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(4), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.455
Summary
This article, published in the Strategic Management Journal, builds upon the foundational Upper Echelons Theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), which emphasized that executives shape firm outcomes through their values and experiences. In this work, Hiller and Hambrick take the next step by introducing a formal psychological construct—Core Self-Evaluations (CSE)—as a lens through which to understand executive confidence, hubris, and strategic behavior.
They argue that past research on traits like narcissism, overconfidence, and hubris was fragmented and lacked conceptual clarity. CSE offers a more integrated, validated, and measurable framework. It encompasses four well-established personality traits:
- Self-esteem
- Self-efficacy
- Internal locus of control
- Emotional stability
Executives with high CSE believe in their capabilities, trust their decisions, and tend to view challenges as manageable. But the article’s major contribution is highlighting the concept of “hyper-CSE”—a dangerously high level of confidence that mirrors what we commonly call hubris.
At moderate levels, CSE promotes effective leadership: confidence, decisiveness, and optimism. But when CSE becomes extreme, it can distort judgment and lead to overreach. Hiller and Hambrick argue that many top executives, particularly CEOs, may exhibit hyper-CSE, and that this trait affects how they make strategic decisions, how quickly they act, whether they pursue risky or unconventional strategies, and how long they persist in failing initiatives.
They propose several testable hypotheses connecting hyper-CSE to:
- Less comprehensive but faster decision-making
- Centralized decision authority
- Greater pursuit of large-scale or “quantum” strategic initiatives
- Greater deviation from industry norms (nonconformity)
- Increased likelihood of strategic persistence—even when change is needed
This article provides a crucial framework for understanding how personality traits at the top can lead to both breakthrough success and catastrophic failure.
What Is Core Self-Evaluation (CSE)? A Foundational Leadership Trait
At the heart of Hiller and Hambrick’s article is a refined psychological framework known as Core Self-Evaluation (CSE). CSE is a composite personality trait representing the fundamental way individuals evaluate themselves and their place in the world. It combines four well-established personality components:
- Self-esteem: One’s overall sense of self-worth and value.
- Self-efficacy: The belief in one’s ability to successfully accomplish tasks and goals.
- Locus of control: The degree to which one believes they can control outcomes through their own actions, rather than external forces.
- Emotional stability (low neuroticism): The tendency to remain calm, confident, and resilient under pressure.
People with high CSE see themselves as competent, in control, and capable of handling challenges. These traits, when present in leaders, are generally associated with positive leadership behaviors: assertiveness, persistence, goal orientation, and optimism in the face of adversity.
Importantly, CSE has been extensively validated in the psychology literature. By bringing this well-researched construct into the strategic management domain, Hiller and Hambrick offer a rigorous and testable model for understanding how executives interpret complex strategic situations and make decisions.
From High CSE to Hyper-CSE: The Rise of Executive Hubris
While high CSE can be an asset—especially in senior leadership roles—Hiller and Hambrick sound the alarm about its excessive form, which they refer to as “hyper-CSE.” This condition is closely aligned with what many in the business world recognize as executive hubris—an exaggerated sense of self-confidence, control, and invincibility.
Hyper-CSE executives are characterized by:
- Unshakable belief in their own judgment, even in unfamiliar or ambiguous situations.
- Dismissing or downplaying others’ input, including that of peers, subordinates, or boards.
- Assuming success is due to personal brilliance, and failure is caused by external factors.
- Overestimating their ability to predict and shape outcomes.
This inflated self-view leads to a host of potentially dysfunctional behaviors. While hyper-CSE leaders may appear charismatic and visionary, they are also prone to strategic overreach, resistance to feedback, and persistence in failing paths. Their high self-regard can make them blind to warning signs and dismissive of dissent, increasing the organization’s exposure to strategic missteps.
This distinction between healthy confidence and dangerous overconfidence is essential. The article helps clarify where the line is drawn, and why crossing it has significant implications for firm strategy and performance.
How Hyper-CSE Influences Strategic Decision-Making
The core argument of the paper is that an executive’s level of CSE—particularly when extreme—fundamentally shapes how they make strategic decisions. Hiller and Hambrick propose a conceptual model outlining the cognitive and behavioral consequences of hyper-CSE in top executives.
Key behaviors of hyper-CSE leaders include:
- Less Comprehensive but Faster Decision-Making:
Confident in their instincts, hyper-CSE leaders often skip deep analyses and make decisions based on intuition or minimal data. While this can yield speed and first-mover advantage, it also increases the likelihood of flawed reasoning or poor timing. - Centralized Authority and Low Delegation:
These leaders prefer to keep major decisions in their own hands, showing reluctance to delegate authority. This tight control can create bottlenecks, suppress dissent, and erode the quality of strategic input. - Pursuit of Quantum Strategic Leaps:
Hyper-CSE executives are drawn to bold, sweeping moves—massive acquisitions, market transformations, or complete business model reinventions. They seek legacy-defining impact, even when such moves carry disproportionate risk. - Strategic Nonconformity:
Convinced of their unique insight, these leaders often ignore industry norms and benchmark data. While this can drive breakthrough innovation, it can also result in isolation from market realities. - Strategic Persistence:
Even when evidence mounts that a strategy isn’t working, hyper-CSE leaders are likely to double down. Their strong internal locus of control and belief in personal ability can turn into stubbornness or denial, delaying necessary pivots or corrections.
Each of these behaviors, taken alone, can be beneficial or harmful depending on context. Together, they form a high-risk profile—one that can lead to dramatic success or failure depending on timing, industry dynamics, and the presence (or absence) of governance checks.
Why This Matters: Leadership Risk at the Top
One of the paper’s most important contributions is highlighting how personality-driven risk is concentrated in the executive suite, and why firms—and especially boards—need to pay close attention to it. CEOs and other top executives operate in high-stakes roles with asymmetric power. Their decisions affect resource allocations, personnel, organizational structure, and market positioning. A CEO’s psychological disposition, therefore, is not just a private matter—it becomes a strategic variable.
Hyper-CSE leaders often appear desirable: they are charismatic, visionary, decisive, and assertive—traits that appeal to boards, investors, and employees alike. However, when not balanced by reflection, humility, or oversight, these same traits can spiral into strategic myopia and overconfidence traps.
This matters most in contexts characterized by uncertainty, novelty, or high turbulence—where bold strategic bets are necessary, but must be made with careful deliberation. In these environments, the risk of hyper-CSE is especially pronounced. Boards may feel reassured by a leader’s strong convictions, but over time, the cost of unchecked confidence can accumulate in the form of strategic drift, organizational resistance, and loss of stakeholder trust.
The article also signals a broader shift in leadership thinking—from evaluating executives solely on skills and experience to considering their psychological orientation. This opens up new possibilities for more rigorous CEO assessments, board-level succession planning, and executive coaching practices that emphasize self-awareness and governance alignment.
10 Practical Insights for Business Owners and Managers
- Executive confidence can drive success—but unchecked, it can cause overreach.
Leaders with hyper-CSE may act boldly, but without sufficient analysis. - Not all confidence is healthy.
It’s important to distinguish between grounded self-belief and dangerous hubris. - Watch for overly centralized decision-making.
Hyper-CSE executives often cut out others and trust only their own judgment. - Expect fast decisions—sometimes too fast.
These leaders often act before fully evaluating options or gathering input. - Big bets are common.
Hyper-CSE executives are more likely to pursue major, high-stakes projects. - They may ignore industry norms.
Convinced of their uniqueness, these leaders often pursue nontraditional strategies. - They tend to persist with failing strategies.
Because they believe so deeply in their own ideas, they’re slow to course-correct. - Success fuels more confidence.
Promotions, media praise, and past wins can inflate CSE even more—creating a feedback loop. - Boards should include dissenting voices.
Diversity and psychological safety in the boardroom can help moderate hubris. - Use personality assessments when hiring or developing executives.
Tools that measure CSE can help predict a leader’s likely approach to strategic risk and control.
Closing Thoughts
This article by Hiller and Hambrick makes a significant contribution to understanding how executive personality—particularly confidence and hubris—shapes strategic decision-making. In doing so, it gives leaders and boards a practical framework for assessing and guiding top executives.
It also builds a bridge between psychology and strategy, showing that leadership is not just about skills or experience, but about deep-seated beliefs and self-perceptions. For business owners and directors, this means looking beyond track records and résumés—and paying closer attention to how a leader sees themselves and their role in shaping the firm’s destiny.
Hyper-confidence may be seductive—but humility, reflection, and balance are often the better long-term strategy.