Firstly, the analyses found that situational narcissists were more likely to ignore advice than classic narcissists. Enron’s environment bred temporary narcissists and by extension, the company institutionalized obstruction of advice taking. Additionally, the study concludes these temporary narcissists make poor leaders due to their advice taking habits. It’s imaginable leadership at Enron was poor. The greedy decisions made by leaders at Enron marched the corporation into the abyss along with millions of dollars stolen from …show more content…
When situational narcissism is such an issue, as it was at Enron, how can advice truly be given to the arrogant? Kausel et al. makes a suggestion: have the narcissist justify their actions in front of a critical audience. The presence of others judging their defunct decisions is the equivalent of taking a needle to their ego. Additionally, reformed Fastow now advocates for “boards to invite in an antagonistic viewpoint.” Psychologists have said the classic narcissist falters when self-perception is called into question and the situational narcissist is likely no exception.
Enron was toppled by situational narcissists created by predisposed personalities and a self-interested corporate culture. Both Kausel et al. and Fastow make a call for inviting devil’s advocates to the boardrooms to question decision-making practices and open up discussion for better advice. Back in the boardrooms at Enron, the context affecting personalities could have been shifted to improve advice-taking and facilitate listening. If Fastow originally had antagonistic viewpoints, then advice at Enron in 2001 might not have fallen on deaf