MSc Thesis - Business Studies - Is there a narcissist in all of us

IS THERE A NARCISSIST IN ALL OF US

MASTER THESIS

Not everyone can be narcissistic,

so how is it possible that we say that

we know so many? A quantitative study of the multidimensionality of the NPI and the impact of Extraversion, beyond the Big Five, on the

relationship between narcissism and OCB

University of Amsterdam

Faculty of Economics and Business

Track: MSc Business Studies - Leadership and Management

Student name: Ronald J. Schep

Student number: 10564314

Student e-mail: [email protected]

First supervisor: Prof. D. Den Hartog

Second supervisor: Dr. A. de Hoogh

Date: July 2014


ii

Table of Contents

List of tables .............................................................................................................................. iv

List of figures ............................................................................................................................. v

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... vi

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... vii

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Literature review ........................................................................................................................ 4

Narcissism .............................................................................................................................. 4

Narcissism and its dimensional structures. ......................................................................... 5

Adaptive and Maladaptive narcissism. ............................................................................... 6

Narcissism as a one-dimensional construct. ....................................................................... 7

Narcissism in organisational contexts. ............................................................................... 7

Organisational citizenship behaviour ..................................................................................... 8

Leadership behaviour as antecedent. .................................................................................. 9

Narcissism and OCB. ......................................................................................................... 9

Self- and other-rated OCB. ............................................................................................... 10

Narcissism’s facet structure and OCB. ............................................................................. 11

Flavours of OCB. .............................................................................................................. 11

Dominance complementarity theory .................................................................................... 13

Leadership trait theory. ..................................................................................................... 13

Interpersonal complementarity theory. ............................................................................. 14

Narcissistic dominance. .................................................................................................... 15

Methods.................................................................................................................................... 17

Sample and procedure .......................................................................................................... 17

Measures............................................................................................................................... 18

Narcissism ........................................................................................................................ 18

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour. ............................................................................. 18

Big Five. ........................................................................................................................... 19

Data preparation ................................................................................................................... 19

Confirmatory factor analysis ................................................................................................ 20

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Three-Factor Solution. ........................................... 20

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Two-Factor Solution. ............................................. 20

Common Method Bias. ..................................................................................................... 21


iii

Results ...................................................................................................................................... 22

Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 24

Implications for theory and practice ..................................................................................... 27

Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 28

Directions for future research ............................................................................................... 29

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 30

References ................................................................................................................................ 32

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 40

Appendix A: Hierarchical Regression Analyses .................................................................. 40


iv

List of tables

Table 1. CFA Fit Indexes of NPI Solutions………………………………………………….20

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the measures………………...22

Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Leadership/Authority……………..39

Table 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Exhibitionism/Entitlement………..40


v

List of figures

Figure 1. Conceptual model …………………………………………………………………16

Figure 2. Results of structural equation model ……………………………………………...23


vi

Acknowledgements

I would like to especially thank prof. dr. Deanne den Hartog for supervising this

master thesis project. I have worked with great pleasure on this study thanks to her positive

and enthusiastic attitude. See was always of great support when I got stuck or just needed

professional advice. See gave me insights which made this thesis much better.

I would also like to offer special thanks to Dr. Annebel de Hoogh for being the second

reader and expert in our thesis group sessions.

Finally, I would like to give special thanks to all the participants who made this study

possible, to my fellow students with whom I collected the data and to those people who have

read this master thesis and provided me with valuable feedback.


vii

Abstract

Purpose: In the present study the effects of narcissism in an organisational context

are investigated. Past empirical studies have reported conflicting results: both negative and

positive effects of narcissism in an organisational context have been reported. The present

study investigated the effect of supervisor narcissism on pro-organisational behaviours,

known as Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB). In addition, the multidimensionality

of the narcissism construct was investigated, in which both the effects of adaptive (more

normal leadership behaviours) and maladaptive (unsocial, dominating and manipulative

behaviours) dimensions were explored. Elaborating on dominance complementarity theory, it

was also investigated whether extraversion forms a moderator of the relationship between

leader narcissism and employee challenging and affiliative OCB. Method: A sample of 322

respondents filled in an online or paper based questionnaire, from which 161 leader

subordinate dyads could be matched. Results: The present study showed that narcissism, as

expected, is a multidimensional construct in which a distinction must be made between

adaptive and maladaptive narcissism. The leadership/authority facet (adaptive) had a positive

relation with OCB whereas the exhibitionism/entitlement facet (maladaptive) showed a

negative relation with OCB. These opposite effects are strong evidence for the

multidimensionality of the narcissism construct. Furthermore, the study found no moderating

effect of extraversion in the narcissism-OCB relationship. The degree of employee

dominance did not interfere with the supervisor employee relationship. Conclusion:

Narcissism must be treated as a multidimensional concept which is composed of two opposite

dimensions. Further research should report both the score and effect size for global

narcissism as the individual scores and effect sizes for adaptive and maladaptive narcissism.


1

Introduction

If you tell your friends, family or acquaintances that this research is about the effects of

narcissistic leadership then there is always this sign, mostly a smile, of recognition. It

appears, if you ask any employee if they have ever had a narcissistic boss you would be

surprised how many people, apparently, have come in contact with narcissistic leadership.

Most stories end with devastating leadership judgments and the deteriorating effects of it on

the organisation or team performance. In addition to its public attention, narcissism is also a

subject of interest for many researchers in a variety of disciplines (e.g. Ackerman et al., 2011;

Miller & Campbell, 2008). A quick glance at the published work about narcissism resulted in

more than 100.000 (Google scholar) publications and 6.800 (PsycINFO) publications from

various research fields. Increasing research attention has turned to the determination of the

effects of narcissism in organisations (Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis, & Fraley, 2013).

Narcissism can clearly be seen, from a leadership perspective, as a blessing and a

curse (De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Nevicka, 2013; Hochwarter & Thompson, 2012). In

addition, there is still considerable uncertainty about the effects of narcissism in organisations

(Meurs, Fox, Kessler, & Spector, 2013; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Narcissism, which has

a negative connotation, is associated with a desire for authority and power, egocentrism, the

need to be admired and a lack of empathy. It describes someone who does not tolerate

contradiction, who gets quickly frustrated and has an inflated self-view (Campbell, Hoffman,

Campbell, & Marchisio, 2011; Hoffman et al., 2013). On the other hand narcissists are

confident, often charismatic and optimistic, which are seen as positive leadership traits

(Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Therefore narcissism is positively linked to leader emergence

(Brunell et al., 2008; Nevicka, De Hoogh, Van Vianen, Beersma, & McIlwain, 2011),

confidence (e.g. Emmons, 1984), extraversion (e.g. Grijalva et al., 2013) and narcissists are

perceived as more intelligent (Paulhus, 1998). Campbell and colleagues (2011) refer to these


2

seemingly contradictory sides of narcissism as its ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ sides. This terminology

has been adopted by other researchers and is sometimes referred to as adaptive and

maladaptive narcissism (Ackerman et al., 2011).

The past decade can be characterized as the quest for answering the question whether

the effects of narcissism are positive or negative. Many recent studies tried to find an answer

and several insightful contributions were made. Some of those studies report predominantly

positive findings in the relationship between narcissism and effective leadership, such as the

positive relation of narcissism and peer perception of leadership ratings (Judge, LePine, &

Rich, 2006). Galvin, Waldman and Balthazard (2010) have found a positive link too between

charismatic leadership and narcissism through the visionary boldness aspect. Nevertheless

most of the studies on narcissism explored its more negative implications. Resick, Whitman,

Weingarden and Hiller (2009), for example found evidence that manager turnover was higher

in firms which were led by narcissistic CEO’s. Another negative effect established was on

team performance through reduced group-level information exchange (Nevicka et al., 2011).

On closer examination it turns out that the published effects of narcissism are rather

scattered, both positive or negative and significant versus non-significant. One possible

explanation for this conclusion comes from Miller and Campbell (2008) who state that a lack

of consensus on how to conceptualise narcissism underlies these differences. Another

possible explanation is proposed by Ackerman and colleagues (2011), elaborating on the

research of Miller and Campbell. They state that, in the social-personality research,

narcissism turned out to be both adaptive (positive) and maladaptive (negative). As such,

recent debates focus on whether the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) is a valid

measure to investigate non-clinical forms of narcissism (e.g. Ackerman et al., 2011; Miller &

Campbell, 2008; Rosenthal, Matthew Montoya, Ridings, Rieck, & Hooley, 2011). Scholars

argued that narcissism should be seen as a multidimensional concept in which it is important


3

to make a distinction between global and facet levels of narcissism (Grijalva & Newman,

2014), in which it is possible to make a distinction between mere adaptive facets and

maladaptive facets of narcissism. Ackerman and colleagues (2011) state that it might be

undesirable to use a total narcissism (global) score in which the various adaptive and

maladaptive personality dimensions might blend into a composition and rule each other out.

The present study addresses this issue, among other things, by investigating the

multidimensionality of the narcissism construct.

As described earlier, social-personality research is predominantly interested in the

effects of narcissism on, for example, workplace outcomes. A recent study on the effects of

narcissism and workplace behaviour, which used the same facet structure as developed by

Ackerman and colleagues (2011), investigated the effects of narcissism on counterproductive

work behaviour (CWB) (Grijalva & Newman, 2014). They found a predominantly negative

relationship between narcissism and CWB. Interestingly they also found evidence for the

multidimensionality of the narcissism construct. The maladaptive facet was positively linked

to CWB and the opposite was true for the adaptive facet, which was negatively linked to

CWB. Nevertheless Grijalva and Newman (2014) continued to focus on the mere negative

(maladaptive) effects of narcissism without elaborating on some of the positive (adaptive)

narcissistic traits such as stability, extraversion, charisma and leader emergence.

Because of this limited focus, the present study aims to contribute to the

multidimensionality discussion, following the study of Grijalva and Newman (2014), but by

focussing on the effects of narcissistic leadership on positive, instead of negative,

organisational behaviours. The present study will start with a general literature review about

narcissism, positive workplace behaviours and the relationship between both. Secondly,

empirical research will be presented to answer the question whether narcissism is related to

positive workplace behaviours and the question how the previously mentioned sub-facets of


4

narcissism can be used in order to determine if the narcissism sub-facets are differently

related to possible positive workplace behaviour. Grijalva et al. (2013) have concluded in

recent research that it remains unclear whether certain types of employees, for example

confident or passive employees, experience and judge the relationship with a narcissistic

leader differently. Therefore, Grijalva and colleagues suggest to focus on employee type in

the research on the effects of narcissism in organisations. For this reason, the influence of

employee type on the relationship between narcissism and positive workplace behaviours will

be examined too.

In summary, the present study (1) seeks to expand the existing literature in three

ways; through the investigation of the possible link between narcissism and positive

workplace behaviours; through the exploration of the question if the narcissism sub-facets are

differently related to possible positive workplace behaviour; and through the determination of

a possible influence of employee type on the narcissism positive workplace behaviours

relationship. (2) This study uses an empirical approach to seek for construct clarification and

the expected effects of narcissism on positive workplace behaviours and it aims to contribute

to practice (3) in terms of how to distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive narcissism.

Literature review

Narcissism

Narcissism is defined and used by both social-personality and clinical psychology

professionals (Campbell et al., 2011). Narcissism officially emerged as a mental disorder in

the DSM III. The DSM is a diagnostic manual used by practitioners to asses mental disorders,

and the DSM the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is found in the B cluster (Miller &

Campbell, 2008). NPD is characterized by nine diagnostic criteria (e.g. has a lack of

empathy; tends to be exploitative, manipulative, and arrogant; DSM-IV-TR; APA, (2000)


5

p.717). A person must have five out of the nine traits before NPD can be diagnosed. The

NPD diagnosis is quite strict one and cannot simply be assigned to everyone with narcissistic

traits. In addition to complying with the DSM criteria, one must also suffer from broken

relationships and poor work performance (Campbell et al., 2011). Because of this situation, a

discussion of the narcissism terminology used in the social-personality research field has

started. High scores on the measure of the trait of narcissism do not necessarily mean

suffering from this disorder (Grijalva et al., 2013). Social-personality researchers are not

necessarily interested in the clinical or pathological form of narcissism but in any case, use

the NPI, which is based on the definition of narcissism as formulated in the DSM (Ackerman

et al., 2011; Corry, Merritt, Mrug, & Pamp, 2008; Miller & Campbell, 2008; Rosenthal et al.,

2011). This has resulted in a definition of narcissism based on subclinical form of narcissism

which is used in social-personality research. This distinction is important because the present

study uses a non-clinical sample to examine the effects of narcissism in organisations.

Narcissism and its dimensional structures. A well-known measure in the social-

personality research of narcissism is the Narcissism Personality Inventory (NPI) (O’Boyle,

Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). The NPI consist of 40 paired statements where a subject

is forced to choose between one of the statements (e.g. “I like to be the center of attention.”

and “everybody likes to hear my stories.”) (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Subjects are forced to

choose between one of the two options from which one option is more likely to be chosen by

narcissistic individuals. Despite the fact that the NPI is widely used to measure narcissism a

recent scholarly debate raised concerns about (1) the consistency of the operationalization;

(2) the ability to capture the core personality attributes; and (3) the reliability and

interpretability of the factor structure (Ackerman, Donnellan, & Robins, 2012).

The latter concern about the different factor solution, which is addressed in the above

mentioned study of Ackerman et al. (2012), could be an underlying reason for the positive


6

and negative reported effects of leader narcissism on perceived effectiveness. The problem

with the NPI lies in the fact that researchers try to distinguish between pathological and non-

pathological narcissism while the scale finds its origin in the psychology for clinical

diagnostics (O’Boyle et al., 2012). In order to be able to make this distinction, researchers

have created sub scales (Ackerman et al., 2012). Raskin and Terry (1988) proposed a factor

structure with seven sub-dimensions; authority, self-sufficiency, superiority, vanity,

exhibitionism, entitlement, and exploitativeness. Due to low internal consistency of the seven

sub-dimensions, Corry et al. (2008) established a two factor model with the same 40 item of

the NPI measure. The first dimension encompasses the Leadership/Authority facet and the

second dimension covers the Exhibitionism/Entitlement facet. It is interesting, in the light of

the present study, that this two factor solution distinguishes between adaptive and

maladaptive narcissism (Ackerman et al., 2012). Ackerman et al. (2011) proposed a three

factor solution where the sub-dimensions consist of Leadership/Authority (adaptive),

Grandiose Exhibitionism (maladaptive) and Entitlement/Exploitativeness (maladaptive). The

first dimension, as a whole, corresponds to first dimension of Corry et al. (2008) and the

second dimension of Corry and colleagues has been divided into two separate scales, which is

in line with the theoretical claims to separate grandiosity and entitlement (Ackerman et al.,

2011).

Adaptive and Maladaptive narcissism. Scholars have made a theoretical distinction

between adaptive and maladaptive narcissism (Ackerman et al., 2011; Fox & Freeman,

2011). The Leadership/Authority dimension, as in Corry et al. (2008) and Ackerman et al.

(2011), represents the adaptive aspects of narcissism and the other two dimensions form

maladaptive aspects of narcissism. Individuals who score high on the Leadership/Authority

dimension, which represents adaptive narcissism, tend to show more normal leadership

behaviour like assertiveness, self-confidence and the need for achievement (e.g. Barry, Frick,


7

& Killian, 2003; Raskin & Terry, 1988). People who score high on the Leadership/Authority

dimension like to take the lead, and they like to take the responsibility for their decisions

(Raskin & Terry, 1988). The two other dimensions represent the maladaptive aspects of

narcissism. Individuals who score high on the Exploitativeness/Entitlement or the

Grandiose/Exhibitionism dimension tend to show more uncooperative and unsocial

dominating behaviour (e.g. Barry et al., 2003; Meurs et al., 2013; Raskin & Terry, 1988)).

They easily manipulate people and have a desire to view themselves as more important than

others (Emmons, 1984; Raskin & Terry, 1988).

Narcissism as a one-dimensional construct. In contrast to these above mentioned

proposed multidimensional models, most of the published work uses mean scale scores for

overall narcissism in their models (Miller & Campbell, 2008). This approach can be

problematic in a way that different personality dimensions could conflate, such as the positive

self-attitude and the more negative need to exploit (Ackerman et al., 2011). As the NPI seems

to capture both adaptive and maladaptive aspects of narcissism, which possibly rule each

other out (Barry et al., 2003). A total score on the NPI measures both leadership ability as

well as the willingness to exploit others (Meurs et al., 2013). Therefore, the meta-analysis of

Grijalva et al. (2013) acknowledge the necessity to perform future empirical research in order

to find evidence for the effects of individual sub-dimension on the narcissism-leadership

relationship. To contribute to this appeal, the present study will attempt to create a model in

which the sub-dimensions will be individually tested to measure their effects.

Narcissism in organisational contexts. The link between narcissism and leadership

has been established by many scholars (e.g. Brunell et al., 2008; Campbell et al., 2011;

Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Nevertheless, an essential question remains unanswered, how

should one approach narcissism (Campbell et al., 2011)? Is narcissism only destructive for

organisations or can it have positive effects too? Campbell and Campbell (2009), use the


8

contextual reinforcement model in explaining the reported differences in the effect of

narcissism in organisations. They conclude that narcissism can be adaptive or maladaptive

depending on the context. The contextual reinforcement model describes in which areas

narcissism will be effective and ineffective. According to the model narcissism is beneficial

in unstable and chaotic situations in which leader emergence plays a vital role and narcissism

is harmful in stable and calm situations in which leader stability and enduring relationships

plays a vital role (Campbell et al., 2011). Campbell and colleagues still acknowledge the fact

that the reported results of narcissism effectiveness are rather scattered. Campbell et al.

(2011) state, because of the opposing results, that more explanatory research of the influence

of narcissism effectiveness is needed. Therefore, the present study will not use the contextual

reinforcement model, but focus on the multidimensionality of the narcissism construct.

Organisational citizenship behaviour

To be able to contribute to the exploration of the multidimensionality of narcissism in

organisations it is necessary to focus on the effects of narcissistic leadership on pro-

organisational behaviours. The focus on pro-organisational behaviours will help in the

clarification of the multidimensionality of the narcissism construct, because it is generally

assumed that narcissism leads to negative organisational outcomes (Nevicka et al., 2011). So,

the question which this present study aims to answer is if narcissism can also lead to pro-

organisational behaviours.

Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is commonly known as behaviour that

can be characterized as activities which indirectly contribute to the organisation (Van Dyne &

LePine, 1998). It is generally defined as a set of pro-organisational behaviours which go

beyond, and are not described in, a employee’s job description (Podsakoff, Whiting,

Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). OCB is conceptualized in the book written by Organ (1988). He

defined this extra-role behaviour as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or


9

explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the

effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). For example, this pro-organisational

behaviour includes refilling the paper of the printer, helping colleagues to lessen their

workload and contributing to a healthy work-related atmosphere.

Leadership behaviour as antecedent. As OCB is defined as pro-organisational

behaviour, the following interesting question comes to mind; how do organisations influence

or promote this discretional behaviour? According to MacKenzie et al. (2011) a lot of

research has been devoted to the antecedents of OCB, antecedents as commitment (e.g.

LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002), personality traits (e.g. Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner,

2011) and leadership related factors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

Following the conclusions of Podsakoff et al. (2000), leaders have an important role in

establishing and maintaining citizenship behaviours. Especially transformational leadership is

correlated to organisational OCB, because of the nature of transformational leadership which

stimulates performance above and beyond expectations (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Narcissism and OCB. A lot of research (e.g. O’Boyle et al., 2012) dealt with the link

between narcissism and negative work place behaviours or negative organisational outcomes,

like bullying, aggression and frustration. Those studies are mainly focused on the narcissistic

employee and his or her behavioural outcomes. The present study tries to broaden this scope

of influence and explores the effects of narcissistic leadership. It would be inappropriate to

assume that narcissistic leadership is the only factor that influences employee’s OCB, but

leadership style forms an explanatory mechanism. The recent study of Grijalva and Newman

(2014) investigated the relationship between narcissism and counterproductive work

behaviour (CWB). They found that narcissism is a strong and significant positive predictor of

CWB. CWB can be defined as voluntary behaviour that does not fit the organisational

standards and sometimes even threatens the welfare of colleagues and or the organization as a


10

whole (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Sackett, Berry, Wiemann, & Laczo, 2006). Narcissistic

individuals tend to exhibit more CWB in the organization (Spector & Fox, 2010). This raises

the question how to relate these findings to pro-organizational behaviour? Both OCB and

CWB consist of active actions, carried out by individuals, beyond a task or job description

(Judge et al., 2006). Both behaviours are associated with constructive (OCB) or destructive

(CWB) behaviours and are focused towards the organisation or individuals (Spector & Fox,

2010). Most studies that explored the relationship between OCB and CWB have found

negative correlations between the two constructs (e.g. Judge et al., 2006; Sackett et al., 2006).

According to Sackett and colleagues (2006) this serves as evidence for a theoretical

distinction between the two constructs.

Self- and other-rated OCB. To what extent is a leader capable to observe

organisational citizenship behaviours of his or her employee? According to Carpenter, Berry

and Houston (2014), there is no significant difference between self and other ratings of OCB.

In particular, the ratings of employee and supervisor were generally consistent, on multiple

levels, in their meta-analysis. They based their findings on analysis which showed that other-

ratings of OCB did not contribute to the already explained unique information by self-rated

OCB (Carpenter et al., 2014). In conclusion, according to Carpenter and colleagues,

supervisors are just as capable in rating OCB as employees themselves.

Taking into account the theoretically opposite relation between OCB and CWB (e.g.

Judge et al., 2006; Sackett et al., 2006; Spector & Fox, 2010) and the conclusion of Grijalva

and Newman (2014) that narcissism is positively related to CWB, it is expected that

narcissism will have a negative relation to OCB.

Hypothesis 1a: Narcissism is negatively related to organisational

citizenship behaviour.


11

Narcissism’s facet structure and OCB. A striking result in the study of Grijalva and

Newman (2014) has to do with the distinction between the sub-facets of the narcissism

concept as identified by Ackerman and colleagues (2011). Grijalva and Newman (2014),

found that the adaptive (Leadership/Authority) facet had a negative relation with CWB. In

other words, individuals who scores high on the adaptive narcissism facet tend to show less

disruptive organisational behaviour. It is thus expected, taking into account the opposite

relation between OCB and CWB, that adaptive narcissism has a positive relation with OCB.

On the other hand, people with high scores on the maladaptive

(Grandiose/Exhibitionism) facet showed a positive relationship with the level of CWB, in

other words those people tend to exhibit more negative organisational behaviour (Grijalva &

Newman, 2014). Thus it is hypnotized that the maladaptive narcissism facet will be

negatively related to OCB.

In the present study the design of the study of Grijalva and Newman (2014) will be

followed in the search for the effects of narcissism on perceived employee pro-organisational

behaviour (OCB). The assumption is that this would probably highlight the negative

consequences of narcissistic leadership, or will serve as a promising start for further

exploration of the narcissism sub-facets.

Flavours of OCB. In the present study a distinction is made between two dimension

of OCB, challenging and affiliative OCB (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Challenging OCB can

be characterized as change oriented proactive behaviour, or employee voice (Kim, Van Dyne,

Hypothesis 1b: The ‘adaptive’ facet is positively related to organisational

citizenship behaviour.

Hypothesis 1c: The ‘maladaptive’ facet is negatively related to

organisational citizenship behaviour.


12

Kamdar, & Johnson, 2013). Employees tend to speak out their desire to question the

organisational status quo, by providing constructive criticism (MacKenzie et al., 2011). A

narcissistic supervisor might be extra sensitive for proactive, change-related behaviour, as

will be explained in the dominance complementarity section (Grant, Gino, & Hofmann,

2011). It is expected that a distinction between the OCB dimensions has a dampening effect

on the relationship between narcissism and challenging OCB. The reason for this assumption

is that narcissism and extraversion are highly correlated and that opposite dominance

dimensions lead to more favourable relationships and similar dominance dimensions lead to

more hampering relationships (Grant et al., 2011; Grijalva & Harms, 2014; Sadler, Ethier,

Gunn, Duong, & Woody, 2009).

Affiliative behaviours, or affiliative OCB, are focused on maintaining and

establishing good interpersonal relations with others. Helping, which is also labelled as

altruism, is one of the most studied forms of this behaviour (e.g. Organ, 1988; Van Dyne &

LePine, 1998). The expectation is that affiliative OCB has no dampening effect on the

relationship with narcissism, given that opposite dominance dimensions (extraversion and

altruism) lead to more favourable relationships (Sadler et al., 2009).

Hypothesis 2a: The ‘adaptive’ facet is positively related to challenging


Hypothesis 2b: The ‘maladaptive’ facet is negatively related to challenging


Hypothesis 2c: The ‘adaptive’ facet is positively related to affiliative


Hypothesis 2d: The ‘maladaptive’ facet is negatively related to affiliative



13

A theoretical distinction between the two OCB dimensions is, according to Van Dyne

and LePine (1998), legitimate. They conclude in their study that the two OCB dimensions

explained enough unique variance to be able to make a distinction between affiliative and

challenging OCB.

Dominance complementarity theory

After the exploration of the multidimensionality of the narcissism construct, the

question remains as to whether circumstances exist that affect the effects of narcissistic

leadership in organisations. An encouraging recommendation comes from the meta-analysis

of Grijalva and colleagues (2013), in which they recommend that it would be interesting to

investigate whether different types of employees (e.g. confident vs. passive) influence the

effects of narcissistic leadership in organisations. As leadership is not just about the

behaviour of the leader itself but also about the followers, the dynamic interaction between

the characteristics of the narcissistic leader and the characteristics of the followers will be

examined.

Leadership trait theory. In the long history of leadership research, trait theories have

been extensively studied for the understanding of leadership effectiveness, wherein

leadership performances generally are attributed to personality traits such as intelligence and

dominance (Mumford, Zaccaro, Connelly, & Marks, 2000). In the context of leadership traits,

the big five personality traits are often related to leader effectiveness. Of those personality

traits, extraversion is considered to have the strongest link with leader emergence and leader

effectiveness (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Judge & Bono, 2000). Judge et al.

(2002), found that employees who scored high on the extraversion measure were more likely


14

to be perceived as effective and to emerge as leaders. To summarize, research has shown that

extroverts have a clear advantage in leadership roles (Grant et al., 2011). But, according to

the same study by Grant and colleagues (2011), it is possible that, while extraversion is a

good predictor of leadership effectiveness and emergence, extraversion does not always

automatically lead to a positive organisational contributions.

Interpersonal complementarity theory. According to Grant and colleagues (2011),

this may be due to the dynamic interplay between leader and followers, as leadership is a

two-way interventional process. This insight, proposed by Leary in the late 1950s, led to a

different way of examining the leadership-effectiveness relationship (Grijalva & Harms,

2014). This field of research (complementarity theory) acknowledged that it is not desirable

to solely focus on the characteristics of an effective leader, but to explore those effective

leadership traits in combination with the characteristics of the followers (Grijalva & Harms,

2014). Research on complementarity theory states that complementarity requires similar

levels of affiliation (friendliness invites friendliness) and opposing levels of dominance

(dominance fits with submission) (Grijalva & Harms, 2014). Where high levels of

complementarity result in more satisfying and stable relationships (Grant et al., 2011;

Grijalva & Harms, 2014; Sadler et al., 2009). Besides satisfying relationships, it also appears

that complementarity in relationships enhances objective performance effects (Grant et al.,

2011).

In addition, the dominance complementarity theory has a special focus for the degree

of dominance of leader and follower. The theory suggests that opposite dominance levels, in

which dominance corresponds with submissiveness, leads to better organisational and

interpersonal outcomes (Grant et al., 2011). The application of this theory might have

consequences for the proposed effects of narcissistic leadership on OCB, because narcissists


15

are known as highly extraverted and dominant people (e.g. Emmons, 1984; Grijalva &

Harms, 2014; Raskin & Terry, 1988).

Narcissistic dominance. Much research attention has been paid to the mere negative

effects of narcissism. The few reported positive effects of narcissism could be, in most cases,

attributed to the same characteristics which are attributed to good and effective leadership

(Judge et al., 2002). Good examples of these characteristics are dominance and extraversion,

typical leadership traits, which to some extent explain the positive reported effects of

narcissism in organisations (Grijalva et al., 2013). Nevicka and colleagues (2011) found a

positive relation between extraversion and leader emergence and Grijalva and colleagues

(2013) found an even stronger effect and conclude that extraversion fully mediates the

relationship between narcissism and leadership emergence. Extraversion is, in a narcissistic

context, best understood as behaviour in which individuals like to be in the centre of

attention, act dominant and are assertive (Grant et al., 2011).

Grant and colleagues (2011) showed that group performance improved when

extraverted leaders collaborated with passive employees. They supported their findings with a

possible explanation that extraverted leaders may feel threatened by proactive employees.

This effect may be even stronger for narcissistic leaders because they are hypersensitive to

negative information (e.g. questioning leadership decisions) (Penney & Spector, 2002),

infringement of positive self-image (Campbell et al., 2011) and ego-threats (Hochwarter &

Thompson, 2012). It is therefore expected, and this is supported by the findings of

(Podsakoff, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Maynes, & Spoelma, 2014), that a narcissistic supervisor

feels threatened by an extraverted employee which has a negative impact on the leader’s

rating of perceived OCB. Based on the above arguments, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 3a: Extraversion moderates the relationship between ‘adaptive’

narcissism and challenging OCB such that adaptive


16

A conceptual research model has been developed that links extraversion to adaptive

and maladaptive narcissism. See figure one for the theoretical framework that guides the

present study.

narcissism will have a weaker positive relationship with

challenging OCB.

Hypothesis 3b: Extraversion moderates the relationship between ‘adaptive’

narcissism and affiliative OCB such that adaptive

narcissism will have a weaker positive relationship with

affiliative OCB

Hypothesis 3c: Extraversion moderates the relationship between

‘maladaptive’ narcissism and challenging OCB such that

maladaptive narcissism will have a stronger negative

relationship with challenging OCB.

Hypothesis 3d: Extraversion moderates the relationship between

‘maladaptive’ narcissism and affiliative OCB such that

maladaptive narcissism will have a stronger negative

relationship with affiliative OCB.

Fig1. Conceptual model


17

Methods

The research design used in this study is cross-sectional in nature and will be assessed

using a self-report survey.

Sample and procedure

The present study is part of a broader study about the effects of leadership and

behaviour in organisations. Therefore, there is also data collected that will not be used in this

study. The present study investigates whether specific (mal)adaptive leadership behaviours

affect organisational aimed employee behaviours. Which makes all Dutch employed people

part of the general population. In order to say something about the effects of leadership

behaviour, dyads are examined. The sampling frame of this study consists of

supervisor/employee dyads working in different organisations. The respondents were

approached, using own contacts according to the convenience sampling method, asking if

they wanted to participate in the study of leadership and behaviour. This sampling method

was used due to limited resources available to conduct for example probability sampling but

also because of the fact that potential subjects were readily available. Respondents who were

willing to participate in the study received a web-link for the online survey or a survey

package containing the paper based questionnaire, depending on preference. Each survey was

accompanied with an informative introduction letter, stressing the voluntary character and

confidential processing of the questionnaire. The paper-based surveys was also provided with

a freepost number envelope.

A total of 322 individuals completed the questionnaire, which represents a response

rate of 69%. Of those completed questionnaires 161 leader subordinate dyads could be

matched. The leaders’ average organisational tenure was 9.28 years (SD = 7.84) and 36% of

those leaders were female. The average leaders’ age was 40.80 years (SD = 10.36) and almost

93% of the leaders worked full time. More than 87% of the leaders has indicated to have a


18

higher education (HBO or WO) diploma. The subordinates (62% were female) averaged

30.79 in age (SD = 10.21) and 65% worked full time. The subordinates’ average

organisational tenure was 4.23 years (SD = 4.85) and 78% obtained a higher education

diploma.

Measures

Narcissism. The narcissism construct is measured using the Narcissistic Personality

Inventory (NPI) which is developed by Raskin and Terry (1988). An example item is: ‘I

know that I am good because everyone keeps telling me so’. The NPI, as used in the study of

Raskin and Terry, is a 40-item forced choice measure in which respondents must choose

between two divergent statements. This original dichotomous forced-choice format is for

example used by Grijalva and Newman (2014) in their recent study about narcissism and

counterproductive work behaviour, reporting an Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85. Other recent

studies investigated the NPI with a Likert scale response format, in order to be able to

examine the NPI facet structure which requires more complex calculations (O’Boyle et al.,

2012). Barelds and Dijkstra (2010), used a five point Likert scale, for their Dutch translated

NPI questionnaire, in order to investigate the narcissism facet structure and they reported a

Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93. Instead of the five point Likert scale format of the NPI, the present

study uses a 7 point Likert scale for the 40 narcissistic expressed items in order to provide

consistency in the formats and reduce confusion among respondents.

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour. The general OCB concept is measured as a

composite of two OCB dimensions. To measure the OCB concept a 12 items measure is used,

from which five items are based on the OCB voice measure created by LePine and Van Dyne

(1998). An example item is: ‘The employee speaks up and encourages others in this group to

get involved in issues that affect the group’. They reported high internal validity with an

Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95 (LePine & Dyne, 1998). The other seven items are based on the


19

research from MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter (1991) and tend to measure OCB

(affiliative). The first three items measure the sub-dimension altruism and the other four

measure courtesy (MacKenzie et al., 1991). The OCB measurements are based on reports

from the supervisors and use a 7 point Likert scale response format.

Big Five. The subordinates personality traits were measured using the shortened, 25

items mini-IPIP, based on the study of Donnellan, Oswald, Baird and Lucas (2006). The

shortened measures is used to evaluate the five different personality dimensions as

extraversion agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness (or

intellect/imagination) (Donnellan et al., 2006). For all 25 items a 7 point Liker response scale

is used. Prior studies demonstrated alpha reliabilities in the range of .79 to .84 (Donnellan et

al., 2006).

Data preparation

In order to conduct the preliminary analyses an assessment whether the data set met

the requirements to conduct confirmatory factor analysis and linear regression is made. Of

the three scales used in the present paper the OCB-scale yield no missing values, the Big Five

has 3 missing values and the NPI holds 11 missing values. A MCAR test is conducted in

order to establish if the data is missing randomly. The test resulted in MCAR p > .05, thus

data is missing randomly. In the present study ‘HOT DECK’ is used to replace the missing

values. Of the initial 161 cases, 159 cases turn out to be eligible for analysis, after the HOT

DECK procedure. The data set was also checked for normality with the Kolmogorov-

Smirnov test. The NPI scale was significant (p > .05), normality is assumed. The other scales

were not significant, thus normality could not be assumed. The data did not yield any outliers.

All the variables scored well below 2.5 times the Standard Deviation (SD). An analysis for

heteroscedasticity or the residuals is conducted. No indications of heteroscedasticity were

found. Finally no items are eligible for recoding.


20

Confirmatory factor analysis

In order to establish whether a three or two factor solution should be used in this study

a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is conducted to test the two models. Data was analysed

using the AMOS statistical program version 22. The first model is a 25 items three-factor

model proposed by Ackerman and colleagues (2011), representing the following sub-facets;

leadership/authority, grandiose/exhibitionism and entitlement/exploitativeness. The second

model is a 23 items two-factor model, identified by Corry and colleagues (2008),

representing the domains of leadership/authority and exhibitionism/entitlement.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Three-Factor Solution. The initial model fit

of the three-factor solution was not acceptable; χ2 (d.f. 272, n = 325) = 702,047 p < .001, CFI

= .719, TLI = .690, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .100. However,

after allowing items 27 and 34, 40 and 34, 15 and 26, 19 and 29 to correlate the model was

more suitable, see table 1 for the model indexes.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Two-Factor Solution. The proposed second

model incorporated 23 of the 40 NPI items. The initial model fit was also insufficient; χ2 (d.f.

229, n = 276) = 510,736 p < .001, CFI = .773, TLI = .749, RMSEA = .088. However, after

allowing items 27 and 10, 11 and 27, 7 and 30, 16 and 24 to correlate, the indices revealed a

viable model fit, see table 1 for the model indexes.

Table 1 CFA Fit Indexes of NPI Solutions

Model χ2 (df) CFI RMSEA TLI

Three-factor 591,736 (268) ,788 ,087 ,763

Two-factor 365,912 (222) ,881 ,064 ,852

Note: CFA = Confirmatory Factor Analysis; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; CFI = Comparative Fit

Index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; ML = Maximum

Likelihood.


21

Most common used cut-off scores are reported in the research of Hu and Bentler

(1999). They suggested the following guidelines as an alternative to the, relatively responsive

to sample size, chi-square. A acceptable model holds a minimum score of >,95 for the

comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) measure, and a value of <,06

for the RMSEA measure. The second model with the of leadership/authority and

exhibitionism/entitlement domains will be used in the present paper, since the indicators for

model fit are higher for two-factor solution. However, the results should be interpreted with

caution because not all the, by Hu and Bentler (1999), reported indicators for good model fit

are met. In order to compute the leadership/authority and exhibitionism/entitlement scales,

the factors scores are used instead of the less accurate scale averages. By this procedure, the

scales take into account the relative weight of the contribution of an item to the latent factor.

Common Method Bias. Common method bias could be a problem in this study,

because of the research design chosen with self-report scales and the socially sensitive

questions. Ideally, the narcissism and perceived OCB measures should be collected from

different sources. In the present study they are both measured in the supervisors

questionnaire. Given the nature of the type of questions, it is possible that socially desirable

answers are given. Moreover, a questionnaire completed by a narcissistic supervisor might

also contain a lower rate of perceived OCB, due to the nature of narcissism, in comparison to

a non-narcissistic leader. Therefore the model is checked for common method bias, according

to the procedure suggest by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff (2003). The

procedure to follow is a comparison of the standardized regression weights in a model with

and without the common latent factor. The analysis of the standardized regression weights

resulted in signs of common method bias for the EE scale. Therefore common method bias

adjusted factors are used in order to control for common method bias for the EE scale.


22

Results

Means, standard deviations and correlations among the variables in the present study

are reported in table 2. The correlation between extraversion and agreeableness can be

explained by the fact that, according to Podsakoff, and colleagues (2000), the dimensions of

extraversion consists of friendliness and gregariousness.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the measures

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Narcissism 4,27 ,73 (.94)

2. Leadership/Authority 4,75 ,80 ,876** (.83)

3. Exhibitionism/Entitlement 3,97 ,82 ,963** ,834** (.85)

4. OCB 5,43 ,73 ,020** ,093** -,020** (.88)

5. OCB-CH 5,30 ,85 ,082** ,172** ,042** ,923** (.82)

6. OCB-AF 5,52 ,80 -,033** ,042** -,061** ,959** ,788** (.86)

7. Openness 4,74 ,83 ,108** ,005** ,106** -,056** -,019** -,078** (.62)

8. Neuroticism 3,35 1,11 ,106** ,067** ,099** -,094** -,108** -,093** ,140** (.82)

9. Conscientiousness 5.22 ,91 -,018** -,022** -,037** ,080** ,085** ,079** -,143** -,204** (.78)

10. Agreeableness 5,38 ,75 -,056** -,034** -,097** ,068** ,033** ,081** ,191** -,014** ,164** (.76)

11. Extraversion 4,69 ,95 ,042** -,039** ,033** -,007** ,046** -,034** ,460** -,122** ,165** ,473** (.75)

Note: N = 159. * p < .05/ ** p < .01. Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients are displayed in the diagonal.

Multiple regression analysis was used to test the first two hypotheses. Hypothesis 1a

assumed that higher levels of supervisor narcissism are negatively related to OCB.

Narcissism is regressed on OCB. Leader narcissism did not have a significant effect on OCB

(β = .02, p = .79), therefore there is no support for Hypothesis 1a. The second part of the first

hypothesis examines the effects of the L/A and E/E facets on OCB. The proposed model

significantly fits the data, (F = 3.297, p < .05, R2 = .04). In support of Hypothesis 1b, the L/A

facet predicts OCB positively (β = .36, p < .05) and Hypothesis 1c is supported too because

the E/E facet predicts overall OCB negatively (β = -.32, p < .05).

To test the second series of hypotheses Structural Equation Modelling is used. The

second Hypothesis addresses the facet level relationships with the sub-dimensions of OCB.


23

L/A (β = .35, p < .05) and E/E (β = -.25, p = NS) were related to Challenging OCB and

together explained 4% of the variance in OCB-CH, supporting Hypothesis 2a and giving no

support for Hypothesis 2b. The L/A (β = .31, p < .05) and E/E (β = -.31, p < .05) facet were

significantly related to Affiliative OCB and collectively explained 3% of the variance in

OCB-AF, which is in support of Hypotheses 2c and 2d (see figure 2).

Hierarchical moderated multiple regression is used in order to test the third series of

Hypothesis which involves the employee type (confident vs. passive) moderation of the

narcissism-OCB relationship, questioned by Grijalva et al. (2013). This analysis is performed

on the basis of the procedure mentioned by Aiken and West (1991).

In the Hierarchical Regression Analysis the control variables, the other four dimensions of

the Big Five, were entered in step one. The main effects were added in the second step and

the third step contained the interaction term. The interactions are separately tested for the two

dimensions of OCB, as show in table 3 for L/A and table 4 for E/E (appendix A). No support

was found in favour for the moderating effect of extraversion on the narcissism-OCB

relationship. The interaction was not found to be statistically significant, thus rejecting

Hypothesis 3a, b, c and d.

Fig2. Results of structural equation model


24

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between narcissistic

leadership and organisational citizenship behaviours by focussing on the multidimensionality

of the narcissism construct. The findings of the present study suggest three main conclusions.

First, global narcissism has no significant relationship with perceived OCB. That is, no

statistical relationship could be established between the degree of supervisor narcissism and

the level of perceived OCB. Interestingly the results contradict the findings of Judge et al.

(2006), who were able to establish a significant negative relation between supervisor

narcissism and OCB. A possible explanation comes from the fact that OCB, in the Judge et

al. (2006) study, was measured on the same single person source as narcissism. Which was

not the case in the present study, were perceived OCB was measured on a supervisor level. It

is noteworthy that this initial result served as the encouragement to explore the possibility of

the multidimensionality of the narcissism construct. This is in line with the reasoning in

previous studies (e.g. Ackerman et al., 2011), stating that the usage of global narcissism

might be undesirable because the different narcissism dimensions could rule each other out.

Second, the present study confirms the narcissism facet structure proposed by Corry et

al. (2008) and used the leadership/authority and exhibitionism/entitlement dimensions for

further analyses. The results showed that even though these dimensions were highly

correlated and effects are not strong the leadership/authority dimension had a positive relation

with perceived OCB and the exhibitionism/entitlement dimension a negative relation with

perceived OCB. These findings are in line with the results presented in the study of Grijalva

and Newman (2014) and as expected in opposite direction (Sackett et al., 2006; Spector &

Fox, 2010).

The separation into two OCB dimensions, known as challenging and affiliative OCB,

did not significantly change the narcissism-OCB relationship. On the basis of the literature


25

study, it was expected that, by distinguishing between challenging and affiliative OCB, the

narcissism-OCB relationship would change. It was hypothesized that narcissistic supervisors

might be extra sensitive to more assertive, change-related behaviours, which could have a

dampening effect on the relationship between narcissism and challenging OCB (Grant et al.,

2011). Unfortunately, this effect was not found in the present study. The L/A narcissism facet

showed a positive relation with challenging and affiliative OCB and the E/E narcissism facet

a negative relation with challenging and affiliative OCB. A possible explanation comes from

the fact that the present study measured perceived OCB, from a supervisor perspective,

instead of actual employee OCB. According to Carpenter and colleagues (2014), supervisors

are just as capable to rate the level of OCB as employees themselves. But they also note that

employees have a better sense of the direction and purpose of behaviours enacted than others.

This might explain the difficulty, for a supervisor, in distinguishing between the two OCB

concepts.

Third, the present study did not find a moderating effect of extraversion on the

narcissism-OCB relationship. Thus, the dominance level of an employee did not affect the

OCB perception of a narcissistic supervisor. The results contradicted the expectations as

presented in the dominance complementarity theory because, it was expected that a

narcissistic supervisor would felt threatened by their extraverted employee and that this effect

would be stronger for someone who challenged the status quo (Podsakoff et al., 2014).

Potential explanations for the non-significant results are discussed below. First, what

is actually measured with extraversion? Is it the tendency to be sociable and talkative or the

degree of dominance and self-confidence (Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, & Shao, 2000). Of the

Big Five traits extraversion has one of the broadest conceptualizations. It represents

sociability, friendliness up to self-confidence and assertiveness (Judge et al., 2002). In the

present study extraversion is measured with the mini-IPIP, a shortened Big Five measurement


26

scale (Donnellan et al., 2006). The mini-IPIP extraversion factor tends to overestimate the

presence of the sociability facet. The study of Donnellan and colleagues (2006) showed that

extraversion was to a large extent covered by friendliness and gregariousness and only a

relatively small part was captured by assertiveness. This may partially explain the high

correlation between agreeableness and extraversion (see Table 2). This finding could explain

why the present study failed to establish a significant interaction between narcissism and

extraversion. Given that the dominance complementarity theory requires similar dominance

levels for a effect on the relationship between supervisor and employee. Phillips and Bedeian

(1994) even found that extraverted employees developed better a relationship with their

supervisor because they seek for interaction. This is totally counterintuitive to the dominance

complementarity theory, but reasonable if one considers the presence of the sociability facet

of extraversion. A strong focus on the sociability facet of extraversion could serve as an

explanation for the fact that no moderating relationship was found. This could be a very

interesting subject for future research, it is encouraged to further explore the effects of

dominant extraversion in the narcissism employee relationship.

Second, an alternative explanation for the relationship between narcissism and

perceived OCB may found in the inflated self-view of a narcissist. The inflated self-view

overestimates own behaviour and disqualifies other behaviour (Grijalva & Harms, 2014). The

disqualification of other behaviour could be a reasonable explanation for the negative link

between the E/E narcissism facet and OCB. A supervisor who scored high on the maladaptive

E/E narcissism scale could had have troubles in admitting the quality of others and giving

credit to others.

Arguing the other way around, following the reasoning of Campbell and colleagues

(2011), the systematic tendency to overestimate own performance could serve as a possible


27

explanation for the positive relation between LA and perceived OCB: “I’m a good supervisor

so my employee must be performing OCB”.

The present study used common method bias adjusted factors in order to carry out the

planned analysis. The reasoning of Podsakoff et al. (2003), who state that common method

variance often could be a problem and that researchers need to control for it, is followed. The

degree of variance is due to the design of the study (cross-sectional and self-report survey) or

due to the nature of the type of questions (socially sensitive questions) instead of actual

measured differences, thus it might that common method influenced the results. It should be

noted that another stream of research warns against the use of common method factors

(CMF). Conway and Lance (2010) concluded that it is a misconception that self-reported data

may lead to bias due to its design. They did not find evidence for common method bias in

self-reported data. Spector (2006) concludes that even social desirability is unlikely to cause

inflation in the results. It was expected that participants would underreport social desirable

items, but social desirability only modestly inflated the results (Spector, 2006). Given the

high sensitivity of the questions asked, with a topic as narcissism, the choice was still made

for a CMF in the present study.

The present study also identified a potential outlier issue. Technically, none of the

data points were designated as outliers, given the procedure used to determine if a data point

is eligible to be eliminated (2.5 times the SD, and none were). However, analysis showed that

the results may still be sensitive to several less extreme outliers. While the choice was made

not to remove any data points, it is important to note this.

Implications for theory and practice

The present study has some implications for theory and practice. First, much research

has focussed on the exploration of the effects and behaviours of narcissists. The indirect

effects of narcissism at a supervisor level and behavioural effect at the employee level are


28

relatively underexplored. The present study theoretically contributed to a deeper meaning of

the effects of narcissism in a broader ‘organisational’ context, especially regarding the

narcissism facet structure. For example, some recruitment policies of organisations might be

aimed to screen out narcissists in an early stage. Those policies are tuned to a predominantly

negative view of narcissism. This might be too short-sighted, if the results of the present

study are incorporated. A high score on global narcissism, does not automatically mean bad

results for the organisation. Organisations need to reconsider their conclusions based on a

global NPI narcissism score and increasingly recognize the multidimensionality of the

narcissism construct. Narcissism must be treated as a multidimensional concept in which the

different dimensions could have different effects.

Second, with regard to the narcissism facet structure the presented findings are

particularly relevant for science as initial steps towards a better understanding of the

narcissism concept. In the present study L/A narcissism relates positively to perceived OCB,

whereas E/E or maladaptive narcissism relates negatively to perceived OCB. These results

are direct extensions to the proposed multidimensionality of the narcissism construct and are

similar to the results presented in the study of Grijalva and Newman (2014), but in the

context of OCB or pro-organisational behaviours. It is therefore recommended that further

research reports both the score and effect size for global narcissism as the individual scores

and effect sizes for adaptive and maladaptive narcissism.

Limitations

The present study was carried out with care but still has potential limitations. One of

the major shortcomings of the present study was the use of a cross-sectional research design.

Within a cross-sectional design, it is not possible to distinguish between cause and effect. For

example, it is not possible to test whether narcissistic leadership causes employees to engage

more or less pro-organisational behaviour. It was also not possible to rule out alternative


29

explanations for the observed effect, with the chosen study design. It is possible that

narcissistic leaders give themselves the credit by assigning a higher score to employee OCB.

Another limitation of the present study concerns the characteristics and the method of

sampling. The chosen convenience sampling method restricts the generalizability of the

results. The results from the present study are applicable to this particular sample only and

unfortunately not generalizable to the entire Dutch working population. Additionally, in the

sample almost 35% of the employees worked part-time which could have affected the levels

of perceived OCB (Bolino, Klotz, Turnley, & Harvey, 2013).

The present study was carried out in the context of a broader study on leadership and

organisational behaviours. As a result, multiple concepts were measured using a single +100

items questionnaire which might reasonably discouraged the likelihood of participation. The

duration of completing the online questionnaire was approximately between 9 and 32

minutes. There are indications that some participants rushed to complete the questionnaire,

which is not always beneficial for the reliability of the results.

Directions for future research

As indicated previously, it may be promising to repeat the present study, with a few

minor modifications. Firstly, OCB should be replaced as actual organisational citizenship

behaviours and need to be measured also on the employee level, instead of perceived OCB

only measured on a supervisor level. Secondly it might be promising to explore the effects of

a less sociable extraversion and OCB measurement. A suggestion is an OCB scale which

measures more assertive change oriented behaviours, like taking charge and for extraversion

a scale including more explicitly a dominance facet and maybe even arrogance. Where

possibly the dominance complementarity theory becomes an important influential factor in

the relationship between narcissism and OCB.


30

The present study used the two factor solution proposed by Corry et al. (2008) to

explore the multidimensionality effects of narcissism in organisations. But still more research

is needed in order to establish a definitive consensus about the narcissism facet level

structure. Initial narcissism facet model structures need to be further confirmed in multiple

languages and cultures, for instance like the reliability confirmation of the NPI measure in a

variety of different studies and languages (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2010).

Finally, it is recommended to explore the possibilities of isolating narcissism as a

leadership style. Since previous research has shown that leadership styles, like

transformational and transactional, have a clear influence on followers and organisational

performances (Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013; Resick et al., 2009). It is therefore

meaningful to control for the effects of those earlier mentioned leadership styles to be able to

fully isolate the effects that narcissism has on followers and organisational performance. For

example, future research could control for transformational, transactional and charismatic

leadership style, while further exploring the narcissism-OCB relationship.

Conclusion

Not everyone can be narcissistic, so how is it possible that we say that we know so

many? Is narcissism so highly prevalent or is it more complicated? In society, the word

narcissism has acquired a severe negative connotation and confusion about its effects are thus

easily made. Within organisations, there is nowadays still much misperception about the

concept of narcissism. Why do so many employees think that their supervisor is narcissistic,

or at least has some narcissistic traits? A possible explanation for this phenomenon is that

many narcissism traits go hand in hand with typical leadership traits, such as for example

extraversion and self-confidence. However, does that imply that every supervisor is

narcissistic and is that a bad thing? The present study concludes that narcissism is a complex

trait or style in which both positive and negative leadership traits are present: narcissism is


31

not necessarily dreadful; it depends on the individual dimensional narcissism scores. It is time

that both adaptive and maladaptive narcissism are separately measured as the latter may be

far more problematic. In summary, the present study hopes to serve as a starting point for

further research to get a better grip on the effects of narcissistic leadership in organisations.

Moreover, it draws attention to the fact that narcissism must be seen as a composition of two

opposing dimensions in which valuable insights are made into the differentiated dimensional

effects. Taken together, there is - and perhaps should be - a little bit of narcissism in all of us.

Each person, supervisor or employee, needs to be somewhat narcissistic. Yet hopefully we

can learn to lessen the maladaptive and extreme forms, while taking advantage of the

adaptive element of narcissism.


32

References

Ackerman, R. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2012). An Item Response Theory

Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment,

94(2), 141–155.

Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., &

Kashy, D. A. (2011). What Does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory Really

Measure? Assessment, 18(1), 67–87.

Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.

Newbury Park, CA and London: Sage Publications.

APA (American Psychiatric Association). (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Barelds, D. P. H., & Dijkstra, P. (2010). Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Structure of the

adapted Dutch version. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(2), 132–138.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00737.x

Barry, C. T., Frick, P. J., & Killian, A. L. (2003). The Relation of Narcissism and Self-

Esteem to Conduct Problems in Children: A Preliminary Investigation. Journal of

Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32(1), 139–152.

doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3201_13

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349.

Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 542–

559. doi:10.1002/job.1847

Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., &

DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader Emergence: The Case of the Narcissistic Leader.


33

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1663–1676.

doi:10.1177/0146167208324101

Campbell, W. K., & Campbell, S. M. (2009). On the Self-regulatory Dynamics Created by

the Peculiar Benefits and Costs of Narcissism: A Contextual Reinforcement Model

and Examination of Leadership. Self and Identity, 8(2-3), 214–232.

doi:10.1080/15298860802505129

Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in

organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268–284.

Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. (2014). A meta-analytic comparison of self-

reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior: SELF-REPORTED

AND OTHER-REPORTED OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 547–

574. doi:10.1002/job.1909

Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor

model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140–1166. doi:10.1037/a0024004

Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors

Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research. Journal of Business

and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334.

Corry, N., Merritt, R. D., Mrug, S., & Pamp, B. (2008). The Factor Structure of the

Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(6), 593–

600. doi:10.1080/00223890802388590

De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Nevicka, B. (2013). Gender Differences in the

Perceived Effectiveness of Narcissistic Leaders. Applied Psychology, n/a–n/a.


34

Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP Scales:

Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five Factors of Personality. Psychological

Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192

Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor Analysis and Construct Validity of the Narcissistic Personality

Inventory\. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 291.

Fox, S., & Freeman, A. (2011). Narcissism and the Deviant Citizen: A Common Thread in

CWB and OCB. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, 9, 151–196.

doi:10.1108/S1479-3555(2011)0000009009

Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary Communication

Qualities as Mediators of the Relationship Between Narcissism and Attributions of

Leader Charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 509–537.

Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership

advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal,

54(3), 528–550.

Grijalva, E., & Harms, P. (2014). Narcissism: An integrative synthesis and dominance

complementarity model. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 108–127.

Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2013).

Narcissism and Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of Linear and Nonlinear

Relationships. Personnel Psychology, 47(1). doi:doi: 10.1111/peps.12072

Grijalva, E., & Newman, D. A. (2014). Narcissism and Counterproductive Work Behavior

(CWB): Meta-Analysis and Consideration of Collectivist Culture, Big Five

Personality, and Narcissism’s Facet Structure. Applied Psychology, n/a–n/a.

doi:10.1111/apps.12025


35

Hochwarter, W. A., & Thompson, K. W. (2012). Mirror, mirror on my boss’s wall: Engaged

enactment’s moderating role on the relationship between perceived narcissistic

supervision and work outcomes. Human Relations, 65(3), 335–366.

Hoffman, B. J., Strang, S. E., Kuhnert, K. W., Campbell, W. K., Kennedy, C. L., & LoPilato,

A. C. (2013). Leader Narcissism and Ethical Context Effects on Ethical Leadership

and Leader Effectiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1),

25–37.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation

Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational

leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A

qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.

doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.765

Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving Yourself Abundantly: Relationship

of the Narcissistic Personality to Self- and Other Perceptions of Workplace Deviance,

Leadership, and Task and Contextual Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

91(4), 762–776.

Kim, Y.-J., Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Johnson, R. E. (2013). Why and when do motives

matter? An integrative model of motives, role cognitions, and social support as

predictors of OCB. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2),

231–245. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.004


36

Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive Leadership A

Theoretical Review, Integration, and Future Research Agenda. Journal of

Management, 39(5), 1308–1338. doi:10.1177/0149206312471388

LePine, J. A., & Dyne, L. V. (1998). Predicting Voice Behavior in Work Groups. Journal of

Applied Psychology December 1998, 83(6), 853–868.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of

organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52–65. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.52

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for

the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 79(3), 452.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior

and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’

performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123–

150. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90037-T

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Challenge-oriented

organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: do challenge-

oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organization’s bottom line? Personnel

Psychology, 64(3), 559–592.

Meurs, J. A., Fox, S., Kessler, S. R., & Spector, P. E. (2013). It’s all about me: The role of

narcissism in exacerbating the relationship between stressors and counterproductive

work behaviour. Work & Stress, 27(4), 368–382. doi:10.1080/02678373.2013.849776

Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing Clinical and Social-Personality

Conceptualizations of Narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 449–476.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00492.x


37

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Connelly, M. S., & Marks, M. A. (2000). Leadership skills:

Conclusions and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 155–170.

doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00047-8

Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A. H. B., Van Vianen, A. E. M., Beersma, B., & McIlwain, D.

(2011). All I need is a stage to shine: Narcissists’ leader emergence and performance.

The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 910–925.

O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of

the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 97(3), 557–579.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Massachusetts/Toronto: Lexington Books.

Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement:

A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197.

Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and Counterproductive Work Behavior:

Do Bigger Egos Mean Bigger Problems? International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 10(1-2), 126–134. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00199

Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-Follower Exchange Quality: The Role of

Personal and Interpersonal Attributes. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(4),

990–1001. doi:10.2307/256608

Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., & Spoelma, T. M.

(2014). Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review

and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

35(S1), S87–S119. doi:10.1002/job.1911


38

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and

organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141. doi:10.1037/a0013079

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.88.5.879

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational

citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and

suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic

Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890.

Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The Bright-Side

and the Dark-Side of CEO Personality: Examining Core Self-Evaluations, Narcissism,

Transformational Leadership, and Strategic Influence. Journal of Applied Psychology,

94(6), 1365–1381.

Rosenthal, S. A., Matthew Montoya, R., Ridings, L. E., Rieck, S. M., & Hooley, J. M.

(2011). Further evidence of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory’s validity problems:

A meta-analytic investigation—Response to Miller, Maples, and Campbell (this

issue). Journal of Research in Personality, 45(5), 408–416.

Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 17(6), 617–633.


39

Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006). Citizenship and

counterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations between the two domains. Human

Performance, 19(4), 441–464.

Sadler, P., Ethier, N., Gunn, G. R., Duong, D., & Woody, E. (2009). Are we on the same

wavelength? Interpersonal complementarity as shared cyclical patterns during

interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1005–1020.

doi:10.1037/a0016232

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method Variance in Organizational Research Truth or Urban Legend?

Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232. doi:10.1177/1094428105284955

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010). Counterproductive Work Behavior and Organisational

Citizenship Behavior: Are They Opposite Forms of Active Behavior? Applied

Psychology, 59(1), 21–39. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00414.x

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of

construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.


40

Appendices

Appendix A: Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Table 3 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Leadership/Authority

Variable Challenging OCB Affiliative OCB

R2 Adj. R

2 ∆R

2 F β R

2 Adj. R

2 ∆R

2 F β

Step 1 .016 -.009 .016 .644 .025 .000 .025 .989

Openness -.001 -,069

Neuroticism -.073 -,053

Conscientiousness .038 ,022

Agreeableness .019 ,076

Step 2 .039 .002 .023 1.043 .032 -.006 .007 .839





Leadership/Authority .199 ,064

Extraversion .021 -,062

Step 3 .041 -.003 .002 .934 .032 -.013 .000 .717





Leadership/Authority .505 ,142

Extraversion .028 -,060

L/A x Extraversion -.056 -,014

Note: N = 159. * p < .05/ ** p < .01. all tests are one-tailed


41

Table 4 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Exhibitionism/Entitlement

Variable Challenging OCB Affiliative OCB

R2 Adj. R

2 ∆R

2 F β R

2 Adj. R

2 ∆R

2 F β

Step 1 .016 -.009 .016 .644 .025 .000 .025 .989

Openness -,001 -,069

Neuroticism -,073 -,053

Conscientiousness ,038 ,022

Agreeableness ,019 ,076

Step 2 .020 -.019 .004 .515 .030 -.008 .005 .797





Exhibitionism/Entitlement ,048 -,026

Extraversion ,015 -,061

Step 3 .021 -.023 .001 .480 .030 .000 .000 .678





Exhibitionism/Entitlement ,227 -,037

Extraversion ,022 -,061

E/E x Extraversion -,033 ,002

Note: N = 159. * p < .05/ ** p < .01. all tests are one-tailed

Documents

MSc Thesis - Business Studies - Is there a narcissist in all of us