This explains so many things.

Although they have the qualities to climb the ladder of success, narcissists make bad leaders:

They may be charming, confident and climb the job ladder with ease, but when they reach the top, narcissists are actually not very good at their roles.


Such people are often too self-obsessed to do their jobs properly, according to a study.

Those who love themselves and have vast self-confidence often impress others with their self-belief, dominance and authority, leading them to climb the career ladder effortlessly.

However, scientists have discovered that while narcissists are convincing leaders, they are so consumed by their own brilliance that it actually cripples their creativity and often causes them to make bad decisions.


They like to squirrel away information from their colleagues and are too focused on themselves to allow others to shine in the workplace, researchers said.

It also prevents proper interaction with colleagues who often vastly overestimate the ability of their overconfident bosses.

And, no, I'm not thinking politics; I'm thinking about narcissists that I have known in leadership positions, who have just been colossal incompetents.

Besides this is Science!

Scientists at the University of Amsterdam proved their theory by conducting an experiment involving 150 people, split into groups of three.


One of the three was randomly assigned as group leader as part of a task intended to choose a job candidate.

Information about the candidate was handed out, some to a single member, some to the entire group.


The group was told that all three members could contribute advice, but that their leader was ultimately responsible for any decisions.

The study was designed to see how narcissistic leaders could hold back information about candidates, a tactic that could result in a less skilled person given the job, thereby damaging the company.

Questionnaires given to 'employees' and 'leaders' revealed that employees hailed narcissistic leaders as the most effective.

But they were wrong.

Leaders with the largest egos had the most negative effect on their group's overall performance.

They were too self-centred and authoritarian to communicate properly or listen to their colleagues.

Study author Barbora Nevicka, of at the University of Amsterdam, said: 'As expected, the group members rated the most narcissistic leaders as most effective.


'In fact, the groups led by the greatest egotists chose the worse candidate for the job. The narcissistic leaders had a very negative effect on their performance.

'They inhibited the communication because of self-centeredness and authoritarianism.'

She added: 'Narcissism can sometimes be useful in a leader.

'In a crisis, for instance, people feel that a strong, dominant person will take control and do the right thing,and that may reduce uncertainty and diminish stress.

'However, in the everyday life of an organization, communication, sharing of information, perspectives, and knowledge is essential to making good decisions.

'In brainstorming groups, project teams, government committees, each person brings something new. That's the benefit of teams. That's what creates a good outcome.

'Good leaders facilitate communication by asking questions and summarizing the conversation-something narcissists are too self-involved to do.'

Discussing how narcissists can flourish in politics and even lead governments, Ms Nevicka added: 'Narcissists are very convincing.

'They do tend to be picked as leaders. There's the danger - that people can be so wrong based on how others project themselves.

Another reason to defund PBS.

Tavis Smiley argues to former Muslim Hirsan Ali that there are more Christians blowing themselves up than Muslims.  He offers Colombine as an example and eventually limits it to "this country.  Here's the link to the PBS site.

Here's a Psychology Today post describing how even the execrable Bill Maher couldn't believe Tavis Smiley's arguments designed to relativize and trivialize the Muslim world's treatment of women.

Last night, I watched Tavis Smiley on Real Time with Bill Maher. At one point during the discussion, Bill Maher intimated that for a meaningful and long-lasting revolution to take place in the Middle East, the treatment of women must improve. Smiley went on to lecture Maher about the ill treatment that women face in the United States (he referred to the patriarchy), and accordingly (to paraphrase him), "we should clean our house before we criticize other cultures."


This triggered several angry responses from Maher, as he could not understand how Smiley could argue for the moral equivalence of the realities faced by women in the United States versus in the Muslim world. Maher was equally incredulous that Smiley could not recognize that sex-based oppression occurs in various degrees across disparate cultures. Smiley refused to recognize that "degrees matter." Maher readily conceded that sexism exists in the United States, but surely he argued the plight of American women was nowhere near that faced by women in many parts of the Middle East. Here is a thought experiment: If we were to elicit the opinions of 10,000 women from the Middle East and 10,000 American counterparts, which group would proclaim possessing greater freedoms, gender equality, and life opportunities?

On Smiley's own talk show last year, while interviewing Aayan Hirsi Ali, he interrupted her and proclaimed that it was simply untrue that terrorists were more likely to be Muslim. His exact words were: "But, but, but Christians do that [blow themselves up] every single day in this country. Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, I mean- people walk into post offices, they walk into schools- that's what Columbine is - I mean I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians - and I happen to be a Christian." Smiley is arguing that since American postal workers who go on a killing rampage are likely to be Christians, and since the Columbine killers were Christian (I am assuming that this is the case), these acts of violence can be attributed to Christianity in the exact same way that terrorist acts committed by Muslims can be attributed to Islam. This oft-used "progressive" argument does leave one speechless.

Smiley's positions epitomize what happens when one mixes the tenets of moral and cultural relativism, cultural self-hate, postmodernism, and political correctness. I have often argued that tolerance toward any form of intolerance is self-inflicted barbarism. Bill Maher captured my position quite well on his most recent show when he stated, "When you tolerate intolerance, you're not really being a liberal." Tavis Smiley has repeatedly demonstrated an uncanny willingness to criticize American values but seems utterly incapable of levying one criticism against the abhorrent realities found in other cultures. Apparently, this would be culturally insensitive. Self-criticism is progressive and enlightened. To judge other cultures is gauche, racist and ultimately a form of oppressive cultural imperialism.

People like Smiley have an amazing ability to tolerate behavior in Kabul that they would never tolerate in Florida.