Tyranny
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
The Tyranny of Positive Thinking
1
Tyranny
2
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Abstract
Western societies emphasize upbeat beliefs, cheerfulness, optimism, hope, confidence, and other
manifestations of positive thinking in its aphorisms, songs, religion, books and magazines,
medicine, psychology, and business. This has led to the often unchallenged idea that optimism
and positive thinking are good for everyone and are to be promoted. While a positive outlook
can be a powerful constructive force, at excess levels possitivity generates a number of
disadvantages for individuals and organizations. Eleven problematic areas are presented and
discussed leading to a conclusion that a more balanced view of positivity is warranted. Across
many situations one may need to be positive—but not too positive.
Tyranny
3
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
The Tyranny of Positive Thinking
“We are going to a different world,” said Candide, “and I
expect it is the one where all goes well . . . . Everything
will turn out right. It is undoubtedly the new world that
is the best of all possible universes.”
—Voltaire, 1947/1759, p. 48
For millennia Western philosophers have endorsed the merits of positive thinking and the
pursuit of happiness. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle indicated that happiness is the highest
good humans can achieve. While these arguments have been questioned by later thinkers, the
virtues of being positive and the pursuit of happiness have been encouraged and are central
features of Western civilization for ages (Judge & Ilies, 2004). As seen above, Voltaire’s
Candide (1947/1759) displayed a persistent optimism about the future. Regardless of the
adversity or disaster that confronted him, Candide continued to believe that the future would be
bright.
This value continues today as philosophers, theologians, counseling psychologists, sports
psychologists, and authors of self-help books have placed heavy emphasis on looking on the
bright side as a means of achieving personal growth, satisfaction, productivity, good health,
prosperity, and success (Ehrenreich, 2009; Fineman, 2006; Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998).
Nevertheless, there are various phenomena that suggest that positive thinking is more like
paracetamol—the right amount will help you, but too much is a very bad idea indeed. I first
discuss positive thinking in America—also known as optimism, confidence, hope, happiness,
and positive illusions—and its popularity and power and follow this by a review of key areas
where excess levels of positive thinking are problematic. Finally, I summarize these findings
and provide a conclusion.
Tyranny
4
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
On Being Positive
Individuals high in positive thinking exhibit confidence in a way that is both broad and
diffuse, and it encourages them to approach challenges with enthusiasm and persistence (Carver
& Scheier, 2003). Positivity has motivational value and is generally perceived as good and
helpful. I now briefly discuss how positive thinking is exhibited and valued in our aphorisms
and music, in our churches and businesses, in our media and child development practices, and in
our military and politics. I also note how positive thinking has entered medicine and academia.
Positive attitudes have been expressed in American aphorisms and music. Consider the
following maxims: “Cheer up, things could be worse;” “Smile, look on the bright side;” and
“Stop complaining, it’s not that bad.” In our music we have been told to “Ac-cent-tchu-ate the
Positive” (Mercer & Arlen, 1945), to “Put on a Happy Face (Adams & Strouse, 1960), and to
limit our anxiety by being joyful—“Don’t Worry, Be Happy” (McFerrin, 1988).
Evangelical mega-churches preach the good news that one has only to want something to
get it, because God wants to “prosper” people. The new positive theology offers promises of
wealth, success, and health in this life now, or at least on the horizon (Ehrenreich, 2009). The
medical profession prescribes positive thinking for its reputed health benefits and cancer is often
reframed not as a health crisis but as an “opportunity of a lifetime,” or “a makeover opportunity.”
Scheier and Carver (1993) found that optimists reported fewer physical symptoms, better health
habits, and better coping strategies. According to Peterson, Seligman, Yurko, Martin, and
Friedman (1998), people who espoused an optimistic perspective in childhood outlived their
more negatively oriented colleagues by an average of almost two years.
Academia has made room for the new disciplines of “positive psychology” (Seligman &
Pawelski, 2003), “positive organizational behavior,” (Luthans & Youssef, 2007), and
Tyranny
5
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
“appreciative inquiry” (Cooperrider & Sekerka, 2003). Harvard even offers new courses in
happiness and regularly draws almost 900 students. The peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness
Studies (Quality of Life Research, n. d.) is devoted to the scientific understanding of subjective
well-being and addresses the conceptualization, measurement, prevalence, evaluation,
explanation, imagination, and study of happiness.
Many children are raised to see the glass as half full, recognize that every cloud has a
silver lining, to make lemonade out of lemons, to smile and look on the bright side, to keep their
chins up, and to have a nice day. Americans expect optimism in its military and political leaders.
Politicians compete to be seen as the sunniest candidate. For example, President Ronald Reagan
promoted the idea that America is special and that Americans were God’s chosen people,
destined to prosper, much to the envy of everyone else in the world and President George W.
Bush thought of himself as the optimist-in-chief, as the cheerleader—which he once was in
college—and did not want to hear bad news (Kurtzman, 2003). President Franklin Roosevelt
indicated that “The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us
move forward with strong and active faith” (Luntz, 2007, p. 220). General Dwight Eisenhower
said that “Pessimism never won any battle” (Luntz, 2007, p. 221) while General Colin Powell
said that “Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier” (Harari, 2003, p. 16).
In U.S. media, magazines and television offer feature stories illustrating how thinking
positively can turn poverty into riches. Consider also the long tradition in the U.S. of “selfhelp” books promising people victory and accomplishment if they only think positively (Starker,
1989). From Eleanor Porter’s Pollyanna (“The glad game,” 1913) to Watty Piper’s The Little
Engine That Could (“I think I can, I think I can ...,” 1930) to Dale Carnegie’s How to Win
Friends and Influence People (“believe that you will succeed, and you will,” 1937) to Norman
Tyranny
6
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Vincent Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking (“the man [sic] who assumes success tends
already to have success,” 1952) to Spencer Johnson’s Who Moved My Cheese? (“accept layoffs
with a positive attitude,” 1998) to Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret (“think positive thoughts because
you become or attract what you think about the most,” 2006) people are surrounded by those
who promote an optimistic outlook. The essential theme is that the universe is really on our side
and that we can obtain whatever we wish for. If we do not receive the things we want it means
that we did not have enough faith and the desire was not sufficiently focused.
Being positive has taken firm root within the corporate world. Cultural norms about
good business practice stress looking at the sunny side and deemphasizing the problematic.
Sales meetings now resemble political rallies or revivals and Seligman (1991) reported that
optimistic salespersons had higher performance and lower attrition than their lesser optimistic
cohort at a life insurance company. Likewise, Luthans and his collaborators (Luthans, Avolio,
Avey, & Norman, 2007; Luthans & Youssef, 2007) found that their concept of psychological
capital, key components of which include confidence and optimism, was positively related to
performance outcomes in the workplace such as lower employee absenteeism, less employee
cynicism and intentions to quit, and higher job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. CEOs are coming to think of themselves as motivators geared toward
persuading employees to work harder for less pay and no job security. Historically, the science
of management was that of a rational enterprise, where spreadsheets were developed, logic trees
created, and decisions made based on careful analysis. All that was swept aside for a new notion
of what management is about. The word now used is leadership—particularly the charismatic
and transformational leadership models (Yukl, 2002)—where senior executives are primarily
charged with inspiring the workforce.
Tyranny
7
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Psychological research has found that slightly positive emotions appear to be the ambient
state for most people at most times. In a wide variety of activities, people’s beliefs are distorted
by overconfidence (Russo & Schoemaker, 1992) which occurs when individuals’ certainty that
their predictions are correct exceed the accuracy of those predictions (Klayman, Soil, GonzalezVallerjo, & Barlas, 1999). For instance, Russo and Schoemaker (1992) found that of the 2000plus individuals to whom they gave a ten-question quiz using 90 percent confidence intervals,
less than 1 percent were not overconfident.
These mildly distorted perceptions have been referred to as positive illusions (Taylor &
Brown, 1988) and include inflated positive self-conceptions, an exaggerated perception of
personal control, and an overly optimistic assessment of the future (Taylor & Armor, 1996).
These illusions have been found to be related to good psychological adjustment, are adaptive,
and provide a sense of agency (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Thus, by perceiving themselves and
their world in a positive light, people feel empowered as causal agents in effecting changes in
their environment (Sigmon & Snyder, 1993). In this regard, social psychologists have concluded
that most people have an “illusion of control” about themselves (Abramson & Alloy, 1980;
Greenwald, 1980). In summary, faith in the power of positive thinking has become so ingrained
in American society that positive seems to not only be normal but also normative—the way a
person should be. It seems that Panglossian puffery is alive and thriving in America today.
Problems with Positivity: When Illusions Become Delusions
While modest positive illusions provide a sense of agency and are adaptive, having
overly optimistic illusions is no more desirable than having none at all. Researchers have noted
that the illusions are helpful when they are in the slightly-to-moderately positive range, but they
decrease in adaptiveness as they move into more extreme positive ranges (Baumeister, 1989;
Tyranny
8
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
McAllister, Baker, Mannes, Stewart, & Sutherland, 2002). Baumeister (1989) refers to this as
the “optimal margin of illusion” (p. 176) and concluded that “Optimal health, adjustment,
happiness, and performance may arise from overestimating oneself slightly. Departures from
this optimal margin, particularly in the positive direction, are dangerous” (p. 188).
At high levels of optimism individuals become overly confident, filled with hubris and
narcissistic thinking leading to difficulties coping with the facts of reality. Very high levels of
positive affect may constitute too much of a good thing. Below are several areas where holding
unbridled positive expectancies can be problematic (see Table 1).
-------------------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
-------------------------------------------Goal setting
Goal setting theory is one of the most effective motivational approaches supported by an
impressive base of research (Robbins & Judge, 2009). One application of goal setting theory
widely used in many modern day organizations and meeting with considerable success is known
as management by objectives (MBO), in which the organization’s overall goals are translated
into specific objectives for each level in the firm (Robbins & Judge, 2009). When MBO does
not work, one culprit is unrealistic performance expectations. This is consistent with goal setting
theory which suggests that performance plateaus and then drops as the difficulty of a goal goes
from challenging to impossible (Wright, Hollenbeck, Wolf, & McMahan, 1995).
Highly optimistic individuals not only tend to set unrealistically high goals, but are also
overconfident that their goals will be attained. They focus primarily on positive information,
which supports their belief that success is likely, a disposition that interferes with effective
Tyranny
9
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
performance. As a result, they tend to attain only average levels of performance in many
contexts (Judge & Ilies, 2004). This wishful thinking can distract people from making concrete
plans about how to attain goals (Oettingen, 1996). Taken together, evidence suggests that across
many different tasks, performance increases with optimism, but only up to a point. Further
increments actually reduce performance (Brown & Marshall, 2001). Relatively small positive
distortions of reality enable one to look at the facts in a more optimistic way. Giving a situation
a positive spin often allows one to function more effectively. Although illusions involve a
degree of self-deception, they often provide individuals a sense of mastery fueling a sense of
well-being.
Striving for success without the resources to achieve it takes its toll on individuals who
face limitations on possibilities regardless of how hard they work. Such people will channel
their efforts to what can be attained regardless of how hard they work. If not, people will
channel their efforts into unattainable goals and become exhausted, ill, and demoralized
(Peterson, 2000). Pursuing a dream of enduring greatness may divert attention from the pressing
need to win immediate battles. Unrelenting optimism precludes the caution, sobriety, and
conservation of resources that accompany goal attainment.
Decision making
It has been said that “no problem in judgment and decision making is more prevalent and
more potentially catastrophic than overconfidence” (Plous, 1993, p. 217). This error is so
prevalent that it is called the overconfidence bias. For example, when individuals are given
factual questions and asked to judge the probability that their answers are correct, they tend to be
far too optimistic. Studies have found that when people say they are 65 to 70 percent confident
that they are right, they are actually correct only about 50 percent of the time (Lichtenstein &
Tyranny
10
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Fischhoff, 1977) and when they say they are 100 percent sure, they tend to be 70 to 85 percent
correct (Fischhoff, Slovic, & Lichtenstein, 1977). One outrageous example was reported by
Robbins and Judge (2009) who indicated that 90 percent of U.S. adults said they expected to go
to heaven while another poll noted that only 86 percent thought Mother Theresa was in heaven!
The overconfidence bias goes by another name—the “above average effect.” It is the
tendency of the average person to believe he or she is above average, a result that defies the logic
of descriptive statistics (e.g., Alicke, Klotz, Breitenbecher, Yurak, & Vredenburg, 1995).
Larwood and Whittaker (1977) found that corporate executives (and management students) are
particularly prone to this form of self-serving bias.
Excessive optimism is a contributing factor to a well documented decision-making
error—entrapment. Brockner (1992) describes this bias as escalation of commitment to a failing
course of action. Because many executives are overly optimistic about their strategies and
reluctant to face reality, they are hesitant to back away and look for new alternatives. This was
supported in a study by Audia, Locke, and Smith (2000) who noted that managers who had
experienced success in the past, and were therefore more confident, were found to be more likely
to stick to an original course of action when the environment they were operating in had
changed. Such decision biases cost much time, money, and energy which could better be spent
on other alternatives.
Similarly, Finkelstein conducted a six-year examination of 51 companies and published
his results in Why Smart Executives Fail (2003a). A key finding was that executives of failed
companies clung to an inaccurate view of reality that consistently underestimated obstacles.
Finkelstein (2003b) noted that: “… blind adherence to “positive thinking” became a dominant
corporate value that was often at the foundation of organizational failure” (pp. 2-3). The
Tyranny
11
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
executives’ view of the future undermined the realities of the present. When reality surfaced, it
was often whitewashed for reasons of face-saving and hubris.
Overconfidence usually leads to wrong decisions, shrinking profit margins, firings, or
bankruptcies (Russo & Schoemaker, 1989). One study of Fortune 500 CEOs, for example,
showed that many are overconfident and their perceived infallibility often caused them to make
bad decisions (Malmendier & Tate, 2005a). Consider the comment of Teddy Forstmann,
chairman of the sports marketing giant IMG, who indicated “I know God gave me an unusual
brain. I can’t deny that. I have a God-given talent for seeing potential” (Sandomir, 2007, p.
C10). Research suggests that high levels of optimism have significant detrimental effects on
judgment and decision making (Åstebro, Jeffrey, & Adomdza, 2007). These findings show
highly optimistic individuals holding unrealistic expectations often discount negative
information, and mentally reconstruct experiences so as to avoid such information (Geers &
Lassiter, 2002). In contrast, moderately optimistic individuals possess a more balanced view
(Spencer & Norem, 1996). They are more sensitive to negative information and less likely to
gloss over discrepancies (Spirrison & Gordy, 1993), less easily persuaded by positive
information (Geers, Handley, & McLarney, 2003), less likely to have an attentional bias in favor
of positive stimuli (Segerstrom, 2001), and hold more realistic expectations when engaging in
high risk situations (Gibson & Sanbonmatsu, 2004). When considering these findings it seems
likely that highly optimistic persons may be prone to make less than optimal strategic decisions.
One decision making error that has received wide publicity is groupthink. In his book
Groupthink, Janis (1972) reviewed well-known fiascoes like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
and Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and noted that many of these poor decisions could be traced to
overconfidence pervading organizations. Sims (1992) pointed out groupthink frequently occurs
Tyranny
12
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
in the business world and specifically noted Beech-Nut, E. F. Hutton, and Salomon Brothers.
Groupthink is the tendency for members of highly cohesive groups to minimize conflict and
reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, or evaluating ideas (Janis, 1972). Small
groups often develop shared illusions and related norms that interfere with critical thinking and
reality testing (Sims, 1992). They often develop feelings of invulnerability creating a sense of
invincibility and excessive optimism engendering extreme risk taking that opens the door to
mistakes and misjudgments. Such overconfidence perpetuates costly courses of action despite
the evidence that an endeavor is doomed. Groupthink has also been identified as contributing to
the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters, the failures of companies such as Enron and
Worldcom, some decisions relating to the second Iraq war, and the recent mortgage crisis.
Leader hubris and narcissism
Another problem in overconfidence is the conviction that one’s performance is quite
adequate though evidence suggests the opposite. There are many documented negative effects of
this “dark side” of excessive confidence (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997; Hiller & Hambrick,
2005). Throughout history, hubris has been cited as a common reason for leadership failure
(e.g., Napoleon, Hitler; Kroll, Toombs, & Wright, 2000). In Greek tragedy hubris was
considered the greatest of sins severely punished by the gods and Proverbs 16:18 tells us that
“Pride comes before destruction, and an arrogant spirit before a fall.” “Self-confidence is rocket
fuel for leaders. Used carefully and ignited under the proper conditions, it propels you and those
around you to remarkable heights. Too little confidence and leaders are perceived as weak. …
Too much self-confidence becomes that most destructive of all leadership attributes, hubris”
(Petty, 2009), which Kroll et al. (2000) define as an overbearing sense of grandiosity, need for
admiration, and self-absorption—in a word, narcissism.
Tyranny
13
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Narcissism or self-love is essential for self-respect and self-confidence; however, when it
becomes inflated it can be destructive. Overvaluing themselves, and deluded by the self-satisfied
thinking that usually follows, some executives develop descending contempt for competitors and
critics. “Denial is the handmaiden of narcissism” (Levinson, 1994, p. 432.) and can drive
executives to create a reality that further reinforces their narcissism (Sankowsky, 1995). Reality
is bent to the service of these disorders, reality testing is compromised, and organizational
learning is interrupted. An additional manifestation of this need for self-enhancement is the
tendency to distort reality by focusing on the positive aspects about themselves and only the
selective memories that support their self-concept (Markus & Wurf, 1987). Warping reality to
suit a narcissist’s views rewrites the facts and reduces an organization’s performance. If the
vision is challenged managers accuse opponents of being timid, weak, incapable of seeing the
possibilities, thus getting their way (Ronningstam, 2005).
Hubris may pave a perilous path for corporate acquisitions. Roll (1986) has suggested
that takeover attempts result from the erroneous belief that the executive excessive can greatly
improve the target firm’s efficiency. The executive rejects feedback from others and believes
that despite the often overpaid premium for the targeted firm (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997) they
will overcome all obstacles and increase the acquired firm’s value. This is similar to the well
documented blunder known as the winner’s curse (Hendricks, Porter, & Tan, 2008), an
occurrence akin to a Pyrrhic victory in which individuals bid above an item’s (e.g., an acquisition
or merger) true value and thus are “cursed” by acquiring it (Lovallo, Viguerie, Uhianer, & Horn,
2001). By exaggerating the likely benefits of a project and ignoring the potential pitfalls,
executives often lead their organizations into initiatives that are doomed to fall well short of
projections. This can be costly in terms of money, jobs, prestige, or even lives (Sanna, Parks,
Tyranny
14
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Chang, & Carter, 2005) when overly optimistic expansions and acquisitions lead to bankruptcy
and layoffs (Norem & Chang, 2002). The winners’ curse is a problem for both clients and
providers because it often leads to inefficient use of scarce resources. Thus, compelling research
shows that corporate acquisitions driven by hubris are financially harmful for acquiring firms
(Limmack, 1993; Malmendier & Tate, 2005b).
Kroll et al. (2000) explain why such actions are common among executives by arguing
that hubris can result in a drive to dominate others and engage in empire building for its own
sake. Similarly, Kets de Vries and Miller (1984) have made the case that CEOs’ belief that they
will achieve positive outcomes can lead to delusions of grandeur. Such excessive optimism can
cause executives to stubbornly persist in behaviors that have worked well for them in the past
and undervalue new or dissenting information. In short, success often breeds failure because
leaders that have tremendous successes begin to lose their competitive edge, believe in their own
invulnerability, and become self-righteous and arrogant (Dess & Picken, 1999; Ranft & O’Neill,
2001). This gives rise to complacency, blindness to threats, and a loss of touch with reality.
Miller (1990) used the myth of Icarus to describe how many high-flying firms get too close to
the sun and burn up. Managers fail to note the changes around them, continue to apply previous
formulas for success, and ultimately suffer dramatic failures.
Ethical considerations
Leaders exhibiting narcissistic behaviors often set a similar tone for the corporation as a
whole since such behaviors become “contagious” (Valente, 1995) leading to what Levinson
(1994) called organizational narcissism. The narcissistic organizational identity seeks to justify
and legitimize itself at all costs, with scant reference to market accountability, civic
responsibility, or ethical concerns (Ganesh, 2003). It institutionalizes dominance, control,
Tyranny
15
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
entitlement, and exploitation (Gregory, 1999) to reinforce its maladaptive identity. Such
organizations are unable to behave ethically because they lack a moral identity and ethical
behavior is often ignored in service of the narcissist’s beliefs (Duchon & Drake, 2009). The
sense in an organization that “… we are the best negates the wish to become the best” (Levinson,
1994, p. 432).
The organization captured by a grandiose fantasy engendered by pathological narcissism
imagines itself something special. Those holding positions of authority in such organizations
believe they are extraordinary and hold a special trust, and cannot be bound by normal
constraints, including the legal and ethical constraints that limit the conduct of other, lesser,
organizations (Levine, 2005). In an interesting study, Schrand and Zechman (2009) showed that
overconfident managers are more likely to commit financial reporting fraud. The study used the
prevalence of the CEO’s photo in the annual report and the difference in compensation with the
second-highest paid official in the company as alternative proxies and showed that overconfident
managers are more likely to commit financial reporting fraud.
Such arrogance was the defining quality of Enron and a central element to the ethical
lapses that eventually destroyed the firm. Arrogance goes hand in hand with corruption as the
corrupt organization arrogates to itself special privileges and exemptions. They believe
themselves above the laws of lesser mortals.
Warren Buffet, one of the world’s most successful investors, cautioned against what he
called “cock-eyed optimism” (2001, p. 5) in earnings forecasts. He warned that lofty predictions
not only spread unwarranted optimism but also corrode CEO behavior:
“... I have observed many instances in which CEOs engaged in uneconomic
operating maneuvers so that they could meet earnings targets they had
announced. Worse still, after exhausting all that operating acrobatics would
Tyranny
16
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
do, they sometimes played a wide variety of accounting games to ‘make the
numbers.’ These accounting shenanigans have a way of snowballing: once a
company moves earnings from one period to another, operating shortfalls that
occur thereafter require it to engage in further accounting maneuvers that must
be even more ‘heroic.’ These can turn fudging into fraud” (Buffet, 2001, p. 6).
Support of this view comes from Montgomery’s Auditing, an influential auditing manual
used by some of the Big Four Accounting Firms. It specifically mentions “unduly aggressive
earnings targets” as a factor contributing to the increased risk of fraud (O’Reilly, McDonnel,
Winograd, Gerson, & Jaenicke, 1998, p. 36). This is what happened to computer maker Dell Inc.
in 2010. Dell is paying $100 million settlement for civil charges with the Securities and
Exchange Commission because it fraudulently used payments from Intel Corporation to pump up
its profits to meet Wall Street targets thus falsely portraying the means by which the company
met or surpassed earnings targets from 2001 through 2006 (Gordon, 2010).
Schrand and Zechman (2009) describe a path often leading to fraud: an overly optimistic
or overconfident executive believes the firm is experiencing only a bad quarter. The CEO also
believes it is in the best interest of everyone with a vested interest in the organization to cover up
the problem in the short term so that constituents do not misinterpret the current poor
performance as a sign of the future. The executive is convinced that the company will make up
for losses down the road. Rules get stretched in those ‘gray areas’ of earnings management. If
they are wrong and things do not reverse, they have to make up for the prior period. This
requires continuing fraudulent behavior and the executive has to do even more in the current
quarter.
Technological arrogance
Godkin and Allcorn (2009) suggest leader narcissism is the basis for Arrogant
Organizational Disorder (AOD). When interacting with people exhibiting behaviors of this type,
Tyranny
17
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
little is open to being questioned. Healthy conflict between differing perspectives is stifled.
Inquiry, open debate, and the exploration of opinions—the things that make an organization
vitally adaptive—are lost. AOD warps the organization into the service of sustaining grandiose
images of the firm and attacking anyone or any organization that calls into question or threatens
exceptional but unwarranted pride in the organization. The optimism inherent in AOD restricts
anticipation of error, downplays its likelihood, and leads to concealing both its occurrence and
the severity of its effects. This leads to what Landau and Chisholm (1995) call “The Arrogance
of Optimism” (p. 67)—the reluctance to critically examine process, structures, and systems
leading to organizational self-deception because of the belief that all is well and under control.
Such an attitude took a pivotal role in our history:
During the Vietnam War, American soldiers and civilian officials
were spurred on by a myopic ‘can-doism’—the conviction that
they could achieve anything, anywhere. Their belief in their own
omnipotence was stimulated too, by pressures from their superiors
in Saigon and Washington. To adopt a negative attitude was defeatism,
and there were no promotions for defeatism. In contrast, positive
reports were rewarded, even if they bore little resemblance to the
truth (New York Times, 1983, p. 1D).
One needs to only read Adams’ (1975) or Sheehan’s (1988) essays on the Vietnamese War to see
how pernicious such an attitude can be when discussing the optimism of body-counts or when
truth speaks to power and the powers that be command that all is well in the face of calamity.
AOD may evolve into another disorder—technological arrogance—the belief by those in
charge that they are the experts and that they know what they are doing is safe and correct. This
attitude seems to be a contributing factor to disasters because it too often lulls people into
complacency, ill-fated shortcuts, and problems being ignored (Borenstein, 2010). The Titanic is
an excellent example of excessive confidence. Consider the famous statement that “God
Tyranny
18
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
couldn’t sink her” as an example of excessive confidence on the part of many individuals in that
era.
It appears that such arrogance is the illegitimate child of confidence in any area.
Borenstein (2010) observed that “People don’t spend enough time thinking about what could go
wrong” (p. 4D), a sentiment echoed by Landau and Chisholm (1995) who argued for “… the
assignment of high priority to the probability of error, of failure” (p. 73); that is, a sensitivity to
failure in the interest of preservation.
Because people come to blindly rely on the safety of their processes, equipment, and
procedures of the past, they tend to ignore warning signs and presume that things are under
control. Such arrogance comes from previous triumphs not present capabilities. Consider the
Challenger disaster. Feynman, a member of the Rogers’ Commission, a Presidential
Commission charged to investigate the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, observed that NASA
was a poster child for an organization that was fooling itself (Feynman, 1988). They did not
want to hear the truth, he stated, and they ignored warning after warning, disregarding even the
clearest sign that something was wrong. Their optimism was of such high order that when
erosion of the ‘O’ rings was detected after earlier shuttle launches, a condition that was not
supposed to occur, they dismissed it out of hand. “It’s hubris, arrogance and indolence”
(Borenstein, 2010, p. 4D), says engineering professor Robert Bea who has studied 630 disasters
of all types and consulted with the presidential commission investigating the 2010 BP oil spill
disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
To avoid technological arrogance one must avoid excessive confidence and engage in
self-criticism: “To be cocksure that one is an infallible reasoner,” American philosopher, Charles
Peirce, once stated, “is to furnish conclusive evidence that one does not reason at all or that one
Tyranny
19
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
reasons very badly, since that deluded state of mind prevents the constant self-criticism which is,
as we should see, the very light of reasoning” (Hartshorne & Weiss, 1934, p. 400).
Planning fallacy
People often underestimate how long it will take to complete a task. The Sidney Opera
House took 16 years to complete instead of the 6 years originally planned (Hall, 1980). The
Channel Tunnel between France and England and the Big Dig in Boston similarly, and famously,
ran far behind schedule. In a multibillion dollar business, such as software design, overly
optimistic estimations of completion time can prove to be extremely expensive and frustrating
due to missed deadlines, cost overruns, and general aggravation (Connolly & Dean, 1997). On a
less spectacular scale, Kidd and Morgan (1969) noted that production managers persistently
predicted better performance for their operations than was later obtained, a result derived from
overly optimistic self-impressions. And most of us are all too familiar with the term paper that
was supposed to be done in a couple of days but took a whole week to complete, or the homeimprovement project that was planned for a weekend but took a month of weekends.
Multiple laboratory studies have also documented systematic overoptimism in people’s
estimates of the time required to complete various tasks (Buehler, Griffin, & MacDonald, 1997;
Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994). For example, participants in one study thought they would
require an average of 34 days to finish their academic theses, whereas, on average, the theses
were completed in 56 days (Buehler et al., 1994). Such planning errors abound, supplying
poignant public illustrations of overly optimistic plans gone awry (Flyvberg, 2008; Hall, 1980).
This is such a common occurrence that it has been labeled the “planning fallacy” which is the
tendency to underestimate time to completion despite knowing similar tasks previously took
longer than anticipated (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).
Tyranny
20
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
This error of reasoning occurs during the planning phase. Individuals ignore the very real
chance that things won’t go as anticipated; i.e., individual’s future plans tend to be “best-case
scenarios” (Newby-Clark, Ross, Buehler, Koehler, & Griffin, 2000). They do not consider
alternative possibilities and underrate the likelihood of unforeseen complications and unexpected
obstacles. Indeed, when formulating a plan, these individuals do not like to reflect upon past
experiences (Buehler & Griffin, 2003). Instead, they like to consider positive outcomes and fail
to review previous lessons. In team settings especially, persons of this bent are increasingly
likely to underestimate the time needed to complete a project (Buehler, Messervey, & Griffin,
2005). Presumably, they feel the need to impress others by being perceived as optimistic and
efficient further magnifying the planning fallacy (Pezzo, Pezzo, & Stone, 2006).
Display rules
In some lines of work, it is important that employees express certain kinds of moods and
refrain from expressing others. For example, waiters, flight attendants, and cheerleaders are
expected to operate under “display rules” where they are required to smile and be enthusiastic
(i.e., to put on a happy face) and refrain from expressing anger or hostility, even in the face of
unkind customers (Diefendorff & Richard, 2003). In certain positions, efforts to keep a situation
under control, immersed in emotional settings on a daily basis, and having to filter the expression
of moods can be very stressful leading to emotional dissonance (Middleton, 1989). This is
appropriately called emotional labor (George, 2002). For example, Wilk and Moynihan (2005)
found that when call-center employees’ supervisors placed heavy emphasis on employees
expressing positive emotions and being pleasant and polite to callers no matter how rude the
callers might be to the employees, the workers were much more likely to feel emotionally
exhausted from their work.
Tyranny
21
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
This may account for the recent “Steven Slater effect.” Mr. Slater, a 38-year old Jet Blue
flight attendant, on August 9, 2010 allegedly grabbed an airplane’s intercom and made an
expletive-laced speech, took a beer from the galley, opened the door and slid down the
emergency evacuation chute, and quit his job as the plane was arriving at the terminal, after an
unruly and rude customer supposedly swore at him, hit him with a piece of carry-on luggage, and
refused to apologize (Gawker, n. d.). Mr. Slater quickly acquired folk hero status because his
meltdown struck a sympathetic chord with others, especially those in jobs that require daily
interaction with a public that, at times, can be difficult to please.
Clearly, organizations have a right to expect friendly behavior from their employees
because it is good for business, yet an enlightened manager might weigh this right against the
possible cost to employees. For example, less resistance to stress has been observed among
those who repress negative emotions (Brown, Tomarken, Orth, Loosen, Kalin, & Davidson,
1996) while Derakshan and Eysenck (1999) noted that those who present an optimistic
assessment of their emotional state by denying their negative emotions, even to themselves, tend
to have significantly stronger physiological reactions than those who are more realistic about
their negative emotions.
Although snapping at customers is probably never a good idea, managers might teach
employees how to express their emotions constructively (e.g., politely telling a customer “no” in
response to an unreasonable request, rather than barking at the customer or knuckling under).
Nevertheless, it does suggest that attempts to build a positive workforce may, surprisingly, take a
toll on employees who are asked to conform to happy and cheerful “display rules.”
Denial of risk and peril
Tyranny
22
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Mader and Leibner (2007) suggested that a leader’s supreme confidence is toxic and can
erode organizational commitment of subordinates. Leaders who exude confidence at all times,
they said, tended to minimize problems or discourage them from being discussed (often
unconsciously) for fear that it would reflect poorly on them. Such confidence sends off signals
that the leader is not open to feedback or criticism, and making him or her virtually
unapproachable—particularly when they are wrong and more prone to engage in risky behavior.
In his studies of unrealistic optimism, Weinstein (1984; Weinstein & Klein, 1996)
provided evidence of the harmful effects of optimistic biases in risk perception related to a host
of health hazards. Those who underestimate their risk are routinely less likely to show interest in
taking preventive action such as not wearing seat belts or condoms (Weinstein & Klein, 1996).
Weinstein, Lyons, Sandman, and Cuite (1998) also found that those who optimistically
underestimated the risk of radon in their homes were less likely than others to engage in risk
detection and risk reduction behaviors. In related research, Kunda and Klein (Klein & Kunda,
1992; Kunda, 1990) provided several examples of mechanisms that help maintain a positive selfview, but likely to have harmful long-term consequences. For instance, smokers may avoid
thinking about or trying to quit (Steele, 1988). Thus, the average individual sees himself or
herself as below average in risk for a variety of maladies, which of course cannot be. This
phenomenon is appropriately lamented because it may lead people to neglect the basics of health
practices.
Another consideration is that risk assessments may vary as a function of the product
itself. Simon and Houghton (2003) found in their study of high-technology firms, a correlation
between overconfidence and the degree to which product introductions were pioneering (risky).
Managers introducing pioneering products were more apt to express extreme certainty about
Tyranny
23
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
achieving success, yet these products were less likely to achieve success. These type of people
are extremely certain they will achieve success and thus underestimate the dangers. This
suggests that overconfidence plays a greater role in risk taking.
In a related area, sales, Iannarino (2010) indicated that excessive belief in an
organization’s product or service can be destructive to sales if it leads to arrogance. An
exaggerated sense of importance leads to several problems. Companies believe that there are not
substitutes for their product or service and that clients cannot succeed without them. Companies
stop listening to the needs of its constituents. Ultimately, when they no longer fear the
competition, arrogance dulls their competitiveness. When companies stop listening, they lose
their connection to the changes that are occurring in the marketplace. They lose touch with
customer’s needs. Arrogance causes a loss of the desire to please the customer, to make changes
to win deals, and to innovate. Eventually, having fired customers, alienated prospects, and failed
to innovate, leaner, hungrier, aggressive competitors strike and these unsuspecting companies get
overtaken. Their competitors are listening, they are acquiring those discarded clients, and they
are innovating. Arrogance can cost an organization its very existence.
The trait of optimism works well for keeping employees motivated and inspired, but
carried to extreme, it can ruin proper risk assessments, warp reality checks, and lead to selfdeception. While some may argue that an appetite for risk taking is considered a prerequisite for
success, Gellerman (1986) argued that “Contrary to popular mythology, managers are not paid to
take risks; they are paid to know which risks are worth taking” (p. 89).
Finally, on a personal level, overconfidence can cost an individual their life. Anecdotal
information from two scenarios provides some dramatic insights. Eminent management scholar,
Jim Collins, interviewed Admiral James Stockdale, one of the most highly decorated officers in
Tyranny
24
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
the history of the United States Navy, who survived eight years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam
and was tortured over 20 times, for his classic text Good to Great (2002). In interviewing
Stockdale Collins asked who were those who did not survive their captivity. “Oh, that’s easy,”
Stockdale said, “the optimists. They were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by
Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re
going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then
Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart” (Collins,
2002, p. 84). Collins (2002) indicated that he carries a mental image of Admiral Stockdale
admonishing the optimists: “We’re not getting out by Christmas; deal with it!” (p. 85).
The events Admiral Stockdale noted in the North Vietnamese prison were similar to
famous psychotherapist and holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl’s experience in Man’s Search for
Meaning (1959). He observed that the death rate in the concentration camps increased close to
Christmas because many people who believed they would be spending it with their family died
of disappointment. The point both Collins and Frankl make is that, at least under certain
circumstances, it is maladaptive to have high optimism and that the “power of positive thinking”
can sometimes backfire under stressful life conditions and that one can never let such beliefs and
faith cloud one’s encounter with reality.
Impression management
The process by which individuals attempt to influence the impression others form of
them is called impression management (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). While often discussed at the
individual level, it also refers to practices in professional communication and public relations, to
describe the process of forming public image. The idea that perception becomes a viable reality
is fundamental to this process.
Tyranny
25
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Today firms are encouraged generally to present an external “image” (Dutton &
Dukerich, 1991) or “reputation” (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990) that is overly optimistic.
Organizations are expected to be acutely sensitive to outside perceptions and make decisions and
disclose data that create favorable impressions (Caves & Porter, 1977; Fombrun & Zajac, 1987).
A favorable reputation can generate excess returns for a firm by inhibiting the mobility of rivals
(Caves & Porter, 1977; Wilson, 1985), signaling product quality (Milgrom & Roberts, 1986),
attracting better applicants (Stigler, 1962), enhancing the firm’s access to capital markets (Beatty
& Ritter, 1986), and attracting investors (Milgrom & Roberts, 1986).
Organizations are frequently encouraged to make optimistic projections about their
performance, deemphasize the financial risks associated with holding their stock (Fombrun &
Shanley, 1990), predict and plan for higher sales than those possible for the average firm to attain
(Larwood & Whittaker, 1977), rationalize problems and errors (Staw, 1980), deny faults
(Elsbach, 1994), and conceal negative information (Abrahamson & Park, 1994). Biases toward
the faulty prediction of organizational growth can be particularly pernicious to suppliers and
competitors as well. For instance, unrealistic biases toward exponential growth, if held by each
competitor in a market, may lead to ruinous attempts at overexpansion and competition for
scarce resources.
Impression management does not imply that the impressions people convey are
necessarily false but misrepresentations do occur. Indeed, lying can be thought of as an
“extreme form of impression management that involves the deliberate fostering of a false
impression” (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, &Wyer, 1996, p. 980). Ambiguous situations, such as
in strategic business dealings in ill-structured environments lacking discrete input variables or
measurement calibration (Roll, 1986), offer particularly attractive opportunities for deception.
Tyranny
26
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Such situations provide relatively little information for challenging a fraudulent claim and thus
reduce the risks associated with misrepresentation and overconfidence (Goffman, 1959). This
combined with the tendency for executives to preserve a positive self-image leads to
misrepresentations and rationalizations (Grover, 2005). If honesty can be defined as “the refusal
to fake reality ... to pretend that facts are other than they are, whether to himself or others”
(Smith 2003, p. 518), then we can feel some assurance in calling such overconfident and
overoptimistic executives and organizations dishonest.
Entrepreneurial activities
Optimism is vital in overcoming the anxiety about starting a new venture, but too much
optimism can keep entrepreneurs from acknowledging that there are risks involved. Some
entrepreneurs bite off more than they can chew. Some launch a business that does not have a
marketable product or service. Some do not raise adequate capital to survive early cash flow
crises (Trevelyan, 2007). Such optimism develops because when entrepreneurs evaluate
situations they magnify their strengths and opportunities and minimize the importance of
weaknesses and threats (Palich & Bagby, 1995). They also tend to treat their assumptions as
facts and do not see uncertainty associated with conclusions stemming from those assumptions
(Simon, Houghton, & Aquino, 2000). Moreover, they perceive less risk because they are more
optimistic about those assumptions (Russo & Schoemaker, 1992) which results in less
information search (Zacharakis & Shepherd, 2001). Such excessive optimism has been cited as a
primary reason for the high incidence of failure among start-ups (Gartner, 2005)—45% of newly
created firms fail before their fifth birthday (Shane, 2008).
Indeed, Landier and Thesmar (2009) investigated different levels of optimism in
entrepreneurs and found that overly confident entrepreneurs were more likely to be associated
Tyranny
27
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
with failing businesses. Optimistic entrepreneurs did not view their endeavor as a major risk,
because they saw success as inevitable and were not likely to abandon their dreams quickly or
easily. The authors found that entrepreneurs with optimistic views at the start of their business
ventures were still holding high expectations three years later. Even if it became apparent that
their business will not succeed without abandoning some portion of the business plan, adapting
it, or scaling back the business, optimistic entrepreneurs’ strong belief in their venture prevented
them from adapting to early feedback regarding the venture’s success. Such misguided
persistence has undesirable consequences and goal disengagement in some circumstances is
useful and adaptive (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver, & Schulz, 2003).
Landier and Thesmar (2009) indicated that “The enthusiasm of optimistic entrepreneurs
is their strength and their weakness. They work hard, but are reluctant to adapt their initial idea”
(p. 128). When the business does not perform as well as it should, it is crucial to revise the
business plan and adapt the product to customer demand. The optimistic entrepreneur, however,
is unlikely to make these changes. Furthermore, Landier and Thesmar (2009) noted that the
failed businesses which were run by optimistic entrepreneurs tended to be worth less just before
their demise than other start-ups.
Entrepreneurs, who are highly involved in start-ups, also tend to be very high in optimism
and confidence (Lovallo & Kahneman, 2003). Ironically, Hmieleski and Baron (2009) found
that entrepreneurs’ dispositional optimism is negatively related to firm performance (revenue and
employment growth). This may be because highly optimistic individuals often hold unrealistic
expectations, suffer from overconfidence, and discount negative information—tendencies that
can seriously interfere with their decision making and judgment (Geers & Lassiter, 2002;
Hmieleski & Baron, 2009). Indeed, Ranft and O’Neill (2001) noted that “The major problems
Tyranny
28
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
for boards in successful entrepreneurial firms is [the] need to develop the capability to counter
the entrepreneur’s naturally occurring overconfidence” (p. 129). Additionally, entrepreneurs
may fail to assess potential opportunities carefully, and show a strong preference for heuristic
decision making (Sarmány, 1992), and come to experience high levels of overconfidence that
ultimately interfere with their performance of key tasks (e.g., full assessment of potential
opportunities). Such tendencies adversely affect the success of new ventures. Finally, of
particular relevance to entrepreneurs, positive expectations often lead to goal conflict, because
optimists see new opportunities everywhere they look (Segerstrom & Solberg Nes, 2006). This
tendency can generate significant problems for individuals who cannot easily decide which goals
to pursue and therefore may become overextended as they seek to exploit more opportunities
than is realistically feasible. In contrast, moderate optimists tend to be more realistic in their
choice and pursuit of opportunities. Entrepreneurs must be able to decide which goals they can
accomplish in order to maximize the potential for survival and long-term success (McMullen &
Shepherd, 2006).
Incongruence with certain jobs/positions
Seligman (1991) made an important observation when he commented on the role of a
CEO, stating “…at the head of the corporation must be a CEO, sage enough and flexible enough
to balance the optimistic vision of the planners against the jeremiads of the CPAs” (p. 112). This
suggests that positive thinking may be associated with individuals in particular positions and that
optimism may not always be the correct approach in selecting applicants. When a risk of
negative consequences exists, a cautious, risk-avoiding approach is appropriate. Pessimism can
keep people from taking risky, optimistic actions in areas where the downside risks are
unacceptable.
Tyranny
29
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Certain jobs that require persistence and initiative and involve frequent frustration,
rejection, and defeat call for an optimistic outlook (Seligman, 1991). Such jobs might include
sales, public relations, and fundraising positions. Positions that are highly competitive have a
tendency for high-burnout or require inventing and creativity are best suited for optimistic
persons. Other occupations, such as financial control and accounting, quality control, design and
safety engineering, and technical writing call for a pessimistic outlook. These positions
generally require individuals with a pronounced sense of reality who know when not to charge
ahead and to err on the side of caution. For example, in accounting, optimistic assumptions can
easily wreak havoc (Munger, 2002). Does an organization want an accountant telling it the
reality of what it has in its checking account or does it want some starry-eyed optimist managing
the firm’s finances? Do individuals want their financial advisor telling them that everything is
going well or do want to hear the truth about their retirement plan?
Summary and Conclusion
Misplaced positive thinking, optimism, and confidence are ubiquitous in America. The
central claim that “positivity is good and good for you; negativity is bad and bad for you” (Held,
2005, p. 2) and that happiness, or optimism, or positive something—is not only desirable in and
of itself but actually useful, leading to better health, enhanced achievement, and greater success.
However, there are costs to being positive and despite such an endorsement it is important to
note that it is a double-edged sword and that excessive levels are problematic. It is dangerous to
assume the best possible outcome regardless of facts to the contrary.
America’s fascination with all things positive may be specific to Western cultures. At
other times and places great cultures incorporated in their worldviews elements of negative
thinking. Muslims, in general, see grief, sadness, and other dysphoric emotions as concomitants
Tyranny
30
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
of religious piety and correlates of the painful consequences of living justly in an unjust world
(Woolfolk, 2002). Sorrow marks the depth of personality and understanding. In Iran, for
example, pathos is central to the Iranian ethos. Sadness for Iranians is associated with maturity
and virtue. A person who expresses happiness too quickly often is considered socially
incompetent (Good, Good, & Moradi, 1985).
Sadness is also valued in Japan. Several centuries ago Motoori Norinaga (1730-1801)
fashioned the concept of mono no aware, sometimes translated as “the persistent sadness that
inheres in all things.” This concept was postulated to define an essential ingredient of Japanese
culture and meant to characterize both a certain aesthetic and a capacity to understand the world
directly, immediately, and sympathetically (Masahide, 1984). Mono no aware was thought to
distinguish Japanese culture and mark its superiority. The idea here is that of a sensitivity that
involves being touched or moved by the world. This kind of sensibility is thought to be
inextricably intertwined with a capacity to experience the sadness that emanates from the
transitory nature of things.
Another relevant worldview is that of Buddhism. This philosophic system of self denial
goes beyond the mere karmic tribulations of the unjust or the unfortunate. It begins, famously,
with a declaration of the universal pervasiveness of suffering inherent in the human condition.
The First Noble Truth forming the foundation for the Buddhist Weltanschauung is that
consciousness in interaction with the universe inevitably entails dukkha, often translated as
suffering but also the whole spectrum of negatives: pain, sorrow, unhappiness, dysfunctionality,
frustration, dissatisfaction, angst, and even stress (Woolfolk, 2002). Dukkha is ever-present,
persistent, and unavoidable. From a Buddhist standpoint, it is not a cognitive distortion to see
the world and human existence as dangerous, unsatisfying, painful, and meaningless; rather it is
Tyranny
31
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
irrational not to see the world this way. Such negative appraisals can be thought of as the
beginning of wisdom (King & Woolfolk, 2001).
Interestingly, a new approach in psychotherapy in the United States, Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes & Smith, 2005), seems to be a movement away from an
emphasis on the positive and toward an acceptance of the negative. Hayes argues that trying to
correct negative thoughts can paradoxically actually intensify them (e.g., telling someone to “not
think about a blue tree,” actually focuses their mind on a blue tree). Rather than trying to resist
anxiety and negativity, individuals are taught to acknowledge that pain and negative thoughts
recur throughout their life and that suffering is a basic component of life. They must then
identify and commit to their values in life. Patients who embrace their negative emotions
subsequently find it easier to commit to what they want in life and improve their mental health
(Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006). The acronym ACT describes the nature of
therapy among the initiated: Accept the effects of life’s hardships, Choose directional values,
and Take action.
The goal of this paper has been to question the wholesale endorsement of all things
positive and the wisdom of always being cheerful. A more balanced approach is required rather
than the “accentuate the positive” mantra advanced by self-help manuals and lifestyle gurus as
the key to health, wealth, love, and success. Unfortunately, one size does not fit all. Although
positive thinking is useful for some people some of the time, a purely positive approach to
everyday life (e.g., “Positive anything is better than negative thinking,” attributed to Elbert
Hubbard) appears to backfire for others. This demonstrates that such a cookie-cutter approach to
human nature is unwarranted and unconstructive. A more nuanced approach is needed to
counter the belief that if a little positive thinking is good, then a lot must be better.
Tyranny
32
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Consider the extensive work by Norem and her colleagues on defensive pessimism
(Norem, 2001; Norem & Chang, 2002; Spencer & Norem, 1996) who found that some people are
negative because their pessimism helps to shield them from potential pain—the sting of more
optimistic expectations failing to materialize. Studies have found that people who exhibit
defensive pessimism are actually less stressed when they indulge in this personal routine than
when they are forced to express more optimistic thoughts. For defensive pessimists, worrying
about upcoming challenges is a way of life. It is also a healthy coping strategy that helps them
prepare for adversity. Norem has shown that when deprived of their pessimism, defensive
pessimists’ performance levels drop. For defensive pessimists, being positive has a decidedly
negative side (Lilienfeld, 2009)!
Other research by Wood, Perunovic, and Lee (2009) likewise found that positive thinking
and the repetition of stock optimistic phrases such as “I can do it” or “I will succeed” do more
harm than good for some people. Specifically, the researchers concluded that repeating positive
affirmations may benefit certain people, such as individuals with high self-esteem, but backfire
for those with low self-esteem, the people who need them the most. Wood et al. (2009) asked
people with high and low self-esteem to repeat a number of positive self-statements and then
measured the participants’ moods and their feelings about themselves. The low-esteem group
felt worse afterwards compared with a control group while people with high self-esteem on the
other hand felt better after repeating the positive affirmations—but only slightly. The
researchers then asked the participants to list negative and positive thoughts about themselves.
They found, paradoxically, that those with low self-esteem were in a better mood when they
were allowed to have negative thoughts than when they were asked to focus exclusively on
affirmative thoughts.
Tyranny
33
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Wood et al. (2009) suggest that, like overly positive praise, unreasonably positive selfstatements can provoke contradictory thoughts in low self-esteem individuals. When positive
self-statements strongly conflicted with self-perception, the researchers argue, there was not
mere resistance but a reinforcing of existing self-perception. People who view themselves as
unlovable, for example, find that saying statements that are so unbelievable actually strengthens
their own negative view. The positive statements may act as reminders of failure, highlighting
the gulf someone sees between reality and the personal standard set. In short, someone could say
“I’m a lovable person” but may be thinking “I’m actually not” or “I’m not as lovable as I should
be.” Statements that contradict a person’s self-image, no matter how encouraging in intention,
are likely to boomerang. In a study by Schwarz, Bless, Strack, Klumpp, Rittenauer-Schatka, and
Simons (1991) individuals asked to remember 12 examples of being assertive rated themselves
as being less assertive than those who just had to remember 6 examples. Because people had
trouble coming up with a dozen examples, they reasoned that they must not be very assertive
after all!
The Wood et al. (2009) findings were also supported by the previous research of Swann,
De La Ronde, and Hixon (1994) that showed that when people got feedback that they believed
was overly positive, actually felt worse, not better. Researchers found that people with negative
self-views were most intimate with marital partners who evaluated them unfavorably! This
tendency for married persons to eschew overly favorable evaluations was not restricted to those
with negative self-views; even people with positive self-views were less intimate with spouses
whose evaluations were extremely favorable. Apparently, when a spouse’s evaluations fall
outside one’s latitude of acceptance (Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1961), married people
withdraw psychologically from the relationship. It seems that marriage partners prefer that their
Tyranny
34
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
spouses recognize their strengths and weaknesses and want their spouses to see them as they see
themselves. In summary, these studies call into question the exaggerated benefits of being
positive encouraged by magazine columnists, self-help books, talk-show hosts, business
associates, selected religious authorities, and friends and neighbors.
I agree with Pfeffer (2001) who indicated that companies may be much better served by
having “wise” people as opposed to positive workers. As originally defined by Plato, wisdom is
the attitude of knowing what you know and knowing also what you don’t know.
Overconfidence, in many ways, refers to the failure to know the limits of one’s knowledge
(Zacharakis & Shepherd, 2001). This leads to overestimation of one’s certainty regarding facts.
Most of us possess enough self-confidence to function properly and to even get up in the
morning. Too much, however, has a downside because it can move us to agree with and support
people, plans, or projects which a more realistic evaluation would have rejected. Wisdom
permits organizations to take action in the face of doubt to continue learning even as it is doing.
I also agree with Peterson (2000) that people should be optimistic when the future can be
changed by positive thinking but not otherwise. Perhaps individuals should adopt what Seligman
(1991) called a flexible or complex optimism, a psychological strategy to be exercised when
appropriate as opposed to a reflex or habit over which they have no control:
You can choose to use optimism when you judge that less
depression, or more achievement, or better health is the
issue. But you can also choose not to use it, when you judge
that clear sight or owning up is called for. Learning optimism
does not erode your sense of values or your judgment. Rather
it frees you to ... achieve the goals you set . . . . Optimism’s
benefits are not unbounded. Pessimism has a role to play, both
in society at large and in our own lives; we must have the courage
to endure pessimism when its perspective is valuable ( Seligman,
1991, p. 292).
Tyranny
35
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
References
Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (1980). Judgment of contingency: Errors and their implications.
In A. Baum & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Advances in environmental psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
111-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Abrahamson, E., & Park, C. (1994). Concealment of negative organizational outcomes: An
agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1302-1334.
Adams, I., & Strouse, I. (1960). Put on a happy face.
Adams, S. (1975, May). Viet-Nam coverup: Playing war with numbers. Harpers Magazine, 25,
41-44, 62-73.
Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vredenburg, D. S. (1995).
Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68, 804-825.
Åstebro, T., Jeffrey, S. A., & Adomdza, G. K. (2007). Inventor perseverance after being told to
quit: The role of cognitive biases. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 253-272.
Audia, P. G., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2000). The paradox of success. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 837-53.
Baumeister, R. F. (1989). The optimal margin of illusion. Journal of Social & Clinical
Psychology, 8, 176-189.
Beatty, R. P., & Ritter, J. R. (1986). Investment banking, reputation, and underpricing of initial
public offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 15, 213-232.
Borenstein, S. (2010, July 18). BP disaster, other crises expose limits. Dallas Morning News, 1D,
4D.
Tyranny
36
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Brockner, J. (1992). The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward
theoretical progress. Academy of Management Review, 17, 39-61.
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Great expectations: Optimism and pessimism in
achievement settings. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism & pessimism: Implications for
theory, research, and practice (pp. 239-255). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Brown, L., Tomarken, A., Orth, D., Loosen, P., Kalin, N., & Davidson, R. (1996). Individual
differences in repressive-defensiveness predict basal salivary cortisol levels. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 362-368.
Buehler, R., & Griffin, D. (2003). Planning, personality, and prediction: The role of future focus
in optimistic time predictions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
92, 80-90.
Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & MacDonald, H. (1997). The role of motivated reasoning in optimistic
time predictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 238-247.
Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people
underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67, 366-381.
Buehler, R., Messervey, D., & Griffin, D. (2005). Collaborative planning and prediction: Does
group discussion affect optimistic biases in time estimation? Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 97, 47-63.
Buffet, W. E. (2001, May/June). The perils of cock-eyed optimism. Journal of Business Strategy,
5-6, citing “The Chairman’s Letter,” Berkshire Hathaway 2000 Annual Report.
Byrne, R. (2006). The secret. New York: Atria Books/Beyond Words.
Tyranny
37
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Carnegie, D. (1937). How to win friends and influence people. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2003). Optimism. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.),
Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures. (pp. 26-49).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Caves, R. E., & Porter, M. E. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers. Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 91, 421-434.
Collins, J. C. (2002). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others don’t.
New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Connolly, T., & Dean, D. (1997). Decomposed versus holistic estimates of effort required for
software writing tasks. Management Science, 43, 1029-1045.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Sekerka, L. E. (2003). Toward a theory of positive organizational
change. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational
scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 225-240). San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., & Kirkendol, S. E., &Wyer, M. M. (1996). Lying in everyday
life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979-995.
Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (1999). Are repressors self-deceivers or other deceivers?
Cognition & Emotion, 13, 1-17.
Dess, G. G., & Picken, L. C. (1999). Creating competitive (dis)advantage: Learning from Food
Lion’s freefall. Academy of Management Executive, 13, 91-111.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of emotional display
rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 284-294.
Duchon, D., & Drake, B. (2009). Organizational narcissism and virtuous behavior. Journal of
Tyranny
38
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Business Ethics, 85, 301-308.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in
organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517-554.
Ehrenreich, B. (2009). Bright-sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has
undermined America. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Elsbach, K. D. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The
construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39,
57-88.
Feynman, R. (1988). An outsider’s inside view of the ‘Challenger Inquiry.’ Physics Today, 41,
36-37.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management
Review, 31, 270-291.
Finkelstein, S. (2003a). Why Smart Executives Fail, and What You Can Learn from Their
Mistakes. Penguin Group.
Finkelstein, S. (2003b). Why Smart Executives Fail. Retrieved January 14, 2010, from
http://www.executiveforum.com/PDFs/syd_synopsis.pdf
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The
appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 3, 522-564.
Flyvberg, B. (2008). Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning:
Reference class forecasting in practice. European Planning Studies, 76, 3-21.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate
strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233-258.
Tyranny
39
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Fombrun, C., & Zajac, E. J. (1987). Structural and perceptual influences on intraindustry
stratification. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 33-50.
Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press.
Ganesh, S. (2003). Organizational narcissism. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 558595.
Gartner, J. D. (2005). America’s manic entrepreneurs. American Enterprise, 16, 18-21.
Gawker. (n. d.). Folk Hero Steven Slater Breaks His Silence, Every Word He Utters Repeated Ad
Nauseum. Retrieved August 11, 2010, from http://gawker.com/5610332/folk-hero-stevenslater-breaks-his-silence-every-word-he-utters-repeated-ad-nauseum
Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., & McLarney, A. R. (2003). Discerning the role of optimism in
persuasion: The valence-enhancement hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 554-565.
Geers, A. L., & Lassiter, G. D. (2002). Effects of affective expectations on affective experience:
The moderating role of optimism-pessimism. Personality and Social Psychological
Bulletin, 28, 1026-1039.
Gellerman, Saul W. (1986, July/August). Why ‘good’ managers make bad ethical choices.
Harvard Business Review, 64, 85-90.
George, J. M. (2002). Affect regulation in groups and teams, In R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski, & R.
Kanfer (Eds.,), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of
emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 183-217). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gibson, B., & Sanbonmatsu, D. M. (2004). Optimism, pessimism, and gambling: The downside
of optimism. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 30, 149-160.
Godkin, L., & Allcorn, S. (2009). Institutional narcissism, arrogant organization disorder and
Tyranny
40
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
interruptions in organizational learning. The Learning Organization. Bradford, 16, 40-57.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Anchor.
Good, B. J., Good, M., & Moradi, R. (1985). The interpretation of dysphoric affect and
depressive illness in Iranian culture. In A. Kleinman & B. J. Good (Eds.), Culture and
depression: Studies in the anthropology and cross-cultural psychiatry of affect and
disorder (pp. 369-428). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gordon, M. (2010, July 22). Dell Inc. Paying $100 Million in SEC Deal. Retrieved July 23,
2010, from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100723/ap_on_hi_te/us_sec_dell_settlement
Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history.
American Psychologist, 35, 603-618.
Gregory, R. (1999). The impact of narcissism on leadership and sustainability. In A. Cohill
& J. Kruth (Eds.), Pathways to Sustainability: The Age of Transformation (published online and Retrieved September 8, 2010, from
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/tcsf/pathways/index.html
Grover, S. L. (2005). The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: The causes and
management of workplace lying. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 148-157.
Hall, P. (1980). Great planning disasters. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Harari, O. (2003). The leadership secrets of Colin Powell. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hartshorne, C., & Weiss, P. (Eds.) (1934). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Pierce: Volume
5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J., Bond, F., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and Commitment
Therapy: Model, processes, and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1-25.
Tyranny
41
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Hayes, S. C., & Smith, S. (2005). Get out of your mind and into your life: The new acceptance
and commitment therapy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the premium paid for large
acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 103-127.
Held, B. S. (2005). The “virtues” of positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and
Philosophical Psychology, 25, 1-34.
Hendricks, K., Porter, R., & Tan, G. (2008). Bidding rings and the winner’s curse. RAND
Journal of Economics, 39, 1018-1041.
Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper)
core self-evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 26,
297-319.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs’ optimism and new venture
performance: A social cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52,
473-488.
Iannarino, S. A. (2019, January 22). The Dark Side of Belief: Arrogance. Retrieved July 27, 2010
from http://thesalesblog.com/2010/01/the-dark-side-of-belief-arrogance/
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Johnson, S. (1998). Who moved my cheese?: An amazing way to deal with change in your
work and in your life. New York: Penguin Putnam.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between
positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167-187.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Is positiveness in organizations always desirable? Academy
of Management Executive, 18, 151-155.
Tyranny
42
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures.
TIMS Studies in Management Sciences, 12, 313-327.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organization. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kidd, J. B., & Morgan, J. R. (1969). A predictive information system for management.
Operational Research Quarterly, 20, 149-170.
King, A., & Woolfolk, R. L. (2001, May 16-18). Melancholia East and West. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophical
Psychopathology, New Orleans.
Klayman, J., Soil, J., Gonzalez-Vallejo, J., & Barlas, S. (1999). Overconfidence: It depends on
how, what, and whom you ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
79, 216-247.
Klein, W. M., & Kunda, Z. (1992). Motivated person perception: Constructing justifications for
desired beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 145-160.
Kroll, M. J., Toombs, L. A., & Wright, P. (2000). Napoleon’s tragic march home from
Moscow: Lessons in hubris. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 117-128.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
Kurtzman, D. (2003, September 8). George W. Bush, Cheerleader-in-Chief. Retrieved
January 9, 2010, from
http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2003/09/08/george-w-bush-cheerleader-in-chief.htm
Landau, M., & Chisholm, D. (1995). The arrogance of optimism: Notes on failure-avoidance
management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 3, 67-80.
Landier, A., & Thesmar, D. (2009). Financial contracting with optimistic entrepreneurs. Review
Tyranny
43
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
of Financial Studies, 22, 117-150.
Larwood, L., & Whittaker, W. (1977). Managerial myopia: Self-serving biases in organizational
planning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 194-198.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A Literature review and twocomponent model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.
Levinson, H. (1994). Why the behemoths fell: Psychological roots of corporate failure. American
Psychologist, 49, 428-436.
Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). Do those who know more also know more about how
much they know? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 159-183.
Lilienfeld, S. (2009). Is Positive Psychology For Everyone? New Research Raises Doubts.
Retrieved August 4, 2010, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skepticalpsychologist/200906/is-positive-psychology-everyone-new-research-raises-doubts
Limmack, R. J. (1993). Bidder companies and defended bids: A test of Roll’s hubris hypothesis.
Managerial Finance, 19, 25-36.
Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines
executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81, 56-63.
Lovallo, D., Viguerie, P., Uhlaner, R., & Horn, J. (2001). Deals without delusions. Harvard
Business Review, 85, 92-99.
Luntz, F. I. (2007). Words that work: It’s not what you say, It’s what people hear. NY: Hyperion.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological
capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel
Psychology, 60, 541-572.
Tyranny
44
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Management, 33, 321-349.
Mader, G., & Leibner, J. (2007). How Great Leadership Traits Can Squelch Employee
Commitment. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from
http://www.workforce.com/archive/article/24/77/56.php
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005a). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. Journal of
Finance, 60, 2661-2700.
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005b). Does overconfidence affect corporate investment? CEO
overconfidence measures revisited. European Financial Management, 11, 649-659.
Markus, H. R., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Masahide, B. (1984). Religion and society in the Edo period as revealed in the thought of
Norinaga, Motoori. Modern Asian Studies, 18, 581-592.
McAllister, H. A., Baker, J. D., Mannes, C., Stewart, H., & Sutherland, A. (2002). The optimal
margin of illusion hypothesis: Evidence from the self-serving bias and personality
disorders. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 414-426.
McFerrin, B. (1988). Don’t worry, be happy.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in
the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 36, 132-152.
Mercer, J., & Arlen, H. (1945). Ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive.
Middleton, D. R. (1989). Emotional style: The cultural ordering of emotions. Ethos, 17, 187-201.
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1986). Price and advertising signals of product quality. Journal of
Political Economy, 94, 796-821.
Tyranny
45
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Miller, D. (1990). The Icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own
downfall: New lessons on the dynamics of corporate success, decline, and renewal. New
York: Harper Business Press.
Munger, C. T. (2002, April 4). Optimism has no place in accounting. The Washington Post, A17.
Newby-Clark, I. R., Ross, M., Buehler, R., Koehler, D. J., & Griffin, D. (2000). People focus
on optimistic scenarios and disregard pessimistic scenarios when predicting task
completion times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 171-182.
New York Times. (1983, September 23). Required reading. pp. 1D, 4D.
Norem, J. K. (2001). The positive power of negative thinking: Using defensive pessimism to
harness anxiety and perform at your peak. New York: Basic Books.
Norem, J. K., & Chang, E. C. (2002). The positive psychology of negative thinking. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 58, 993-1001.
Oettingen, G. (1996). Positive fantasy and motivation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.),
The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 236-259).
New York: Guilford Press.
O’Reilly, V., McDonnel, P., Winograd, B., Gerson, J., & Jaenicke, H. (1998). Montgomery’s
Auditing (12th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Son.
Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial
risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 42538.
Peale, N. V. (1952). The power of positive thinking. New York: Ballantine Books.
Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44-55.
Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., Yurko, K. H., Martin, L. R., & Friedman, H. S. (1998).
Tyranny
46
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Catastrophizing and untimely death. Psychological Science, 9, 49-52.
Petty, A. (2009, August 30). Leadership Caffeine: Is Your Self-Confidence In Danger of Burning
Out of Control? Retrieved September 9, 2010, from http://artpetty.com/tag/hubris-andthe-leader/
Pezzo, S. P., Pezzo, M. V., & Stone, E. R. (2006). The social implications of planning: How
public predictions bias future plans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 221227.
Pfeffer, J. (2001, Spring). Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization’s health.
Organization Dynamics, 248-259.
Pinfold, J. (2001). The expectations of new business founders. Journal of Small Business
Management, 39, 279-285.
Piper, W. (1930). The little engine that could. NY: Platt & Munk.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Porter, E. H. (1913). Pollyanna. Harrap: London.
Quality of Life Research. (n. d.). Journal of Happiness Studies. Retrieved December 20, from
http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/quality+of+life+research/journal/10902?det
ailsPage=description
Ranft, A. L., & O’Neill, H. M. (2001). Board composition and high-flying founders: Hints of
trouble to come? The Academy of Management Executive, 15, 126-138.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Organizational behavior (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Roll, R. (1986). The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. Journal of Business, 59, 197-216.
Ronningstam, E. (2005). Identifying and understanding the narcissistic personality. Oxford:
Tyranny
47
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Oxford University Press.
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1989). Decision traps: The ten barriers to brilliant
decision-making and how to overcome them. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1992). Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management
Review, 33, 7-17.
Sandomir, R. (2007, January 12). Star struck, pp. C10, C14.
Sankowsky, D. (1995, Spring). The charismatic leader as narcissist: Understanding the abuse of
power. Organizational Dynamics, 57-71.
Sanna, L. J., Parks, C. D., Chang, E. C., & Carter, S. E. (2005). The hourglass is half full or half
empty: Temporal framing and the group planning fallacy. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 9, 173-188.
Sarmány, I. (1992). Optimism and cognitive style. Studia Psychologica, 34, 261-267.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being
optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 26-30.
Schnaars, S. P. (1989). Megamistakes: Forecasting and the myth of rapid technological change.
New York: Free Press.
Schrand, C. M., & Zechman, S. L. C. (2009). Executive Overconfidence and the Slippery Slope
to Fraud (April 1, 2010). AAA 2009 Financial Accounting and Reporting Section
(FARS) Paper; Chicago Booth Research Paper No. 08-25. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1265631
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991).
Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195-202.
Tyranny
48
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Bohner, G. (1991). Response scales as frames of reference: The
impact of frequency range on diagnostic judgments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 3749.
Segerstrom, S. C. (2001). Optimism, goal conflict, and stressor-related immune change. Journal
of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 441-467.
Segerstrom, S. C., & Solberg Nes, L. (2006). When goals conflict but people prosper: The case
of dispositional optimism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 675-693.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: Knopf.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Pawelski, J. O. (2003). Positive psychology: FAQs. Psychological
Inquiry, 14, 159-169.
Shane, S. A. (2008). The illusions of entrepreneurship: The costly myths that entrepreneurs,
investors, and policy makers live by. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sheehan, N. (1988). A bright shining lie. New York: Random House.
Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1961). Altitude and attitude change: The social
judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Sigmon, S., & Snyder, C. R. (1993). Looking at oneself in a roles-colored mirror: The role of
excuses in the negotiation of a personal reality. In M. Lewis & C Saarni (Eds.),
Deception and lying in everyday life (pp. 271-286). New York: Guilford Press.
Simon, M., & Houghton, S. M. (2003). The relationship between overconfidence and the
introduction of risk products: Evidence from a field study. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 139-149.
Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (2000). Cognitive biases, risk perception and venture
Tyranny
49
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
formation: How individuals decide to start companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15,
113-134.
Sims, R. R. (1992). Linking groupthink to unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 11, 651-662.
Smith, T. (2003). The metaphysical case for honesty. Journal of Value Inquiry, 37, 517-31.
Spencer, S. M., & Norem, J. K. (1996). Reflection and distraction: Defensive pessimism,
strategic optimism, and performance. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 22,
354-365.
Spirrison, C. L., & Gordy, C. C. (1993). The constructive thinking inventory and detecting errors
in proofreading. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 631-634.
Starker, S. (1989). Oracle at the supermarket: The American preoccupation with self-help books.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Staw, B. M. (1980). Rationality and justification in organizational life. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 2 (pp. 45-80). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261-302).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stigler, G. J. (1962). Information in the labor market. Journal of Political Economy, 70, 49-73.
Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings
in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857-869.
Taylor, S. E., & Armor, D. A. (1996). Positive illusions and coping with adversity. Journal of
Personality, 64, 873-898.
Tyranny
50
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective
on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Trevelyan, R. (2007). Optimal optimism. Business Strategy Review, 18, 18-22.
Trevelyan, R. (2008). Optimism, overconfidence and entrepreneurial activity. Management
Decision, 46, 986-1001.
Valente, T. W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovation. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press,
Voltaire, R. (1947/1759). Candide (J. Butt, Trans.). Baltimore: Penguin Books. (Original work
published 1759)
Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won’t happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and
susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3, 431-457.
Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 1-8.
Weinstein, N. D., Lyon, J. E., Sandman, P. M., & Cuite, C. L. (1998). Experimental evidence for
stages of health behavior change: The precaution adoption process model applied to
home radon testing. Health Psychology, 17, 445-453.
Wilk, S. L., & Moynihan, L. M. (2005). Display rule regulators: The relationship between
supervisors and worker emotional exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 917927.
Wilson, H. W. (1985). Reputations in games and markets. In A. E. Roth (Ed.), Game-theoretic
models of bargaining (pp. 65-84). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, J. V., Perunovic, E., & Lee, J. W. (2009). Positive self-statements: Power for some, peril
for others. Psychological Science, 20, 860-866.
Tyranny
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Woolfolk, R. L. (2002). The power of negative thinking: Truth, melancholia, and the tragic
sense of life. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 22, 19-27.
Wright, P. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wolf, S., & McMahan, G. C. (1995). The effects of varying
goal difficulty operationalizations on goal setting outcomes and processes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 28-43.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Schulz, R. (2003). The importance of goal
disengagement in adaptive self-regulation: When giving up is beneficial. Self and
Identity, 2, 1-20.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zacharakis, A. L., & Shepherd, D. (2001). The nature of information and overconfidence on
venture capitalists’ decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 311-332.
51
Tyranny
Running head: POSITIVE THINKING
Table 1. Difficulties resulting from excessive overconfidence and optimism

Goal setting

Planning fallacy

Decision making

Display rules

Leader hubris and narcissism

Denial of risk and peril

Technological arrogance

Impression management

Ethical considerations

Entrepreneurial activities

Incongruence with certain jobs
52