Narcissistic leadership in business school - Assistant Professor GITAM University Employee Review

The Management Department is currently facing serious concerns regarding leadership quality, academic integrity, and organizational practices. The departmental leadership exhibits patterns of ineffective and, at times, abusive behavior, raising questions about suitability for such a critical role. The leadership style reflects characteristics often associated with dark personality traits, including misuse of authority, lack of accountability, and politically driven decision-making. From an academic perspective, teaching effectiveness appears to be significantly compromised. There is an evident inability to clearly explain core concepts to students, with frequent reliance on directing learners to external platforms such as YouTube rather than delivering structured, classroom-based instruction. Moreover, there is a noticeable absence of credible research contributions in reputed indexed databases such as Scopus, which calls into question whether the individual meets the expected academic standards for the position. A concerning pattern of internal politics is also visible, particularly targeting newly recruited and competent faculty members. Individuals demonstrating efficiency and professionalism often encounter resistance, false allegations, and exclusionary practices. Instead of fostering a collaborative and merit-based academic environment, the system appears to discourage competence and promote favoritism. Efforts to raise concerns regarding unethical practices have not led to any constructive response. Higher authorities remain unresponsive, thereby reinforcing a culture where misconduct persists without accountability. There are also indications of regional bias in faculty treatment, with certain groups reportedly facing discrimination. Recruitment practices further raise concerns, as hiring appears to intensify during accreditation periods, followed by the removal of faculty through politically motivated actions and unclear or unsupported allegations. The institution lacks clearly defined rules, transparent policies, and an effective grievance redressal mechanism. This absence of structure enables arbitrary decision-making and contributes to an atmosphere of insecurity among faculty members. Overall, the situation reflects systemic issues within the academic and administrative framework. Student learning outcomes, faculty well-being, and institutional credibility appear to be compromised, with a disproportionate emphasis on fee collection rather than meaningful educational development.