and tries to put himself or herself in the employee’s shoes, not only is feedback encouraged and rewarded, it strengthens the organization as a whole.


09

02What measurable attributes and behaviors promote an open corporate culture?

Below you will find a graphic illustration produced by Dr. Patricia Gianotti and Stephen Gianotti of The Woodland Group, LLC. This graphic is designed to capture a continuum of capacities with regard to individuals in leadership positions. This continuum moves from left to right, from rigidity to flexibility in the realm of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. The more closed or rigid the individual, the more at risk the organization is in terms of becoming a closed system. Over time, closed leaders create a decrease in employee morale and productivity, as well as a system that is unable to adapt to the changing market place. On the other hand, the greater the flexibility of the leader, the more productive the employee, and the more open the system is to new ideas and adaptations, thus ensuring greater likelihood on long-term sustainability of the organization.

The C

ontinuum of N

arcissistic-Tendency Behaviors in the Workplace

© 2017 G

ianotti, Gianotti

Willin

gn

ess to

be in

fluen

ced

Em

otio

nal

Intellig

ence

Self R

eflection

Vu

lnerab

ility

Exp

ectation

s &

Stan

dard

s

Parad

ox &C

om

plexity

ThoughTs

Feelin

gs

Behavio

rs

ThoughTs

Feelin

gs

Behavio

rs

Various stages of knowing &

not knowing self &

others. Regularly or very often doesn’t consider self in relationship to others

More often than not, is in a state of self &

“other” awareness.

Thinks, feels & acts in relationship to others

T1-Believes in &

desires perfectionism

T2-Concrete, rigidly set ideas, difficult to convince/im

penetrable

T3-Minim

izes and/or fails to value the role of em

otions in hum

an interaction

T4-Lacks curiosity. Beliefs &

m

otives are unexamined &

unquestioned

T5-Sees vulnerability as w

eakness or failure, som

ething that must be

eradicated

T6-All or nothing thinking.

Lacks understanding of how

all things are related &

interdependent

F1-Feels superior to others, driven to prove self-w

orth

F2-Feels others are untrust-w

orthy, less competent,

and/or less intelligent

F3-Feels minim

al compas-

sion, nurturing, empathy

and/or comm

on courtesies

F4-Feels contempt or anxi-

ety around uncertainty

F5-Feels shame or loss of

control when vulnerability/

mistakes are exposed

F6-Feels overwhelm

ed, im

patient, or frustrated by com

plexity

B1-D

emands perfection &

absolute loyalty

B2-Rarely listens,

dismissive, needs to be right

B3-D

oes not acknowledge,

understand, or manage

emotions w

ithin human

interaction

B4-A

cts on impulse. D

ifficul-ty/disinterest in m

odifying ow

n behaviors

B5-W

on’t admit m

istakes. D

oesn’t apologize. Attacks,

blames, devalues, &

scape-goats others

B6-D

ismisses or m

inimizes

important details; m

oves to reductionist solutions

T1-Believes people achieve

their best when m

otivated &

supported

T2-Is curious & open to

other point of view &

perspectives

T3-Values emotional

elements that are at play

within all interactions

T4-Is curious; challenges assum

ptions & m

otivations

T5-Sees vulnerability as a sign of openness &

strength of character

T6-Integrates abstract &

concrete constructs. Holds

multiple ideas sim

ultane-ously

F1-Feels all people are of equal value

F2-Energized & appreciative

of new/differing ideas

F3-Feels the intensity & rel-

evance of emotions w

ithin interactions-is em

pathic

F4-Values reflection as an im

portant avenue to growth

& positive change

F5-Non-defensive, hum

ble &

openhearted. Vulnerabil-ity is not experienced as a threat

F6-Feels energized, enlight-ened, m

otivated by expand-ed w

ays of thinking

B1-Sets clear, realistic

goals for self & others &

m

odels expected standards

B2-G

ood listener; gives credit to others’ initiatives

B3-Leverages the em

otional elem

ents of human interac-

tion for positive impact

B4-A

sks for feedback around blind spots; w

illing to m

odify behaviors

B5-A

ble to admit m

istakes &

apologize. Rewards honesty

& truth-telling

B6-Rew

ards ideas &

situations that integrate disparate parts into new

&

expanded action plans

Closed

open

CO

NT

INU

UM

OF

FL

EX

IBIL

ITY


11

As you can see the graphic assesses a leader’s make-up in three domains – thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. It also measures six different categories that are as follows: Expectations and Standards, Willingness to be Influenced, Emotional Intelligence, Self Reflection, Vulnerability, and Paradox & Complexity. These measures are not a comprehensive list, but they do reflect key components of leadership competence, ranging from the leader’s style of decision-making to how the leader treats employees. Each of these competencies can be seen as a piece of a puzzle, and all pieces are necessary to accurately assess the effectiveness of a leader.

Most leaders demonstrate some degree of variability within the six different categories. For example, some leaders are more open and flexible in their Willingness to be Influenced, but may be closed and rigid in terms of comfort with their own Vulnerability. Although it is rare to find a leader who is completely open and flexible in all six categories, it should be noted that extreme rigidity in more than one category often compromises the flow of communicate around vital information up and down the hierarachy. Individual leaders who are able to receive feedback from others create built in safeguards because the leader encourages employees to provide information that may fall within the leadership team’s blind spots. Just like the lessons learned from the movie Blindside, truly effective leaders realize that depending on their subordinates to help reveal potential risks as well as hidden opportunities makes for a stronger, more resilient organization.

How to Use the Continuum of Flexibility

The Continuum of Flexibility can be used as an evaluation tool for managers and leaders to help increase the accuracy and specificity of feedback around performance evaluations and assess how effective the individual employee is as productive team member. It can also be used by Boards of Directors to evaluate the leader and the management team. Furthermore, as a self-assessment instrument, leaders can ask themselves where they believe they fall within the six categories of leadership, and then get feedback from direct reports and subordinates to help assess where any leadership blind spots potential may lie. Finally, project teams or divisions within an organization can use the Continuum of Flexibility as a tool to invite group discussion as to analyzing how effectively the team is operating together.

* A note of caution: The Continuum of Flexibility should not be used as a tool for the psychological diagnose of individuals. Only a trained, licensed professional is able to offer a comprehensive assessment and clinical diagnosis.


12

03What can you as a leader do to create a more flexible, open corporate culture?

Whether you are a team manager, director, or CEO, you can influence more than you think to create more flexible organizational culture. In this last section, let us suggest some practical tips you can implement.

First, your subordinates get most information about your behavior and leadership style from your behaviors in meetings. As the leader, you can reflect yourself and try some of the following things. To be a better listener (B2 in the model), rather than preparing what you want to say, you can prepare some good questions so that participants can discuss more freely. When you discuss a negative issue in a meeting, before giving instructions, you can ask participants “What can each division do to help one another improve the situation?” If a leader announces his or her opinion and ask for feedback, normally participants will express a similar opinion to their bosses. In this situation, at the beginning of a meeting, the leader can create the tone and context by saying, “If you can consider various possibilities of the situation and suggest different thoughts and rationale, it will be helpful for me to finally make decision.”

You can hire an external consultant or appoint a participant as a facilitator of the meeting and let that person summarize points during the meeting and encourage everyone speak up. You can also consider a workshop game. Adam Grant, a psychology professor at Wharton School, showed an excellent case in his recent book Originals. Kenneth Frazier, CEO of Merck, American pharmaceutical company, asked his executive team members to create crazy ideas that could put Merck out of business, then each group had a two-hour discussion from a competitors’ point of view. After that, they discussed what they could do to prevent and prepare for such risks.

Second, all leaders in companies are adults from a chronological or social perspective. However, not all leaders show mature thought, feelings or behaviors. Sometimes, they can be childish. In the Continuum of Flexibility, the right side shows thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of psychological adults. Leaders who take their positions seriously set goals to grow and mature throughout their careers. This includes demonstrating a growing maturity in attitudes, the depth of “listening abilities”, and behavior. Think about


13

the distinction aggressive and assertive attitudes we mentioned earlier in this article. Aggressiveness is based on narcissistic psychological tendencies, but assertiveness is based on self-reflection (B4) and asks feedback around blind spots and is willing to modify behaviors. It creates an open culture.

Third, leaders should reward truth telling. When Alan Mulally joined Ford Motor Company as the CEO in 2006, the company’s loss was 17 billion US dollars. He successfully turned the company around, in part by inviting employees to speak openly. He retired in 2014 and joined Google’s Board of Directors. In 2014, Fortune magazine selected him as the third in greatest leaders, ranking after the Pope Francis and Angela Merkel of Germany.

One famous story that best illustrates his leadership style was his Business Plan Review meeting every Thursday from 7am. All executives showed their top five projects in the meeting with one of the three color codes: Green meant that the project was going well, yellow meant that there was a new issue, and red meant that there was a serious problem and a solution had not yet been found. When he led the first Business Plan Review meeting, all 80 projects on the table showed green light despite the fact that the company was losing huge amount of money. After a few weeks, one executive showed the red light for the first time. All other participants looked at him and thought that he would be fired.

However, Mulally gave him applause and thanked him for the truth telling. He then asked all participants to discuss how they can help the executive to solve the problem. Within short time, they were able to find the solution.

From Brexit in the UK to the election of President Donald Trump in the US, from candlelight rally by citizens of Korea to the impeachment of the Korean President, the most predictable social trend appears to be an increase of unpredictability. Rather than responding with reactive opposition or bewilderment, the leadership challenge is to discern what these outcries mean in terms of an underlying demand for change within the existing systems. That means leaders must listen even more carefully to where pockets of unfairness or imbalance are occurring, or they will face greater gaps in perspective and larger blind spots. Without the free exchange of information and opinions, organizations cannot sustain business stability or long-term sustainability indefinitely. Creating an open system means that the system will eventually


14

By Dr. Patricia Gianotti and Dr. Hoh Kim

Dr. Hoh Kim graduated from Hankuk University of foreign studies, where he majored in French literature and philosophy. He earned

his master’s degree in PR at Marquette University and his Ph.D at Graduate School of Culture Technology, KAIST. He is one of the

19 Cialdini Method Certified Trainers (CMCT) approved and endorsed by Robert Cialdini, the author of Influence: The Psychology

of Persuasion. He has previously led the Korea office of Edelman, a global PR firm and written several books including Cool

Apology (co-authored), Cool Survival Kits, Reputation Society (co-authored) and Why I Can’t Say No (all in Korean). He has been

working with Dr. Patricia Gianotti since 2014 for leadership coaching and a project for a Korean conglomerate.

Dr. Patricia Gianotti is a licensed psychologist practicing in the Greater Boston Area and the Vice President of The Woodland

Group. She is also the Academic Director of The Wayne Institute for Advanced Psychotherapy at Bellarmine University. Dr. Gianotti

holds degrees from Indiana University, Antioch University, and the Illinois School of Professional Psychology. A seasoned lecturer

and key note speaker both nationally and internationally, she is the co-author of two books, Listening with Purpose: Entry Points

into Shame and Narcissistic Vulnerability (2012), and Uncovering the Resilient Core: A Workbook on the Treatment of Narcissistic

Defenses, Shame, and Emerging Authenticity (2017).

Hoh Kim and Dr. Gianotti conducted a consulting project together for a Korean conglomerate, and Kim has been receiving

regular coaching from Dr. Gianotti for several years on leadership and psychology. This article is based on various discussion and

discoveries from the consulting and coaching for the last three years.

have to be modified to accommodate external changes and potential opportunities. Claiming to value an open culture as a slogan or rhetoric only will not produce effective leadership. The most influential factor in creating an open corporate culture requires “walking the talk” through demonstrating concrete practices and increased flexibility.

Does your leadership behavior help or hurt your people and organization?

Business

Transcript of Does your leadership behavior help or hurt your people and organization?