 had not, as far as I knew, contacted us in the preparation of his article. Nevertheless, his article read as if he had been hovering, sight unseen, just above our manage- ment meetings for the past two years. Maccoby was not using the term narcissistic pejoratively. In fact, the examples he cited-Jack Welch, George Soros, Bill Gates, Andy Grove-are admirable figures. In the context of business leadership, he saw narcissists as "gifted and creative strategists who see the big picture and find meaning in the risky challenge of changing the world and leaving behind a legacy." He suggested that what he called "pro- ductive narcissists" were just what the doctor ordered when compa- nies were facing fundamental changes in their markets or technologies. That certainly described AT&T, and the board (or chance) had given us two narcissists in a row to get us through the transition: first John Walter, then Mike Armstrong. "Productive narcissists," Maccoby wrote, "are not only risk takers willing to get the job done but also charmers who can convert the masses with their rhetoric." That also described both Walter and Armstrong. Both were highly effective salesmen and were very popular with rank-and-file employees, whose dissatisfaction with bureaucracy and impatience with the pace of change the two leaders seemed to mirror. Maccoby saw an Achilles heel in narcissists, however: They are not very introspective and tend to lack self-knowledge. They set audacious goals, but they don't listen to the very people who have to achieve them. They are highly competitive and see threats everywhere, and when some of their schemes fail, they are hypersensitive to criticism, blaming others and never themselves. Armstrong appeared to understand these dangers intuitively. He wasn't very introspective, but he seemed to understand that he intimi- dated some people, and he had trained himself to be a patient listener. In meetings, he seldom interrupted anyone and always apologized if Complete the CEO he inadvertently started speaking before s