Hubris Syndrome: An emergent outcome of the complex social process of everyday interaction? (2011)

“It is the contradiction between the complex social dynamics of real-life organizations and the dominant view of what leaders are supposed to do that creates ideal conditions for “hubris syndrome” to arise.

Chris Rodgers,  Chris Rodgers Consulting Limited, Honorary Senior Visiting Fellow, Cass Business School, Fellow, Centre for Progressive Leadership, LMBS

Paper commissioned by The Daedalus Trust, received 14 October 2011. The author offers an alternative, “complex social process” explanation for the behaviours referred to in the 2009 Owen-Davidson paper, entitled Hubris syndrome: an acquired personality disorder?

In their 2009 paper, Hubris syndrome: An acquired personality disorder? David Owen and Jonathan Davidson suggest that hubris arises from a medical condition associated with an individual’s possession and ultimate abuse of power. As such, it manifests itself in the form of a characteristic set of behaviours (or symptoms) that can be used by the medical profession for diagnostic purposes.

This paper aims to stimulate further critical study of this important topic. It speculates that, rather than reflecting a form of mental illness located in the individual, these same patterns of behaviour can be explained in terms of the complex social process of people interacting with each other in the normal course of everyday life.

Introduction

Owen and Davidson identify 14 symptoms of hubris syndrome, based on a study of US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers over the last 100 years (see Box 1). The argument here is based on the exercise of leadership within organizations. But the same dynamics of communicative interaction, power relating and identity formation apply in both arenas.

Hubris syndrome and the social nature of human ‘being’

Hubris has been characterized as exaggerated pride, over-whelming self-confidence and contempt for others (Owen, 2006). It is often taken to indicate a loss of contact with “reality” (as reflected in the lived experience of others) and an overestimation of one’s own competence or cap-abilities. It is especially thought to come to the fore when the person exhibiting these characteristics is in a formal position of power.

Owen and Davidson use the term “syndrome” in the sense of a group of symptoms that collectively indicate or characterize a disease, psychological disorder, or other abnormal condition. They also clearly locate this within those individuals who provide the focus for their studies. Here I want to draw instead on an alternative sense of the word; seeing it simply as a distinctive patterning of individual and collective behaviour that arises and becomes embedded over time. In particular, I will argue that this patterning emerges from the complex social process of people interacting with each other, as they seek to enact their various roles and “go on together” in organizations and society at large. Furthermore, I will suggest that this patterning originates in, is sustained by, and is a property of, people in relationship.

This is not to say, of course, that certain personal characteristics, including psychological tendencies or psychiatric disorders, are insignificant in the patterning of these behaviours. And some individuals might indeed be more predisposed than others to show signs of illness in response to certain conditions of office.

But we are fundamentally social beings. As a result, “who we are” and how we behave is largely shaped by the interactions that we have with other people – as, at the same time, “who we are” and how we behave shapes those interactions (Lawler, 2008).

So the proposition here is that it is the contradiction between the complex social dynamics of real-life organizations and the currently dominant view of what leaders are supposed to do that creates ideal conditions for “hubris syndrome” to arise.

The full paper can be downloaded here: Hubris Syndrome: An emergent outcome of the complex social process of everyday interaction? (2009)