[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
Although the ancient Greek concept of hybris has not suffered from scholarly neglect, there has been a surge of publications in recent years, at least in part, because of Douglas Cairns’s research project, “Honour in Classical Greece,” funded by the European Research Council. This collection of essays stands out from the crowded field in that the editors have brought together renowned experts from classics, psychology, and business and management studies to examine points of contact, explore continuity and change, and identify what is distinctive about the ancient concept of “hybris” and the modern concept of “hubris” (xxv). The modern research, classicists may be surprised to discover, is perhaps almost as extensive as that for ancient Greece, making this dialogue particularly productive. It invites the researchers in these three areas to be more precise about their claims regarding the ancient and modern concepts; and it encourages them to tackle head-on the problems that they face across the ancient and modern divide, given that both concepts are fairly elastic and often used in ambiguous ways. Contributors avoid the danger of blurring the ancient and modern concepts by referring to the former as hybris and the latter as hubris (2 n. 6). This makes it easier for the reader to recognize when contributors are comparing or contrasting the two concepts and when they are limiting their discussion to either the ancient or the modern term; I will follow their lead in my discussion of the individual essays.
The introduction provides an excellent review of the major trends in modern and classical scholarship. In 2007, Lord David Owen, a medical doctor and former British politician, who also provided the foreword to the volume, identified behavior, which he called the “hubris syndrome,” to explain a personality disorder that can impair the judgment of politicians and cause them to make disastrous decisions (xiii–xiv, 3–4). In business and management studies, a separate strand of research emerged that predates Owen’s work, although it has been influenced by his and other psychological studies of hubris. This research examines how business practices and corporate culture cultivate traits and biases in leadership that lead to hubris and result in corporate failures (5–6). The modern concept of hubris shares traits with the “traditional view” of hybris (i.e., arrogance or pride that leads to divine retribution), which Nick Fisher definitively refuted in his landmark study (8).[1]
Although the modern concept has clearly been influenced by Greek mythology,[2] it has also moved in a substantially different direction. Unlike modern hubris, which some research describes as having a “bright side” (17), the ancient concept was never viewed positively. The modern literature on hubris is sometimes concerned about the corruption of power (see, for example, xv, 140, 178), but it tends to lack the kind of moralizing that dominates ancient accounts, and modern hubris is always top-down (23). Still, there is significant overlap: the modern literature is concerned about the extent to which hubris affects others (13–14); the ancient literature often focuses on “excessive self-assertion” and “thinking big” (9); and both concepts are “narratival in form,” primarily express “negative evaluations,” and function as “explanatory paradigms” (18–22, 28).
Part 1 of the volume concerns classical Greece. In Chapter 1, Fisher summarizes the various debates about hybris that have taken place in the past fifty years. While it is now generally agreed that hybris operated within the conceptual framework of timē, disagreement remains about the importance of the individual’s disposition and the effects of their action when defining hybris.[3] Fisher now concedes that he may not have given enough attention to the “settled disposition” of the hubristēs in his earlier studies (37). Some may find the amount of attention that this debate continues to attract excessive. The extent to which a text focuses on disposition or effects will depend on the author’s purpose. Moreover, it is hard to imagine how a person with a hubristic disposition would not at some point negatively impact others, even if a text does not explicitly address those effects.[4] Still, this debate deserves to be highlighted because it helps us understand many of the problems that scholars face in seeking to define the ancient and modern concepts. Fisher then goes on to review seven types of actions that are commonly depicted as hubristic in the ancient literature, and he examines Sophocles’ Ajax and Herodotus’s depiction of Xerxes as case studies in support of his argument that “thinking big” is not the equivalent of hybris.
In Chapter 2, Cairns explores how the central components in Aristotle’s definition overlap with the modern concept. According to Aristotle, those who are fortunate by accident can acquire too much confidence in their own abilities and start believing that they are invulnerable. This condition renders them fearless and pitiless, so that they become contemptuous of others (58–59). Luck and good fortune are elements in both the ancient and modern concepts, but the social consequences of hubris are less commonly considered in discussions of the modern concept (62). Cairns suggests that contemporary studies could benefit from drawing on the works of Michael Sandel and Daniel Markovits regarding the injustices that meritocracy produces as well as ancient theories on the social effects of hybris (68).
Chapters 3 and 4 focus on the political and social dynamics of hybris. Although the ancient Greeks often viewed the rich and powerful as prone to hybris, accusations of “bottom-up” hybris also appear in ancient Greek literature (71–72). In Chapter 3, Mirko Canavero examines how the elite accused their social inferiors of hybris for failing to stay in their place or seeking to attain more than they deserved. For the ancient Greeks, hybris was in the “eye of the beholder” (74), used to police boundaries, whether to promote egalitarianism or a hierarchical social order. Canevaro invites the reader to consider how accusations against the downtrodden in our own time may also serve a similar function, even if they do not fall under the modern label of hubris (84–87). In Chapter 4, Kleanthis Mantzouranis considers the love-hate relationship of Alcibiades with the people of Athens. Applying social identity theory to Alcibiades’ leadership, Mantzouranis argues that Alcibiades both conformed to and violated Athenian norms. Because he promoted imperialistic policies and embodied Athenian ideas about their own exceptionalism, he was followed, admired, and even loved. Yet, he failed to display and affirm his commitment to egalitarian principles and middling ideology, thus making him fundamentally at odds with the Athenian democracy.
Part 2 explores the findings from psychology and neuroscience about the modern concept of hubris. In Chapter 5, Trevor Robbins examines the evidence that suggests stress can impair judgment. Studies have shown that damage to the prefrontal cortex can impact decision-making and may contribute to the hubris syndrome (112–15). Robbins hypothesizes that “the special social status of politicians” can lead to chronic stress and cause them to experience many of the symptoms of the hubris syndrome (121–22). In Chapter 6, Constantine Sedikides and Aiden Gregg discuss the costs and benefits of “ordinary hubris,” that is, thinking better about one’s self, one’s abilities, and one’s worth than an objective assessment would warrant (123–24). Although self-enhancers are often negatively perceived, self-enhancement is difficult to curtail because, unlike ancient hubris, it has an “upside” (135). Self-enhancers are less prone to depression, and they are more successful in the pursuit of their professional and personal goals (136–37). In Chapter 7, Ana Guinote and Kyoo Hwa Kim provide an analysis of hubris that comes closest to the ancient concept. They are interested in the dispositional and situational aspects of hubris in the modern workforce. They argue that individuals are likely to gain positions of power because of their disposition (148–50), and these positions provide them with the means and resources that can inflate their sense of superiority and provide them with the ability to carry out their goals (142–45). Thus, for Guinote and Kim, power combined with dispositional hubris will generate the ancient sense of the term (151).
Part 3 focuses on hubris in business management and leadership. The chapters in this section are largely in agreement with each other, overlap quite significantly, and from an outsider’s perspective, seem to differ, for the most part, in only subtle ways. They primarily address the causes of hubris in leadership, which (although it has a bright side) can lead to catastrophe, and they discuss how to promote the positive effects of hubris while avoiding its negative consequences. In Chapter 8, Graham Robinson and Tim Wray suggest that the dark side of hubris has more in common with the ancient concept than is generally recognized because it causes the individual to hold others in contempt and abuse provisions of power (178–79). In Chapter 9, Matthew Hayward explores hubris as a process rather than a state. He focuses on scenarios where the emotional and cognitive dynamics of pride and overconfidence generate hubris in leaders, causing them to implement strategic plans that have a high risk of failure – they take for granted their own abilities and ignore the warnings of their team. Using the stories told about Steve Jobs and John Scully as CEOs of Apple, Chapter 10 examines the narratological features that the modern concept of hubris shares with its ancient counterpart. Donald Nordberg, Fabian Homberg, and Hossam Zeitoun suggest that modern hubris sometimes results in the kind of downfall that is often highlighted in the ancient literature. Hubris may have a bright side, but its dark side is never too far beneath the surface (209–10).
Chapter 11 explains how the hubris bias can create a negative loop that leads to worsening results. Hubris causes individuals not only to trust too much in their own abilities and disregard others’ suggestions but also to deny responsibility and blame others for the failure of plans that they developed and executed. This locks them into a hubris cycle. Chapter 12 differs significantly from the other chapters in Parts 2 and 3. Dennis Tourish argues that too much emphasis has been placed on the pathologies of business leaders (i.e., disposition), with the ways business organizations promote hubris (i.e., situation) being overlooked (222–23). He identifies five dynamics that allow hubris to thrive in business (234) and suggests ways to curtail them so that hubris is less prevalent (237–38).
While some readers may be tempted to skip some chapters, depending on which side of the ancient and modern divide their own research falls, I encourage them to read the work in its entirety. The contributors provide excellent overviews of the research in their areas of study while also offering new perspectives so that even experts in those fields will benefit. They frequently draw connections between the ancient and modern concepts, careful to highlight the similarities and the differences, making the exchange between the authors fruitful.
Authors and Titles
Foreword: Hubris in Politics (Rt. Hon Lord David Owen)
Introduction (Douglas Cairns, with Nick Bouras and Eugene Sadler-Smith)
Part I: Hybris in Classical Greece
- Hybris in Ancient Greece: Syndrome, Antisocial Behaviour—or Both? (Nick Fisher)
- Lucky Fools: Luck, Risk and Merit in the Ancient Greek Concept of Hybris (Douglas Cairns)
- The Hybris of the Downtrodden: Honour and Social Control in Ancient Greek Society (and Today) (Mirko Canevaro)
- Hybris and Leadership: Identity Leadership and the Paradox of Alcibiades (Kleanthis Mantzouranis)
Part II: Hubris in Contemporary Psychology and Neuroscience
- Neurobiological and Neuropsychological Perspectives on the Hubris Syndrome (Trevor W. Robbins)
- Ordinary Hubris: A View from Social and Personality Psychology (Constantine Sedikides and Aiden P. Gregg)
- Power, Hubris and Self-Serving Behaviour (Ana Guinote and Kyoo Hwa Kim)
Part III: Hubris in Business, Leadership and Management
- Twenty-First-Century Hubris: From Tragedy to Personality Disorder and Social Process (Graham Robinson and Tim Wray)
- Overreaching Leaders: Towards an Integrative Framework of CEO Hubris (Matthew Hayward)
- Hubris and Leadership: The Role of, and Warning Signs in, Storytelling and Myth-Making (Donald Nordberg, Fabian Homberg, and Hossam Zeitoun)
- Hubristic Entrepreneurial Leadership: Targets, Interpretation and Reaction to Performance (Pasquale Massimo Picione, Gabriella Levanti, and Arabella Mocciaro Li Destri)
- Hubris in Business Organisations: Causes, Symptoms and Remedies (Dennis Tourish)
Notes
[1] N. Fisher, Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece (Warminster, 1992).
[2] Owen even established the Daedalus Trust to research and raise awareness about the hubris syndrome (xvi).
[3] Most notably, D. M. MacDowell, “Hybris in Athens,” G&R 23 (1976): 14–31; D. L. Cairns, “Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big,” JHS 116 (1996): 1–32; M. Canevaro, “The Public Charge for Hybris against Slaves: The Honour of the Victim and the Honour of the Hybristēs,” JHS 138 (2018): 100–26.
[4] In response to Canevaro (2018), Fisher has convincingly proven that Demosthenes focuses on both the disposition of Meidias and the effects of his actions; see pages 213–21 in Fisher, “Whose Honour? Hubris, Slavery and the Athenian Law Once More,” in D. M. Lewis, M. Canevaro, and D. L. Cairns (eds.), Slavery and Honour in the Ancient Greek World (Edinburgh, 2025), 198–225.