an empirical investigation of the relationship between narcissistic tendencies of students and their...

7/28/2019 An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Narcissistic Tendencies of Students and Their Perception of

1/71

University of St Andrews

Master of Letters (MLitt) in Marketing

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the least ethical of them all?An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Narcissistic

Tendencies of Students and Their Perception of Ethics and SocialResponsibility in Business

Name:George Ferns

Matriculation number:100019739

Submission Date:August 31st 2011

Supervisor:Rob Gray


2/71

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would firstly like to thank Prof. Rob Gray for supporting me throughout thedissertation process. He challenged my intellect, made me question that which I neverquestioned, and guided me to discover something invaluable - a new worldview.

I would like to thank my significant other for her help, support and love. I would alsolike to thank my family for their unconditional love and always letting me be who I am.

I would like to thank the Irvine Computer Lab Crewfor the stimulating discussions andhelping me cope through the long nights working on my dissertation


3/71

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this dissertation, which is approximately 15000 words by me and

that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. This

project was conducted by me at the University of St Andrews from 05/2011 to 08/2011

towards fulfilment of the requirements of the University of St Andrews for the degree of

MLitt in Marketing under the supervision of Professor Rob Gray

Signature: _______________________________

Date: ___________________________________


4/71

ABSTRACT

This study argues that prevalent societal narcissism could be partly responsible for

growing unethical business practice. By exploring the construct of narcissism amongst

students at the University of St Andrews, this study aims to test whether a relationshipexists between narcissism and business ethics and social responsibility. Furthermore,

this study also attempts to uncover whether students are more/less narcissistic and

more/less ethical depending their choice of study. Indeed, findings indicated that a

higher level of narcissism predicts a lower consideration for ethics and social

responsibility. Moreover, students of economics were found to be the most narcissistic

and least concerned with business ethics compared to finance students, finance and

management students and management students.


5/71

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................... i

Decraration ............................................................................................................................................. ii

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. iii

1. Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background Information & Problem Description ........................................................................ 1

1.2 Importance of Study ....................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Research Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Outline of method ........................................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Layout of thesis ............................................................................................................................... 5

2. Chapter 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................... 6

2.1 Personality Disorders in Organisations ....................................................................................... 6

2.2 Narcissism ....................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Narcissism defined .............................................................................................................. 8

2.2.2 Types of narcissism............................................................................................................. 9

2.3 Narcissism in Corporations ......................................................................................................... 12

2.3.1 Narcissistic CEOs and Employees.................................................................................... 12

2.4 Narcissism and Ethics .................................................................................................................. 14

2.4.1 Is narcissism immoral? ...................................................................................................... 14

2.5 Business ethics ............................................................................................................................. 16

2.5.1 Can business ethics be taught? ........................................................................................ 17

2.5.2 Do business schools encourage narcissism? ................................................................... 19

2.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 22

3. Chapter 3 - RESEARCH DESIGN .......................................................................................... 23

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 23

3.1.1 Research Questions.......................................................................................................... 26

3.1.2 Research Strategy............................................................................................................. 27

3.2 Survey tools NPI & PRESOR ..................................................................................................... 28

3.2.1 Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) ............................................................................ 28

3.2.2

Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility (PRESOR) ....................................... 29

3.3 Study Participants ......................................................................................................................... 30

3.3.1 Population and Sample ..................................................................................................... 30

3.3.2 Collection of participants contact details .......................................................................... 31

3.4 Gathering of data .......................................................................................................................... 31

3.4.1 Main data collection........................................................................................................... 31

3.4.2 Trial surveys ...................................................................................................................... 32


6/71

3.5 Data Verification ............................................................................................................................ 32

4. Chapter 4 - FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ...............................................................................34

4.1 Research question 1 .......................................................................................................................36

4.1.1 Which study is the most/least narcissistic? ....................................................................... 36

4.1.2 Who perceives ethics and social responsibility as most important/unimportant? .............36


4.2.1 Males vs. Females............................................................................................................. 37

4.2.2 Individual vs. Collective ..................................................................................................... 38


4.3.1 Economics vs. Finance ..................................................................................................... 39

4.3.2 Economics vs. F&M........................................................................................................... 40

4.3.3 Economics vs. Management ............................................................................................. 41

4.3.4 Finance vs. F&M................................................................................................................ 42

4.3.5 Finance vs. Management .................................................................................................. 43

4.3.6 F&M vs. Management ....................................................................................................... 44


4.4.1 Do students who are more narcissistic perceive business ethics to be less important? ..45

5. Chapter 5 - DISCUSSION .......................................................................................47

5.1 A disturbing relationship..............................................................................................................47

5.2 Economics students NPI and PRESOR scores ..........................................................................47

5.3 Whats the deal with finance?........................................................................................................48

5.4 Low NPI scores?............................................................................................................................49

5.5 Culture and gender differences .....................................................................................................49

5.6 Limitations and Future Research ..................................................................................................50

5.7 Implications......................................................................................................................................51

6. Chapter 6 - CONCULSION .....................................................................................54

7. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 1

References ............................................................................................................................................. iv

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................... v

Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................................ vi

Appendix 3 ........................................................................................................................................... vii


7/71

1

1. Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information & Problem Description

In his seminal publication, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith declares: All forourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the

vile maxim of the masters of mankind (Smith, 1776: 448). So, those in the position of

greatest power place utmost consideration on individual need, rather than the needs of

those at their mercy. In times of financial turmoil, ever-prevalent corporate misconduct,

and a society that has seemingly misplaced its moral compass, Smiths adage extends not

only to the masters of mankind but also to the masters of the marketplace. But how has the

self-centred individual become such a predominant, and often successful, factor in society

and business? To find a definitive answer to this question is difficult and ultimately not the

objective of this paper. Rather, this paper will examine possible consequences of allowing

individualism to take the reins of society as explained by Twenge and Campbell (2009: 4):

Its what you have if youre a politician and youve strayed from your wife, and its

why five times as many Americans undergo plastic surgery and cosmetic procedures

today than did just ten years ago. Its the value that parents teach their children with

song lyrics like "I am special. Look at me," the skill teenagers and young adults

obsessively hone on Facebook and MySpace, and the reason high school students

physically beat classmates and then broadcast their violence on YouTube for all to

see. Its the message preached by prosperity gospel and the vacuous ethos spread by

celebrity newsmakers. And its whats making people depressed, lonely, and buried

under piles of debt.

Twenge and Campbell are referring to narcissism or what they consider to be an

epidemic. Narcissism is a natural human inclination; it is a facet of our personalities that

gives us a sense of self and self-preservation. Yet in excess, narcissism can turn ugly,

becoming a pathological disorder or a disturbance in self-identity. Pathological narcissists

are generally viewed as a hindrance to themselves, those with whom they share a

relationship, and the organization for which they work (Maccoby, 2003). Furthermore,

highly narcissistic individuals are apparent in business pathological narcissism is

associated with unethical behaviour, including unethical business practice (Amernic &

Craig 2010). Moreover, pathological narcissists regularly exhibit an overwhelmingly strong


8/71

2

desire to attain power, not always used for good (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Lenin,

Hussein, Mugabe are all considered pathological narcissists) (Glad, 2002). While normal

narcissism is often regarded as a characteristic necessary to climb the corporate ladder,

pathological narcissists are often particularly successful when it comes to career

development, climbing the corporate ladder through deception, manipulation of others and

a mastery of gaining advantage through corporate politics rather than through honest

means (Maccoby, 2003). When reaching the level of senior management, and especially in

the case of a CEO, pathological narcissists frequently demonstrate high levels of strategic

dynamism that results in inconsistent financial performance, unjustifiably risky decisions

and decreased employee morale (Maccoby, 2003).

Business schools perpetuate the rising trend of pathologically narcissistic managers

by endorsing a lesser form of narcissism in the classroom; namely, self-interest. They do

this by indoctrinating students in Friedmanite philosophy; teaching game theory, agency

theory and transactional cost theory, and focusing almost solely on competition as the

ultimate market mechanism and performance as the only measure of success (Ghoshal,

2003). As a young persons academic career progresses, especially those who studied

finance and economics, research shows a significant drop in the consideration of ethical

responsibility (Wolfe & Fritzsche, 1998). Furthermore, researchers argue that the state of

business education focuses almost exclusively on individual interest, which ultimately

restricts a students frame of reference to shareholder wealth (Ghoshal, 2003). This often

leads to business students losing the capability to develop their moral reasoning skills and

consider ethics as a part of everyday business. Not only is there often a decrease in a

students ethical consideration during their business education career, but also business

students exhibit greater narcissistic tendencies (Westerman et al, 2010; Brown et al, 2010).

Furthermore, research indicates that students in US business schools have never been as

narcissistic as they are today as Westerman et al, (2010) remark that "our future business

leaders appear to be even more self-absorbed and entitled" than ever before. Future

business leaders are effectively primed to only consider themselves evaluating their

impact on the world through performance measurement, ultimately disregarding the effect

their business decisions have on the natural environment and society.


9/71

3

1.2 Importance of Study

There are two principle reasons for conducting research on narcissism and business

ethics amongst students. First, there is growing concern about the ethical conduct of

business, born from examples of well-known scandals involving companies such as Enron,Tyco International, and WorldCom. For example, in their 2009 Fraud Survey, KPMG, the

international audit, tax and advisory firm, conclude that corporate fraud remains a serious

and growing trend. Out of the 5000 employees surveyed, nearly half indicate that they

witnessed corporate misconduct that would cause significant loss of public trust if

discovered (KPMG, 2009: 3). Furthermore, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

(ACFE) estimates that corporate fraud results in a 5% loss of revenue, which equates to a

staggering $2.9 trillion as a percentage of global GDP (ACFE, 2010). The ACFE also indicates

that owners and executives who commit corporate fraud present the greatest burden to a

company, costing an average of $723,000 per person. It is therefore important to identify

trends associated with such behaviours, since the negative impact of their decisions is

significant.

Secondly, the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is becoming a

widespread aspect of business which, to a certain extent, shares a relationship with ethical

business conduct. The IBM Global CEO Study, which includes 1130 CEOs from 40 countries,

indicates that CEOs have increased spending on social and environmental initiatives by

25% from 2008 to 2009 (IBM, 2009). Furthermore, market analytic firm Verdantix

reported that CSR-related spending activities by firms with annual revenue of over $1

billion will increase from $28 billion in 2010 to $60 billion in 2014 (Verdantix, 2010). CSR

is thus an important aspect of business considering current and future investment, but how

do the personalities of business people effect decisions related to CSR? Furthermore,

because the motivations behind CSR investment are sometimes encountered with

scepticism (Bakan, 2004, Friedman 2001, Levit, 1998) we need to better assess how the

personality of an individual affects their capability to make ethical decisions. Though

business ethics has been researched from many aspects, there is little research regarding

the relationship between narcissists and their perceptions of ethics. This study will build

on previous research aiming to examine this relationship.


10/71

4

1.3 Research Objectives

This study will test the relationship between narcissism and business ethics, using

student subjects. Students are a useful demographic as research suggests that business

schools are perpetuating the rise in narcissism by indoctrinating students with teachings

that emphasise the need for self-interested thinking (Ghoshal, 2003). This in turn becomes

a self-fulfilling prophecy, as students study material which is, by nature, focused on self-

interested thinking, and as a result, they themselves may become self-interested and

ultimately narcissistic. The main objective is to therefore discover whether an empirical

relationship exists between students level of narcissism and their perception of ethics and

social responsibility. Furthermore, this study also aims to determine which business-

related study programme contains students with the highest/lowest levels of narcissism

and business ethics. Overall, the results of this study should provide a conclusion as to

whether narcissism and ethics/social responsibly share any relationship and also whether

there is a difference in narcissism and business ethics amongst different study

programmes.

1.4 Outline of method

Two main methods of research will be used to answer the above-mentionedquestions. Firstly, secondary research, in terms of academic journals, business literature

and newspaper articles, will be used to create a literature review. Secondly, primary

research will be used to gather data on narcissism and business ethics, using two well-

validated surveys: the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (see appendix 1) and the

Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility Survey (PRESOR) (see appendix 2). The

NPI, comprised of 40 forced-answer questions, provides a score indicating narcissistic

tendencies. The second survey focuses on business ethics and includes 16 questions that

test a persons view on whether or not a firm should focus solely on profit maximization or

shift its efforts to benefit society and the environment. Respondents answer the PRESOR

based on a 9-point Likert scale. The surveys were combined to create one survey that was

sent (via an online survey distribution service) to 240 students, 133 of which responded.

These were all students of the University of St Andrews including Management (MLitt),


11/71

5

International Business (MLitt), Finance and Management (MLitt), Finance (MSc),

International Strategy and Economics (MSc), Money, Banking and Finance(MSc).

1.5 Layout of thesis

This study will begin by discussing relevant literature, which will entail an

exploration of both narcissism and business ethics. Firstly, a broad overview will examine

personality disorders in organizations, then switching focus to understand the concept of

the corporate psychopath. Next, narcissism is discussed in order to differentiate between

healthy and psychopathic narcissism, and to examine the effect narcissism has on an

organization, lastly detailing ethical implications of narcissism. Next the literature review

will investigate ethics, particularly business ethics in education. This will include an

attempt to answer the question of whether ethics should be, and can be, taught in higher

education. Lastly, the literature review will discuss the consequences of studying business

and economics related subjects, analysing whether students of business and economics

related subjects are more self-interested/narcissistic than other students. Following the

literature review, the research design will firstly present a theoretical framework that was

deduced from the literature, followed by introducing specific research questions.

Thereafter, the research strategy, in terms of quantitative and qualitative techniques, is

discussed. Next, the surveys (NPI and PRESOR) that will be used to attempt to answer the

research questions will be introduced and discussed. After the surveys have been discussed

the research design will focus on the study participants in terms of their composition and

selection. Lastly, the validity of the research design will be discussed. The research design

chapter is followed by presenting the findings. This chapter is structured in terms of the

research questions. Each question is answered individually. Thereafter the findings are

commented upon in the discussion chapter. This chapter is composed on themes that were

drawn from the findings chapter. Lastly, a conclusion is presented that summarizes thefindings and provides final remarks.


12/71

6

2. Chapter 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

Whoever loves becomes humble. Those who love have, so to speak, pawned a part of theirnarcissism

Sigmund Freud

2.1 Personality Disorders in Organisations

Psychologists often argue that the selfis defined in terms of our personality (Judge et

al, 2002). Our personality affects our actions and helps others form an opinion of us - both

in a social setting and in a business context. Certainly, people have different personality

types that evolve throughout their life, which can be categorized into traits such as

openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (McCrae and

Costa, 1985). Depending on the context in which a person finds him/herself, different

personality characteristics play a more/less effective role in decision making and

behaviour. Yet in some cases, an individuals personality can take a turn for the worst and

develop into a disorder (i.e. paranoia, antisocialism, narcissism, schizophrenia, borderline

personality disorder, psychopathy and obsessive-compulsive disorder). This often arises

when there is an extreme imbalance between several personality traits or when one

personality trait has an excessive dominance over other traits (Lee, Ogunfowora & Ashton,

2005). But what occurs when a disturbed person is in the business environment?

Although research on personality disorders within business environments often

examines various disorders from different academic perspectives, there is one increasingly

widespread construct used in a business context the notion of Corporate Psychopaths

(Hare, 2004; Babiak, 1995; Boddy 2010; 2005) or those people working in corporations

who are self-serving, opportunistic, ego-centric, ruthless and shameless but who can be

charming, manipulative and ambitious (Boddy, 2005: 30). These are people who exhibit a

combination of disorders, namely: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism (Boddy,2010). Although actual psychopaths account for approximately 1% of the general

population, corporate psychopaths represent approximately 5% of the business world,

(Hare, 2004) particularly within the finance, insurance, banking and communication

industries (Boddy, 2010). These crazy business people are not just a hindrance to the


13/71

7

financial success of corporations, but are damaging to overall performance - including the

welfare of stakeholders (Goldman, 2006). Some even hypothesise that the collapse of

several US corporations may have been the result of senior managers exhibiting signs of

psychopathy (Hercz, 2001).

One serious concern amongst researchers is the lack in moral reasoning of corporate

psychopaths. For example, McCormick and Burch (2005) indicate that these corporate

psychopaths are significantly more prone to fabricate their performance figures and

commit fraud, amongst other white-collar crimes. Weiss (2008) adds that the majority of

rogue-traders (financial market traders who make unauthorised trades) such as Nick

Leeson who was responsible for the loss of 872 million and the consequential collapse of

Barings Bank (Tremewan, 1995) are highly narcissistic in their thinking and display

distinct signs of corporate psychopathy. Moreover, Bobby (2010) concluded that there is a

strong negative correlation between psychopathy and corporate social responsibility

(CSR). In other words, the more psychotic a corporate psychopath is found to be, the more

resistant he/she will be towards CSR. It could be argued that corporate psychopaths resist

CSR not only because of their psychopathic tendencies, but also because of their drive to

generate profits instead of investing money in ethical practices. Yet what motivates a

corporate psychopath?

Corporate psychopaths aspire to attain high-responsibility positions within large

organizations because of their desire to access the power, influence, prestige, and money

associated with these corporate positions (Boddy et al, 2010: 3). Although corporate

psychopaths attempt to manipulate their co-workers into admiring them, Boddy (2006)

argues that this is only a portrayal of a superficial leadership image which will always

remain a faade. Moreover, corporate psychopaths use their charisma to attain promotions

and are ruthless to opposition when climbing the corporate ladder. They achieve this by

using their charm to fool and manipulate people through corporate politics (Deutschman,

2005). Maibom (2005) argues that corporate psychopaths are able to excel at their jobs

given a focus on getting promoted and, because they lack any conscience, emotional

distance from colleagues.


14/71

8

All in all, there are certain individuals working for corporations who suffer from

personality disorders and are generally seen as a burden to the company. Yet corporate

psychopaths are of a special breed because they exhibit a mixture of three personality

disorders (psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism) that all have the prevailing

element ofself-interest. Without remorse, empathy and a conscience they are addicted to

promotions, salary increases and power. They manipulate their colleagues and the

corporate system to portray themselves as leaders and the model employee. One of the

three personality disorders found in a corporate psychopath narcissism is seen as

predominant factor that distinguishes the corporate psychopath from its counterparts

(Boddy et al, 2010). Particularly disturbing is that narcissistic tendencies not only lend to

the manifestation of a corporate psychopath but also are increasingly present in even

normal business people; this will be the focus of the section.

2.2 Narcissism

2.2.1 Narcissism defined

Narcissism is a concept brought to light by Sigmund Freud (1914), metaphorically

described by the Greek myth of Narcissus who falls in love with himself by staring at his

own reflection in a pool of water. Not being able to stop staring at his own beautiful image,Narcissus starves and is turned into a white flower (Amernic & Craig, 2010). This myth has

resulted in narcissists to be generally understood as people who have an overwhelming,

and sometimes obsessive, love for themselves. Freud (1914), one of the most influential

contributors to the study of narcissism, thought of narcissism as an essential part of human

development and something that is evident from birth. Freud (1914) recognized that

narcissism can be a positive personality trait, notably self-preservation, yet also

acknowledged the destructive capacities of extreme narcissism. To identify an all-

encompassing definition of narcissism is difficult due to the lack of consensus amongst

researchers and the varying forms of narcissism. The American Psychiatric Association

(APA) defines narcissism as a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, self-focus, and self-

importance exhibited in individuals (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001: 177). Campbell, et al (2010)


15/71

9

attempt to further clarify the concept of narcissism by arguing that it can be divided into

three components:

(1) The self: The narcissistic self is defined by positivity, specialness and

uniqueness, vanity, a sense of entitlement and a desire for power andesteem (Campbell et al, 2010: 2).

(2) Interpersonal relationships: The relationships of a narcissist are

comprised of low levels of empathy and emotional intimacy (Campbell et al,

2010: 2).

(3) Self-regulatory strategies: The self-regulatory strategies refer to the

tendency of a narcissist to seek out opportunities for attention and

admiration, brag, steal credit from others, and play games in relationship

(Campbell et al, 2010: 2).

Narcissism has been widely studied in the context of social science. Researchers

have, for example, found men to be more narcissistic than women (Foster, Campbell &

Twenge, 2003), apparently because of womens tendency to develop an interdependent

self-construal compared to men who develop an independent image of themselves (Cross

and Madson, 1997). Furthermore, research found collectivist cultures to be less narcissistic

than individualistic cultures (Foster, Campbell & Twenge, 2003) since individualistic

cultures are more focused on individual self-enhancement whereas collectivist cultures are

relatively conductive of self-criticism (Kitayama et al, 1997). While the three afore-

mentioned components provide an overarching framework for a general description of

narcissism in the context of social science, it is a more complex construct that requires

further description. Importantly, one has to separate healthy narcissism from pathological

narcissism.

2.2.2 Types of narcissism

Although narcissism often has a negative connotation, behavioural psychologists do

tend to distinguish healthy narcissism from pathological narcissism (Brown, 1997). For

example, Freud (1914) argues that narcissism is a naturally occurring personality


16/71

10

phenomenon that should not necessarily be considered destructive. Healthy narcissism

refers to individuals who generally portray ambition, confidence, and high self-esteem

(Maccoby, 2000) that helps them cope with daily frustrations, and [gives them] a capacity

for introspection and empathy (Amernic & Craig, 2010: 84). Healthy narcissism has also

been called constructive (Kets de Vries, 1994), reparative (Glad, 2002) or productive

(Maccoby, 2003) as it often lends to personal and professional development. Furthermore,

Dickinson and Pincus (2003: 366) argue that healthy narcissism is a normal expression of

narcissism (and) may contribute to self-esteem by increasing an individuals sense of

personal agency which leads to individuals being ambitious, satisfied, and relatively

successful. For healthy narcissists, failing to achieve goals, receiving disapproval from

others and failing to attain the success of others, could lead to disappointment, but rarely

depression (Lubit, 2003). We humans all use narcissistic tendencies to protect our self-

image from being attacked by others; for example by believing that we are in some way

more special than someone else (Maccoby, 2000). Furthermore, it is often assumed that a

healthy dose of narcissism is necessary to build self-confidence, which enables us to deal

with frustrations (i.e., I am still a worthy person, although Bob got the promotion) and

defend our own personal values (i.e., I disagree with Bob because I believe that I am right).

Many also argue that healthy narcissists usually do not feel the necessity to excessively

indulge in fantasies of grandiosity as they have enough self-confidence, adaptability, and

humour to stress real achievements (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985: 593). All in all, he althy

narcissism, even in small doses, is something that is apparent in most people. It is a part of

everyday life and a necessary defence mechanism to protect our self-image and boost our

self-esteem.

Pathological narcissism, or the dark side of narcissism, differs from healthy

narcissist because individuals exhibit destructive personalities in several cases exhibiting

signs of psychopathy, as symptoms include manipulative tendencies, a desire for

entitlement, and a lack of empathy (Maccoby, 2000). Pathological narcissists are also

known as destructive (Lubit 2002), reactive (Kets de Vries, 1994), unhealthy (Stolorow,

1975) and non-productive (Maccoby, 2003). Pathological narcissists frequently display a

fragile self-esteem that needs protection, which they attain by constructing a grandiose


17/71

11

image of themselves (Lubit, 2002). They often demonstrate highly egocentric behaviour,

which they defend by requiring others to constantly express admiration towards their self-

created and regularly exaggerated self-image (Campbell et al, 2004). These narcissists

generally suffer from a serious personality disorder that inhibits them from forming

meaningful (versus superficial) relationships. Pathological narcissists often enter

adulthood with a legacy of feelings of deprivation, insecurity, and inadequacy, (Kets de

Vries, 2004: 189) as their upbringing may have lacked self-esteem development (Lubit,

2004). The American Psychiatric Association (APA) created the most widely used

characterisation of narcissism as a pathological disorder. According to the APA, a narcissist:

(1) Has a grandiose sense of self-importance; (2) Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited

success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; (3) Believes that he or she is "special" and

unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-

status people (or institutions); (4) Requires excessive admiration; (5) Has a sense of

entitlement; (6) Is interpersonally exploitative; (7) Lacks empathy: is unwilling to

recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others; (8) Is often envious of others or

believes others are envious of him or her; (9) Shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or

attitudes (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

Although there is a clear distinction between healthy and pathological narcissism in

the literature, these to concepts are not always irreconcilable. On the premise that

personality can develop over time, Miller, et al (2007) argue that although healthy

narcissism can help an individuals self-confidence and career aspirations, it may progress

into a pathological form of narcissism or even to the more extreme corporate psychopath.

The evolution from healthy to pathological narcissism often occurs because healthy

narcissists easily turn pathological when they are overcome with feelings of grandiosity

and paranoia (Campbell et al, 2010). Interestingly, Hogan and Kaiser (2005) observe that

healthy narcissism can develop into pathological narcissism throughout the progression of

ones career. In other words, the more an individual is paid, the higher their position, the

more responsibility they have, the more narcissistic they become. Therefore, CEOs may

often be most narcissistic (Kets de Vries & Miller 1984). Moreover, Hogan and Kaiser

(2005) found that individuals who are highly narcissistic are more likely exhibit signs of


18/71

12

pathological narcissism compared to those who are not highly narcissistic. Moreover, some

researchers disagree with the notion that healthy narcissism is actually healthy. Twenge &

Campbell (2009) argue that narcissism, even as a normal part of humans is in part

responsible for the demise of American society a view is also expressed by Stern (1979),

Lasch (1991) and Caldwell (2006). Twenge & Campbell (2009) further argue that because

Americans are raised in a society that explicitly encourages self-admiration, competition

and materialism, narcissism is actively promoted. This has dramatic consequences; for

example, the mortgage meltdown that led to the financial crisis of 2008 was caused, in

part, by the narcissistic over-confidence of homebuyers (Twenge & Campbell, 2009: 2).

Lasch (1979) would concur as he argues that narcissism is actually the psychological

consequence of capitalism in its bureaucratic form and that it results in a superficial,

materialistic society.

2.3 Narcissism in Corporations

2.3.1 Narcissistic CEOs and Employees

Top managers make decisions like any other person based on a mix between

rational thinking and personal interpretation (Child, 1972). Considering the power held by

top management, it would surely be disconcerting to discover that many CEOs havedamaging psychological disorders influencing their decision-making skills, especially

disorders of self-interest such as pathological narcissism or even corporate psychopathy.

Research conducted by Kets de Vries (1984) examining narcissists and leadership indicates

that narcissists are frequently encountered in top management positions. Indeed it is only

to be expected that many narcissistic people, with their need for power, prestige, glamour,

eventually end up seeking leadership positions. Their sense of drama, their ability to

manipulate others, their knack for establishing quick, superficial relationships serve them

as well (Kets de Vries & Miller 1984: 32). The CEO position thus often attracts narcissists.

Hayward and Hambrick (1997: 766) concur, adding: CEO hubris and personal ambitions

are potent influences on executive action and, by extension, organizational outcomes.

Research done on the personality traits of CEOs by Judge et al (2003) concluded that

extraversion, which is narcissistic personality trait, was the most common personality trait


19/71

13

of CEOs. Interestingly, Maccoby (2000) argues that narcissistic personality traits played a

paramount role in the career development of many CEOs including Bill Gates, Andy Grove,

Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Jack Welch.

Although narcissistic personality traits may suit a CEO, what is the effect of having apathological narcissist as the head of a corporation? Pathological narcissists, similar to

corporate psychopaths discussed in section 2.1, can be very destructive towards a

corporation. Firstly, there is evidence of pathological narcissism being partly responsible

for unethical behaviour within business. This is especially the case in accounting scandals

such as Enron/WorldCom, as well as the majority of white-collar crimes, is often a result of

narcissistic individuals (Blickle et al, 2006). Secondly, people who work for pathologically

narcissistic CEOs suffer under the CEOs leadership. For example, CEOs and managers

displaying signs of pathological narcissism may expect great dedication from others and

may overwork them without regard for the impact on their lives (APA, 2004:14). Lastly,

there are several studies that hint at volatile performance of companies that are run by

narcissistic CEOs. Ketz de Vries concurs, stating: the real disease of many executives, CEOs

in particular, is narcissism (Dearlove, 2003: 26). Furthermore, Campbell & Campbe ll

(2009) argue that narcissistic leaders, specifically CEOs, cannot properly sustain an

effective leadership position within a corporation since narcissists have a tendency to take

uncalculated risks and have destructive interpersonal relations with co-workers.

Chatterjee & Hambrick (2007: 351) agrees by indicating that narcissism in CEOs is

positively related to the strategic dynamism and grandiosity, as well as the number and

size of acquisitions, and it engenders extreme and fluctuating organizational performance.

Soyer, Rovenpor and Kopelman (1999) found similar results: though they cannot find any

conclusive results in terms of poor financial performance, they have identified extreme

fluctuations in financial performance. In other words, narcissistic leaders in a corporation

can be ineffective in achieving sustained growth over longer periods of time due to their

erratic behaviour and risk-welcoming mindset. Yet there are many situations in which

narcissistic leadership can prove effective for corporations and society. Firstly, a

narcissistic leader can be seen as beneficial in times of crisis or turbulence as the narcissist

is able to cope with extreme pressure due to their detachment from emotion, dynamic


20/71

14

thinking and aspiration for short-term results which stems from their need for instant

gratification (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Secondly, in times of despair or economic

depression narcissistic leaders are in high demand due to their charismatic personality and

visionary thinking, which makes them an instiller of hope, a role that is in many respects

essential to the effective mobilization of people facing adversity (Ouimet, 2010: 720).

Though most research regarding pathological narcissism has focused on top

management, its impact on mid-level managers and general employees has also been

examined. A form of pathological narcissism the corporate psychopath that was

previously discussed demonstrates that individuals of all organizational levels could

potentially be Snakes in Suits (Babiak, & Hare, 2006). The consensus is similar to the

findings of pathological narcissism and leadership research; that pathological narcissists

can have a negative effect on several aspects of business, no matter their position. This is,

for example, observed when pathological narcissists alienate subordinates as a result of

their devaluation of others, insist on having their own way, have a lack of empathy, and are

willinng to exploit others (Lubit, 2002, p. 130). Pathological narcissists at all levels also

have the tendancy to overevaluate their own performance, engage in unethical practices,

and exhibit in a volatile behaviour (Duchon & Drake, 2008). Amernic and Craig (2010: 80)

concur, adding that pathological narcissists engage in creative accounting; and inflate

reported financial results to boost their ego and self-esteem. The pathological narcissist

endeavour into unethical practices without regarding the moral nature of their

wrongdoings occurs because they become self-obsessed and use a sense of entitlement,

self-aggrandizement, denial, and rationalizations to justify anything they do (Duchon &

Drake, 2008: 301).

2.4 Narcissism and Ethics

2.4.1 Is narcissism immoral?

Although narcissists can be highly successful when it comes to career development,

their own self-enhancement, or when confronted with crisis or economic despair, the

question of how, or the means by which narcissists operate, raises several ethical

considerations. Given that pathological narcissists generally lack the emotional intelligence


21/71

15

found in normal people which allows them to understand, accept and act upon social and

moral norms, it is difficult to imagine a destructive narcissist having a moral compass

(Maibom, 2005). Scottish philosopher David Hume may concur, arguing that emotion,

rather than reasoning, is at the center of any moral decision and therefore: "Reason is, and

ought only to be the slave of emotions" (Hume, 1740/2003:215). In other words, humans

use reason to control or tame their emotions and therefore to make ethical decisions.

Consequentially, without emotion there can be no moral reasoning and ultimately no

capability to feel for others or empathize. In all, pathological narcissists generally lack

emotion and therefore have difficulty making ethical judgments.

Yet the argument is not so simple. One could argue that the unethical actions of a

narcissist are not because the narcissist is acting as the moral agent, rather because he or

she is primed or conditioned by his or her environment to act in a certain way. This view is

shared by Weber (1968) and Bauman (1989) who argue that modern bureaucracy leads to

the separation of the individual from morality because in a bureaucracy the performance

of each individual worker is mathematically measured, each man becomes a little cog in the

machine and aware of this, his one preoccupation is whether he can become a larger cog

(Weber, 1968: 998). This is well illustrated through the example of Jerome Kerviel, the

rogue trader who lost $7.2 billion (the largest fraudulent loss ever recorded in the financial

sector) by making unauthorized risk-seeking trades whilst working for the French bank

Socit Gnrale (Weiss, 2008). Kerviel insisted that he should not have been blamed for

his actions because this behavior was common practice at Socit Gnrale and that the

banks corporate culture was focused solely on making money regardless of ethics (Weiss,

2008) something that Kerviel argues was implicitly praised at the bank. In other words,

Kerviel, a textbook case of a pathological narcissist, claims that he had no moral

considerations whilst conducting his fraudulent activities at Socit Gnrale since he is a

victim of the bureaucratic system that acted as a moral sleeping pill (Bauman, 1989: 26).

Though one could make a case for the silencing of morality (Bauman 1989: 29)

given bureaucratic influences, this does not mean that the actions of, for example Jerome

Kerviel, are ethically justified a case similar to Nazi officers who were part of a

bureaucratic system and thus also detached from their moral compass. There are several


22/71

16

other reasons that support the argument that pathological narcissism within business can

result in immoral actions, other than white-collar crime. Firstly, the manipulative nature of

pathological narcissists who satisfy the fantasies of their followers although they appear

to direct their followers towards transcendental purposes, but in fact tend to cater to the

self-delusionary interests of their followers (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999: 190) can have

unethical implications. Secondly, pathological narcissists tend to disregard the common

good and could potentially pose as a harmful threat to those around them and the

organization for which they work. Lastly, Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) argue that

pathological narcissists potentially lack morality because: (1) pathological narcissists

rarely intend for their actions to be noble, (2) for the pathological narcissist, the ends

almost always justify the means and (3) the consequences, both good and bad, of a

pathological narcissists actions are not fairly distributed amongst those affected. What a

narcissist may consider right and wrong, good or bad, is a very complex path to navigate

and ultimately not the purpose of this paper. Yet one could assume that breaking the law,

disregard for collective humanity and the harmful manipulation of others, which are often

due to a pathological narcissists self-aggrandizement agenda, is ultimately immoral.

2.5 Business ethics

If you ask what is the good of education in general, the answer is easy: that education makesgood men and that good men act nobly

PLATO

During the past century there has been an ever increasing sense of uncertainty

regarding the ethics of corporations. Etzioni (in Gellerman, 1986) concludes that two thirds

of Fortune 500 companies engage in criminal behaviour. Furthermore, cases such GMs

exploding Ford Pinto, the fall of Enron/WorldCom, and white-collar crime (most recently

Bernard Madoff and Jerome Kerviel) have triggered increased concern regarding the lack of

ethics in business. Furthermore, a considerable amount of emphasis has been placed on the

moral judgements made by banking professionals regarding the financial crisis of 2008/09.

Unfortunately, unethical behaviours of these corporations and occasional unethical nature

of business people diminish the confidence that government, society and shareholders


23/71

17

have in business practice (Wood and Callaghan, 2003). Kenneth Andrews, professor of

business strategy at Harvard Business School, states if it's black and white, and a man has

normal courage and security, he'll say no. It's the grey areas that the businessman may

more likely flounder (in Tsalikis and Fritzsche, 1989). But although ethics is on the

decline, Bakan (2005:1) argues thata corporations legally defined mandate is to pursue,

relentlessly and without exception, its own selfinterest, regardless of the often harmful

consequences it might cause to others. Regardless of this legal mandate, consumer

scepticism, anti-corporation demonstrations and shareholder activism related to the

decline in corporate ethical conduct have all increased in recent years (LeClair et al, 2000).

The concern for business ethics has sparked demand for business schools to incorporate

ethical teachings within curricula (LeClair et al, 2000). Ghoshal (2003) even argues that

business schools poor ethical training is responsible for corporate misconduct, a view

shared by Schwartz, Kassem & Ludwig who assert: Business schools recognize and reward

students for their grades and faculty members for their research and publications to the

exclusion of their respective socially responsible behaviours, they make it impractical for

students and faculty members to let their social concerns direct their energies (1991:

468). Weber (1990) and Phillips (2004) found current implementation of ethics courses in

business schools to be quite ineffective. Moreover, after a comprehensive review of

business school in the US, Porter and McKibbin (1988) found that there was a significant

lack in the emphasis placed on the external environment of organizations. So, how

important is it to ethically educate business students? Moreover, just how effective is

ethical education?

2.5.1 Can business ethics be taught?

To address the question of whether ethics should be taught and the effectiveness of

such teachings at university level is multidimensional and complex. There are twoopposing schools of thought when considering business ethics as a taught subject, to be

further discussed below. On the one hand, proponents of ethics in business schools, making

up the majority, argue that one can be educated to become more ethical and that schools

need to ethically train future managers to better prepare them for imminent ethical


24/71

18

decisions. On the other hand, some argue that business ethics cannot be taught because

students have matured in terms of moral development upon entering university and

further claim that academic institutions are not responsible for ethical upbringing.

When considering the pro-ethics education school of thought, there is evidence that

points to an ever-increasing number of business schools, both in the United States and

Europe, offering ethics courses; though taught with varying degrees of intensity, of course

(LeClair et al, 2000). Although ethics is on the rise in business schools, Baetz and Sharp

(2004: 53) note that when considering the 25 most prominent business textbooks in the

United States, one finds very superficial coverage of ethical issues. But are ethics cou rses

beneficial? Several researchers have found signs of moral development in students after

taking a course in ethics. A meta-analysis study conducted by Weber (1990) concluded thattaking an ethics course improved students ability to make ethical judgements. Weber

(1990) did though warn that the positive effects of ethics courses were short-lived,

implying that continuous ethical education may be beneficial, perhaps even in the business

environment. Another meta-analytic study that included 25 studies on ethics in education

indicated that taking a course in business ethics did in fact improve students ethical

awareness, but to an imperceptible degree (Waples, et al, 2009). Moreover, considerable

research has been conducted understanding how an individuals moral development

progresses over time. Academics generally agree that individuals progress through stages

of moral development, a theory accredited Kohlberg (1976). Kohlberg (1976) argues that

people develop their cognitive abilities to evaluate what they believe is moral and/or

immoral over time which can be explained through six distinctive steps namely:

- Pre-conventional Morality(1) Obedience and Punishment Orientation(2) Individualism and Exchange

- Conventional Morality(3) Good Interpersonal Relationships(4) Maintaining the Social Order

- Post-conventional Morality(5) Social Contract and Individual Rights(6) Universal Principles


25/71

19

Shenkir (1990) agrees, noting that, depending on age and level of education,

students exhibit different periods in their cognitive moral development. Each stage denotes

the level of an individuals moral reasoning; importantly, the immediate environment,

including an individuals education, may affect the progress of these stages (Kohlberg,

1976). Some postulate that business students can be trained in ethics at various points of

Kohlbergs stages (Davis & Welton, 1991), but Wood et al (1988) assert that a lack of

ethical training has led to a stagnation of moral development: business students cannot

reason beyond Kohlbergs Maintaining the Social Orderstage, indicating a serious lack of

awareness of, or commitment to, fundamental moral principles (1988: 251). However,

some argue that an individuals ethical perspective has already been developed by the age

of entering college, meaning that an ethics class would not be useful (Cragg, 1997). Hosmer

(1988: 14) further asserts that the moral standards of students have already been set by

their families, their schools, their churches, their peers, and their jobs by the time they

reach a program. Berleson and Steiniers (1964) research indicates that a persons

understanding of what is wrong and right is almost completely established by the age of 16.

This view is often contested: although an individuals fundamental value system might be

developed, it has often been observed that people do tend to change their moral

perspective over time due to a change in national laws or a corporate code of conduct

(Rockness & Rockness, 2010). While it is the prerogative of business schools to teach profit

maximization, given the capitalistic society in which we live, the apparent degradation of

morals in business settings may demand a reconsideration of ethical training in an

education setting; though this may be difficult give the environment at hand.

2.5.2 Do business schools encourage narcissism?

Currently, there are no longitudinal studies, of which I am aware, that confirm an

increase in narcissism during a business students academic career. But overall, businessstudents differ from other students in terms of their personality and ethics. Research, for

example, suggests that business students are generally more narcissistic than non-business

students (Arlow, 1991; Cadsby & Maynes, 1998; McCabe, Dukerich & Dutton, 1991;

Westerman et al, 2010; Zopiatis & Krambia-Kapardis, 2008). Self-interest, a fundamental


26/71

20

component of narcissism, is also more apparent amongst business and economics students.

Academic evidence also suggests a decline in ethical development of students prior to

beginning an economics degree compared to the completion of said degree (Wolfe &

Fritzsche, 1998).

Therefore, because business students are generally considered more unethical,

narcissistic, self-interested and, in studying of business, become more self-interested and

less ethical, one can understand that they think more with their head than their heart

(Ruhe et al, 1998: 116). Ferraro et al (2005) highlights the self-fulfilling prophecy inherent

in the study of economics: students that may tend toward self-interest become increasingly

so given the content of what economics students are taught, namely driven by profit

maximisation. Schwartz (1997: 21) concurs by referring to economics students studying

transactional cost theory, agency theory and game theory: when people act on the basis of

ideology, they inadvertently arrange the very conditions that bring reality into

correspondence with the ideology. In other words, because the first principle of

Economics is that every agent is actuated only by self-interest (Sen, 1977:317) students of

economics are primed to accordingly act out of self-interest. Some academics see the

current business school paradigm as disturbing; Brennan (1994: 39) argues that if we go

on hammering into our students the mistaken notion that rationality is identical with self-

interest we shall make our agency models come true at the cost of producing a society that

will not function. Ghoshol (2005) shares a similar view and furthermore argues that

because business schools propagate ideologically inspired amoral theories, business

schools have actively freed their students from any sense of moral responsibility.

So, students studying business-related subjects are inherently more self-interested,

a trait perpetuated by the very subject they study. Marwell and Ames (1981) found that

students of economics would donate less to a public good if it does not benefit them.

Similar results were found by Carter and Irons (1991) who conclude that finance majors

exhibit more selfish behaviour and consequentially keep resources to themselves

compared to their counterparts. Evidence also shows that economics students become

more self-interested over time; for example, Frank et al (1993) demonstrate that self-

interest in students taking a class in economic game theory increase over a semester


27/71

21

compared to students who studied economic development in Maoist China. Although

business/economics students are usually contrasted to non-business/economics students,

research has also looked at differences between business-related subjects. Brown, et al,

(2010) for example, found students of finance to be the most narcissistic, compared to

accounting and marketing students. Similar findings were shared by Sautter et al (2008)

who found finance students to be the most narcissistic and least empathetic compared to

students of management, accounting and marketing. And it is not just that business

students are more self-interested/narcissistic, but that they also are also less ethical than

non-business students. Frank and Schulze (2000) find that students of economics exhibit

what is arguably corrupt behaviour when provided with an ethical dilemma, compared to

those taking non-economics courses. Additionally, both Wood, et al, (1988) and Harris

(1989) found that when presented with an ethical evaluation survey, business students had

lower scores than non-business students. So, should universities adjust their focus to

emphasise business ethics? It would be difficult to assume that teaching ethics in a business

or economics course would be effective considering the conditioning of students both due

to the ruthless nature of our competitive economy and the focus on outcomes (Ritter,

2006: 154) and consequentially the nature of business academia.


28/71

22

2.6 Conclusion

Although all humans have narcissistic tendencies, some are more narcissistic than

others. But narcissism can develop into a personality disorder that often results in

excessive love for ones self and a general disregard for others , typically a result of a

fragile sense of self-esteem. Recently, narcissism has permeated the business world,

where, especially in the case of senior management, it can manifest itself in a damaging

way. In some severe cases, a narcissist can turn from being slightly arrogant, ambitious and

self-confidant into a pathological narcissist or even a corporate psychopath who is

manipulative, controlling and power seeking. Consequently, one of the greatest concerns is

the ethical implications of narcissism in business. With business education placing such an

emphasis on self-interested thinking as a requisite for academic development, businessschools are reinforcing self-interested behaviour and ultimately, narcissism. These two

premises provide a platform for further exploration: the variables of business ethics and

narcissism will be tested in this paper, with the goal of uncovering a correlation between

the two to discover whether high narcissism truly results in a lesser emphasis on ethics.


29/71

23

3. Chapter 3 - RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 Introduction

The following findings, deducted from the literature review, will be used to establishresearch questions:

Author(s) Participants Findings Category

Westerman et al (2010)Business students and

psychology

(1)Business students are

more narcissistic than

psychology students

Narcissism/

self-interest

Brown et al (2010)

Students of finance,

accounting andmarketing

Students of Finance

were the most

narcissistic and least

empathetic, followed by

accounting and

marketing

Narcissism/

ethics

Blickle et al (2006) Managers

Narcissistic managers

are less ethical than non

narcissists

Narcissism/

ethics

Frank, Gilovich & Regan

(1993)

Economics and non-

economics students

(1) Economics students

are more self-interested

than non-economics

students

(2) Economics training

inhibits cooperation and

furthers self-interested

behaviour

Narcissism/

self-interest

Marwell & Ames (1981)

Economics students

and several groups

from the general

population

Economics students

were most likely to

adopt a free rider

position regarding giving

to a public good.

Narcissism/

self-interest

Cadsby and Maynes (1998)

Economics students,

business students and

nurses

Economics students and

business students are

more selfish than nurses

Narcissism/

self-interest


30/71

24

Author(s) Participants Findings Category

Carter and Irons (1997)

Economics students

and non-economics

students

Economics students are

more self-interested

than non-economics

students

Narcissism/

self-interest

Sautter et al (2008)

Students of Finance,

Management,

Accounting,

Marketing

Finance are the most

narcissistic and the least

empathetic

Narcissism/

self-interest

Arlow (1991)Business and non-

business students

Business students are

more ethical than non-

business students

Ethics and social

responsibility

McCabe, Dukerich &

Dutton (1991)

Students of business

and students of law


less ethical than

students of law

Ethics and social

responsibility

Zopiatis and Krambia-

Kapardis (2007)

Business and non-

business students


less ethical than non-

business students

Ethics and social

responsibility

Foster, Campbell and

Twenge (2003)

Individual cultures

and collective cultures

(1)Individualistic

cultures are more

narcissistic than

collective cultures

(2)Men are more

narcissistic than women

Culture

Gender

As such, I seek to test these theories to find a relationship between the following variables:

Narcissism

Score of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (See Appendix 1): although

some studies have focused on narcissism as a construct, other studies, especially those

which have focused on economics students, used self-interest as a dependant variable.

Although the concepts of narcissism and self-interest are not the same thing, per se, strong

correlations have been found between narcissism and self-interest. It would therefore be

useful to further build on previous work done on self-interest by using narcissism as an

extension of self-interest.


31/71

25

Ethics

Score of the Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility survey (PRESOR)

(See Appendix 2). Ethics is hard to measure. There are two quantitative scales commonly

used to evaluate ethics PRESOR and ATBEQ (Attitudes Towards Business Ethics

Questionnaire). This study will use PRESOR since its focus is on the contrast between

profit maximization and social responsibility. A respondent therefore must to choose

between whether a company should focus on profits or should disregard profits for ethics.

Type of study programme

When researchers conduct empirical studies on narcissism and business ethics with

students, they usually compare groups of students according to what subject they are

studying, categorising students in three main ways. First, some compare students from

business-related subjects with students from non-business subjects: e.g., finance students

compared to non-finance students, economics students compared to non-economics

students and management students compared to non-management students. The non

category of students typically includes students of several other study programmes.

Secondly, some researchers compare a single study programme (i.e. economics) with a

control group, which is normally a non-business related study (i.e. psychology). Thirdly,

some researchers divide students into general groups which consist of multiple business

related subjects. For example, a category may be titled business students which includesundergraduate students from management, finance, accounting, and MBA students.

Because there are such dispersed ways in which researchers categorize students, especially

those researchers who create groups with multiple studies incorporated in one group, it is

difficult to generalize their research design and consequentially compare findings since

different academic institutions and different study programmes are not always constructed

similarly.

This study will compare individual business-related subjects, with the aim of

providing new insights regarding differences in narcissism and ethics between business-

related subjects rather than comparing business and non-business related subjects. This

lends to discovering differences in business-related subjects rather than illuminating an

already established difference between business and non-business students. Although this

study will not exactly replicate previous work, it will build on research by Brown et al


32/71

26

(2010) and Sautter et al (2008) who also looked at individual business related subjects in

terms of narcissism and ethics (although it should be mentioned that by Brown et al (2010)

and Sautter et al (2008) used empathyto denote ethics; i.e. those who lack empathy lack

morals). The following business related subjects will be individually compared: Economics,

Finance, Finance and Management, Management

3.1.1 Research Questions

Considering the theoretical framework deducted from the literature the following six

research questions can be established:

Research Question 1

a. Students from which type of study are the most/least narcissistic?

b. Who perceives ethics and social responsibility as most important/unimportant?

Research Question 2

a. Who is the most/least narcissistic and who perceives ethics and social responsibility to play

the most/least important role - males or females?

b. Who is the most/least narcissistic and who perceives ethics and social responsibility to playthe most/least important role - collective or individual cultures?

Research Question 3

a. Who is the most/least narcissistic and who perceives ethics and social responsibility to play

the most/least important role - Economics or Finance Students?

b. Who is the most/least narcissistic and who perceives ethics and social responsibility to play

the most/least important role - Economics or F&M students?

c. Who is the most/least narcissistic who perceives ethics and social responsibility to play the

most/least important role - Economics or management students?

d. Who is the most/least narcissistic who perceives ethics and social responsibility to play the

most/least important role - Finance or F&M students?

e. Who is the most/least narcissistic who perceives ethics and social responsibility to play the

most/least important role - F&M or Management Students?

f. Who is the most/least narcissistic who perceives ethics and social responsibility to play themost/least important role - Management or Finance Students?

Research Question 4

a. Are students who are more narcissistic perceiving business ethics to be less important?


33/71

27

3.1.2 Research Strategy

The reason for choosing one research strategy over another is not because they

produce more valuable result, per se, but it rather depends on the research questions at

hand (Jankowicz, 2005). The main difference between quantitative and qualitative istherefore not a matter of quality but of procedure and therefore, on a basic level,

quantitative methods employ measurement and qualitative methods do not (Ghauri and

Grnhaug, 2005: 109). There are six main reasons why quantitative methods, compared to

qualitative methods, will be utilized for this study (drawn predominately from Bryman &

Bell, 2010).

1. A quantitative approach will be most helpful in addressing the research questions

since variables (narcissism, ethics,studyprogramme, gender and culture) measured

in this research will be precisely identified, isolated and separated, (ultimately

compared with each other) and numerical analyses used to deduce relationships.

2. Given that this study is testing pre-existing theory, a deductive approach will be

adopted.

3. This type of research will lean more toward a positivist epistemology that

embraces any approach which applies scientific method to human affairs conceived

as belonging to a natural order (Jonker & Pennink, 2009:153) compared to an

interpretivist perspective that seeks to understand meaning in social situations.

4. I will try to remain separated from the actual research and therefore perceive

reality as external and objective, rather being involved and thus creating my own

subjective view of reality.

5. I will attempt to gain a large sample, lending to the generalizability of the results.

One main drawback associated with the use of a quantitative paradigm for this

research is that it only identifies relationships between variables, so does not provide any

new understandings in terms ofwhythe relationships exist. Using a quantitative approach

will therefore be unable to provide a detailed narrative to explain the results of this study.

Moreover, a quantitative research approach will restrict respondents, as they will be


34/71

28

limited to the variables of the questionnaire. In other words, I can attempt to find a

relationship between narcissism and ethics but not understand why a narcissist perceives

business ethics as being important or unimportant (Ulin, Robinson & Tolley, 2005).

3.2 Survey tools NPI & PRESOR

3.2.1 Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)

The NPI, developed by Raskin and Hall (1979), is currently the most widely used

measure of narcissism as Cain et al (2008: 643) argue: since 1985, the NPI was used as the

main or only measure of narcissistic traits in approximately 77% of social/personality

research on narcissism. Originally based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders (DSM-III) (APA, 1980), the NPI is a self-administered survey that

measures narcissism as a personality trait in non-clinical populations. The DSM-III, on the

other hand measures narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). There is ample controversy

amongst researchers in terms of the applicability of the NPI as a measure of NPD

considering the emphasis place by the NPI on healthy narcissism traits (i.e. self-esteem and

interpersonal dominance) compared to the pathological focus of the DSM (i.e. grandiose

fantasies and lack of empathy) (Cain et al, 2008). Although the direct relationship between

the NPI and NPD is not agreed upon, and although the NPI was not designed for clinicalusage per se, meta-analysis by Miller, et al, (2009: 482) concluded that they are

significantly correlated and generate similar personality profiles.

The original NPI consisted of 54 items that have been rigorously tested for validity

by, for example, finding negative correlations with empathy, a trait rarely possessed by

narcissists (Detwiler & Byravan, 1994). Most notably, Emmons (1984) found substantial

consistence reliability based on four correlated factors: Exploitativeness/Entitlement,

Leadership/Authority, Superiority/Arrogance and Self-absorption/Self-admiration. Raskinand Terry (1988), based on the research by Emmons (1984), improved the NPI and

reduced it to 40 questions, which was again proven to valid in terms of its seven new

factors: Authority, Exhibitionism, Superiority, Entitlement, Exploitativeness, Self-

sufficiency, and Vanity (Kansi, 2003). This seven-factor version most commonly used today.

Each of the 40 questions contains two statements which the respondent is forced to answer


35/71

29

(i.e. People always seem to recognize my authority / Being an authority doesn't mean that

much to me; I hope I am going to be successful / I am going to be a great person).

Narcissists generally score above 20 points on the NPI whereas non-narcissist score below

14 points (Rhodewalt & Eddings, 2002). As a comparative benchmark, the average NPI

score a MBA student is 17.4, the average American scores a 15.4 and celebrities have an

average NPI score of 17.84 (Young and Pinsky, 2006).

3.2.2 Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility (PRESOR)

The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility survey (PRESOR), developed

by Singhapakdi et al (1995), is based on the Organizational Effectiveness Menu (OEM)

created by Kraft and Jauch (1992). The PRESOR survey has been widely used by

researchers (e.g., Etheredge, 1999; Valentine & Fleischman 2008; Vitell & Ramos Hidalgo,

2006) to evaluate participants perception of ethics and the role of social responsibility in

business. Participants are required to evaluate the extent to which they agree or disagree

with the statements based on a 9 point Likert scale ranging from very strongly agree to very

strongly disagree. The PRESOR contains 16 statements that link ethics and social

responsibility to a firms overall effectiveness (survival, profit and competitiveness). These

16 statements are further broken down into three distinct factors. In the first section, good

ethics is good business, describes the relationship ethics has with social responsibility and

compares this relationship with long term gains. If a person scores high in this section, it

signifies that they tend to think that ethics and social responsibility are important to the

long-term success of a business. The next dimension, profits are not paramount, adheres

to the belief that there is more to business than just profits. A person who scores high in

this dimension simply believes that a business has other responsibilities besides solely

profit. The last dimension called quality and communication examines the importance

participants place on output qualityand communication compared to social responsibility.Overall the PRESOR is a widely used measure of a persons perspective towards business

ethics. There are although two main shortcomings to the PRESOR. First, because the survey

was created in 1995, and because businesses have seen major developments in terms of

business ethics over the past decade (e.g., CSR), it may be considered relatively out-dated.


36/71

30

Secondly, the PRESOR survey is sometimes ambiguous in nature because terms such as

social responsibility and quality output can be interpreted in several ways

3.3 Study Participants

3.3.1 Population and Sample

Participants of this study are postgraduate students from the University of St

Andrews in Scotland, United Kingdom. More specifically, students from the following

postgraduate programmes were selected (the titles in bold represent a collection of

programmes that are combined due to their overlapping subject nature and to make data

processing more efficient)

Management(Management+ International Business)

Finance and Management (F&M)

Economics (International Strategy and Economics)

Finance (Money Banking and Finance + International Finance + Finance)

Students from Management, Management and Finance and International Business

attain a Masters of Letters (MLitt) upon graduation and study at the School of Management

compared to students from International Strategy and Economics, International Finance,

Finance, Money Banking and Finance who receive a Masters of Science (MSc) upongraduation and study at the School of Finance and Economics. Additionally, the School of

Management focuses more on the practical implementation of theory compared to the

School of Economics and Finance, which has a less practical focus (School of Management,

2011). The following table provides an overview of the population size and sample size:

ManagementFinance &

ManagementEconomics Finance TOTAL

Total # students 123 65 23 105 316

Students reached 39 34 18 42 133

Respon

an empirical investigation of the relationship between narcissistic tendencies of students and their...

Documents