The Commodification of Work and the Rise of The Narcissistic Leaders

?

?

Lately, I've been perusing Christopher Lach's book, "The Culture of Narcissism" and at some point, I was struck by how relevant some of his observations on the American culture, particularly the work culture, still are today, with some of the trends he identified in the 1970s seemingly much stronger now.

?The main thesis of "The Culture of Narcissism", concerning work-related behaviours and leadership, centers on the transformation of the workplace and the characteristics of contemporary leaders in a narcissistic society. Lasch argues that the rise of narcissism has fundamentally altered the nature of work and leadership, leading to significant shifts in how individuals approach their professional lives and how leaders operate within organizations.

He identifies several major changes, among which are the commodification of work and a concomitant disengagement of the workers from it, whereby they increasingly adopt a stance of ironic detachment as a defence mechanism against the monotony and perceived meaninglessness of their work. This detachment manifests in a skeptical attitude toward their roles, people often viewing their tasks as merely performative rather than intrinsically valuable. This ironic detachment results in a lack of genuine engagement with work. Workers go through the motions without real commitment, seeking to protect themselves from the emotional impact of their jobs.

Another change that Lasch identifies is the transformation of leadership, with a shift from the "Organization Man", who was characterized by loyalty and commitment to an institution, to the "Bureaucratic Gamesman", who prioritizes personal advancement and opportunism. In this new landscape, leaders often display narcissistic traits. They are adept at self-promotion, manipulation of interpersonal relationships, and maintaining visibility rather than focusing on substantive achievements. Their leadership is characterized by a desire for admiration and the cultivation of a charismatic image. They excel in environments where impression management is crucial. They focus on maintaining a winning image and are often more concerned with how they are perceived than with the actual results of their work. These leaders tend to avoid forming deep personal connections, viewing relationships as transactional and instrumental to their own advancement. They are highly adaptable and willing to change positions and alliances as needed to maintain their status and power. They are pragmatic and often lack strong convictions, prioritizing their own interests over organizational or ethical considerations.

This shift towards narcissistic leadership and work behaviors undermines traditional values of loyalty and long-term commitment to an organization. This results in a more fluid and competitive workplace where personal ambition outweighs collective goals. The focus on self-promotion and detachment exacerbates feelings of alienation among workers, as genuine human connections and meaningful experiences are sacrificed for the sake of personal advancement.

Overall, it seems to me that Lasch's main thesis in "The Culture of Narcissism", particularly as it applies to work and organizations, is that the rise of narcissistic tendencies has profoundly affected work-related behaviours and leadership and that this cultural shift has led to a workplace environment characterized by disengagement, a focus on self-promotion, and opportunistic behaviours. Leaders embody these narcissistic traits, prioritizing their own visibility and success over substantive contributions and deep personal connections.

?

The performative self and the ironic detachment from the daily routine

Christopher Lasch identifies an attitude of "ironic detachment" as a coping mechanism and an escape from the monotony and routine of modern life. By adopting a posture of detachment, individuals can distance themselves from the demands of work, relationships, and societal expectations, finding refuge in a realm of detached observation and ironic commentary. They become, at the same time, performers of prescribed social roles and spectators of their own performances. The performative dimension of social life is stripped of any ritualistic subtext and fully subjected to opportunistic instrumentalization. In this new cultural background devoid of transcendence, of any "higher meaning", desacralized, and therefore spiritually and morally "flattened", the scripts that prescribe behaviours are no longer organic to the fibre of society, nor are they part of an uplifting narrative of social cohesiveness around shared ideals; instead, they are reduced to ever-shifting sets of behavioural routines designed to achieve perceptual results in the conscience of others. This performative quality of social interactions transforms the "social arena" into a "social scene", shifting the focus from a healthy, open competition to a scripted "dancing around" devoid of dramatic tension, but filled with melodramatic tropes.???????

This detachment takes the shape of a skeptical attitude toward authority and institutions, a penchant for sarcasm and satire, and a preference for detached observation rather than active participation. Lasch suggests that in a culture where genuine emotions are often suppressed or commodified, ironic detachment becomes a means of preserving a sense of autonomy and self-protection by creating a distance, not altogether critical, between the individual and his transactional persona.

However, Lasch also cautions that while ironic detachment may provide temporary relief from the pressures of everyday life, it ultimately reinforces a sense of alienation and disconnection. By retreating into a stance of detached irony, individuals risk becoming passive observers of their own lives, disengaged from genuine human connections and meaningful experiences.

?

From the "organization man" to the "bureaucratic player"

Lasch describes the transition from the "organization man" to the "bureaucratic gamesman" as a response to the changing dynamics of modern society. In the mid-20th century, the "organization man" was characterized by his loyalty and commitment to the institutions and organizations that employed him. This archetype valued stability, conformity, and a sense of belonging within a structured hierarchy. Lasch argues that with the decline of traditional institutions and the rise of a more fluid and competitive economic landscape - we would say "turbulent" nowadays - the virtues of loyalty and commitment have been supplanted by the ethos of "bureaucratic gamesmanship", in the pursuit of personal advancement and self-interest.

Unlike the organization man - or as he was called by Denis Organ in 1988, "the good soldier" - who was willing to sacrifice personal goals for the collective success of the organization, the bureaucratic gamesman prioritizes individual ambition and opportunism. Rather than overidentifying with a single organization, the bureaucratic gamesman keeps his options open, constantly seeking new opportunities and alliances to further his agenda.

Lasch explains this transition by pointing to the erosion of traditional social bonds and the commodification of labour in contemporary society. As stable career paths and lifetime employment become increasingly rare, individuals are compelled to adopt a more strategic and self-interested approach to their professional lives. Loyalty to a single organization is seen as naive and potentially detrimental to one's career prospects, leading individuals to engage in bureaucratic gamesmanship as a means of maximizing their personal success and security in an uncertain world.

What is ironic here, is the fact that the managerial literature of the early 2000s, trying to cope with the disappearance of linear, progressive career paths in organizations and the precariousness of the new employment contracts, actually further promoted this type of gamesmanship. It declared that the individual has the sole responsibility for his career and that they should expect to have at least two or three different "careers" over their working lifespan. They will also have to embrace a logic whereby they become a business, with its own profit and loss, as transactional as it can be in its relations to what are no longer employers, but rather clients that aren't bound by any long-term commitment to "buy them".???

?

The "new", narcissist leader

"Today men seek the kind of approval that applauds not their actions but their personal attributes. They wish to be not so much esteemed as admired. They crave not fame but the glamour and excitement of celebrity. They want to be envied rather than respected. Pride and acquisitiveness, the sins of an ascendant capitalism, have given way to vanity."(Lasch 59). The notion of success has become the central piece of one's life pursuit, instead of being the corollary of one's endeavours and achievements. This inversion of finalities also goes for the pursuit of happiness or meaning in life. Happiness and meaning have been tied to a never-ceasing process of self-fashioning of the individual into an "Ideal Self" that is no longer moored in aspirations about the higher Works they should endeavour to complete, but rather loosely flowing at the surface of an ever-shifting network of personal preferences.?

Lasch cites a study done by Michael Maccoby involving 250 managers from twelve major companies, where the new corporate leader is depicted as someone who values working with people over materials and is motivated not by empire-building or wealth accumulation, but by the exhilaration of leading a successful team and achieving victories. Their deepest fear is being labelled a loser, driving them to constantly seek control and dominance over others rather than focusing on solving material tasks or problems. Success for these executives is defined not just by personal advancement, but by surpassing others. They are presented as boyish, playful, and seductive, maintaining an illusion of limitless options, and showing little capacity for personal intimacy or social commitment. Loyalty to their company is minimal, with some executives even viewing power as the ability to resist being controlled by their organization. Some go as far as strategically cultivating relationships with powerful customers to leverage against their company, ensuring they always have options and avenues for advancement.

According to Maccoby, the new leader is a gamesman characterized by openness to new ideas but lacking strong convictions, implying a willingness to adapt and change positions opportunistically. He is pragmatic in his dealings, willing to do business with any regime regardless of personal principles, prioritizing his own interests over moral or ethical considerations. More independent and resourceful than the traditional company man, the gamesman seeks to use the company for his own ends, fearing becoming entirely subordinate to it. He avoids intimacy, preferring the thrill of the workplace environment, where he can command admiration and flirtatious attention from colleagues. The gamesman relies on the admiration or fear he inspires in others to validate his status as a "winner" in personal and professional relationships. As he ages and loses the charm of youth, he may struggle to advance in his career, leading to a sense of aimlessness and disillusionment. Lacking interest in craftsmanship and genuine achievement, the gamesman finds little satisfaction in his accomplishments as he ages. Middle age brings a crisis of purpose and identity, as he questions the meaning of his life and feels increasingly isolated and alone.

In another study cited by Lasch, Eugene Emerson Jennings further elaborates on the characteristics of the "upwardly mobile executive" who sees corporate mobility as more than just job performance; it encompasses style, panache, and the ability to navigate social dynamics effectively. The mobile executive understands power dynamics within the organization and cultivates relationships with influential individuals. He is adept at reading social cues and identifying key players in the corporate hierarchy, actively seeking to align himself with those in positions of power. He prioritizes visibility and exposure, actively seeking opportunities to network and learn from influential figures. He utilizes social gatherings and interactions as opportunities to assess the power dynamics and sponsorship relationships within the organization.

The narcissistic leader, as the results of Macoby's and Emerson Jennings' studies show, is independent, non-committal, pragmatic, manipulative, opportunistic and rudderless, playing a game of local minima in a field over which he has little or no capacity to rise above. He is a player in the field of power and influence, an actor on the scene of self-promotion, but he is no longer an agent of mastery over the natural world, not because of some need for harmony with nature, but rather because he lives an entirely mediated existence, with little or no access or interest in anything natural. It is about the importance of style over substance, or as Oscar Wilde would have put it, "in matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing." Artifice over realism, "playing the field" over being in the field, getting ahead over getting somewhere; these are but a few of the necessary choices the narcissistic leader has to make to constantly avoid having to confront his fear of failure and his lack of purpose.?????

?

Is this a long-term trend or just an overly skeptical misinterpretation of cultural patterns??

In "The Culture of Narcissism," Christopher Lasch depicts a world where authenticity is a commodity and detachment serves as both shield and weapon against the mundane. Within this cultural landscape, ironic detachment emerges as a coping mechanism, offering a semblance of autonomy amidst the pressures of modern existence. It's a world where genuine emotions are suppressed or commodified, and individuals resort to detached observation as a means of self-preservation.

Lasch paints a picture where work has devolved into a series of meaningless motions and social interactions resemble scripted performances devoid of genuine connection. In this environment, the individual seeks refuge in cynicism, creating an ironic distance from the daily grind. Yet, while this detachment may offer temporary respite, it ultimately deepens the sense of alienation and disconnection, leaving individuals as passive spectators of their own lives.

The transition from the era of the steadfast "organization man" to the strategic "bureaucratic gamesman," seems to parallel the evolution of societal values in response to changing economic dynamics. Loyalty and commitment give way to individual ambition and opportunism, reflecting broader shifts toward individualism and self-promotion. The rise of the narcissistic leader epitomizes this ethos, where personal attributes trump actions, and success is measured in visibility rather than substance.

But as we reflect on Lasch's observations, we're compelled to inquire: If his analysis was correct for the late 1970s and it still held water in the 1990s and narcissism became a pervading cultural trait, does the reign of the narcissistic leader persist into our present-day or have we witnessed the emergence of new dominant trends or types of leaders?

Source: Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.