running head: leader narcissism, effectiveness, and 1 ... · construction of the digital survey,...

Running head: LEADER NARCISSISM, EFFECTIVENESS, AND 1

INSTRUMENTALITY

Mirror Mirror on the Wall, You Are Indeed the Most Effective of Them All:

The Curvilinear Relationship between Leader Narcissism and Leader Effectiveness,

Moderated by Leader Instrumentality

Name: Pien van der Wal Student number: 2556075 Date: May 31st, 2019 Supervisor: Dr. E.P. Sleebos Second reader: Dr. R.A. van der Lee Education: Master Policy, Communication, and Organization Faculty: Social Sciences University: VU Amsterdam Word count: 9490

LEADER NARCISSISM, EFFECTIVENESS, AND INSTRUMENTALITY 2

Preface

Current research into perceived leader effectiveness of narcissistic leaders at work,

considering leaders’ instrumental value, is established in 2019. In collaboration with five

other master’s students of the Policy, Communication, and Organization stream and my thesis

supervisor Dr. E.P. Sleebos, we constructed hypotheses, designed the digital survey, recruited

respondents, and separately analysed, reported, and interpreted the research data.

Particularly, predicting employees’ evaluations of leaders’ performance, in the light of

narcissistic leaders’ instrumental value in pursuing personal employee goals, appealed to me

after one of my best friends told me that he aimed to gain a promotion; he positively adjusted

his leader’s annual evaluation at work, as he expressed: “all you have to do is provide my

narcissist-like supervisor with feedback on how well he is doing.” Interestingly, my friend

indeed got promoted after two months. Writing this research report was the ultimate challenge

for me to bring together the experience of writing research reports over the past years, in a

masters-worthy thesis, and I hope I have succeeded. Moreover, I hope the whole process of

conducting and writing my master’s thesis and/or this report may bring me one step closer to

pursuing a Ph.D. position later on.

Hereby, I would like to thank Floris Adrichem Boogaert, Tessa de Jongh, Aniek

Ignatius, Cheryl Vooren, and Shona Willekes MacDonald for their contribution in the

construction of the digital survey, the coordination of premaster students during the data

collection phase, and recruiting teams. I am also very grateful for the 125 premaster students’

contribution in providing teams and, therefore, helping gather data for the study. Additionally,

I would like to express my gratitude for my master’s thesis supervisor Dr. E.P. Sleebos for

supporting me at every stage of the study and providing valuable feedback on the initial draft

of this research report.


Index

1. Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Theoretical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1 The relationship between leader narcissism and leader effectiveness . . . . . . . . 10

3.2 The role of perceived leader instrumentality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.3 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.4 Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.5 Analytical strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5. Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.1 Measurement analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.2 Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5.3 Assumptions regression analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.4 Hypotheses testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.5 Multilevel analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6.2 Practical and theoretical implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6.3 Limitations, future directions, and final statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Appendix A: Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix B: Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55


Abstract

Research showed that narcissistic leaders’ performance within organizations is constantly

under scrutiny. Specifically, previous research showed a curvilinear effect between

narcissistic leaders and leader effectiveness (inverted U-shape). This research builds upon this

work by suggesting that this curvilinear effect is influenced by perceived leader

instrumentality. A cross-sectional research design was applied, utilizing multiple source data

within 541 existing teams at work, consisting of 541 leaders and 1,719 employees, selected by

convenience sampling. Contrasting with theory, multiple regression analysis revealed that

narcissism in leaders was not curvilinearly related to leader effectiveness and that perceived

leader instrumentality did not moderate this relationship. Most notably, however, perceived

leader instrumentality was strongly related to leader effectiveness evaluations. This paper

discusses why and how employees may exert influence on their leaders – including

narcissistic leaders – for personal gains. Implications of the results for (managerial) practice

and future research are discussed.

Keywords: leader narcissism, leader effectiveness, and leader instrumentality


Mirror Mirror on the Wall, You Are Indeed the Most Effective of Them All:

The Curvilinear Relationship between Leader Narcissism and Leader Effectiveness,

Moderated by Leader Instrumentality

Humanity has been intrigued by narcissists for a century now (Raskin & Terry, 1988).

Research showed that although narcissism is a Dark Triad personality trait (like psychopathy

and Machiavellianism) (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016), narcissists are

highly successful in increasing their empire of influence (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016), as they

gradually obtain a higher percentage of shareholding and receive, for example, more salary

and bonuses, as compared to their non-narcissistic counterparts (O’Reilly, Doerr, Caldwell,

Chatman, 2014; Spurk, Keller, & Hirschi, 2016). Specifically, while narcissists are in love

with themselves (Spotnitz & Resnikoff, 1954), they are suggested to be highly dislikeable as

they are associated with socially toxic behaviours, power misusing (Mead, Baumeister,

Stuppy, & Vohs, 2018), envy, schadenfreude (Krizan & Johar, 2012), aggression (Vize et al.,

2019), bullying (Fanti & Frangou, 2018; Fanti & Henrich, 2015), manipulation, and even

exploitation (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010). Moreover, narcissists derogate others

(Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000; Vazire & Funder, 2006), ingratiate (i.e., flatter

others), and take credit (even though this success may belong to someone else) (Hart, Adams,

Burton, & Tortoriello, 2017). Interestingly, people still tend to intentionally allow these

narcissists to gain ground, authorizing them to manage their organizations, be a figurehead in

the society (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006), or even exert power in romantic relations

(Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002). Examples of these narcissists, put in extremely influential

positions, are former Apple CEO Steve Jobs (“Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown

out your own inner voice”), professional footballer Zlatan Ibrahimovic (“You’re talking to

God,” referring to himself), or politician Silvio Berlusconi (“I am the Jesus Christ of

politics”). How is it even possible that these narcissists are tolerated at the top?


Clearly, there must be a valid explanation of why narcissists are not explicitly banned

from most influential positions in society, as narcissists cannot reach such positions without

help. Notably, as mankind recognizes narcissists seamlessly (Brunell et al., 2008; Brunell,

Wicker, Deems, & Daddis, 2018; Vazire, Naumann, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2008), people

hiring and promoting others could prevent them from gaining ground within organizations

(Brunell et al., 2018). By this means, narcissists’ behaviours may be detected, such as

distancing themselves from failure (Campbell et al., 2000; Vazire & Funder, 2006) and

exaggerating their accomplishments to cultivate their desired self-image in other people (Hart

et al., 2017). Nevertheless, narcissists are often seen as leaders, for example, because of their

extraversion – one trait strongly associated with leadership (Brunell, et al., 2008; Grijalva et

al., 2015) and vision (a view that is also related to transformational leadership and excellence

of organizations; Maccoby, 2000). Research has for long concluded that narcissists are

generally pushed forward for occupying leading positions (even by equals in leaderless

discussions) (Brunell et al., 2008). Evidently, narcissists’ widespread occupation of leading

positions within the organizations (Brunell et al., 2008; Deluga, 1997; Nevicka, De Hoogh,

Van Vianen, Beersma, & McIlwain, 2011a; Pech & Slade, 2007; Rosenthal & Pittinsky,

2006) is not solely justified on behalf of the narcissist and their desire to lead (Chatterjee &

Hambrick, 2011; Gardner & Pierce, 2011; Nevicka et al., 2011a; Wallace & Baumeister,

2002).

Fascinatingly, narcissists’ voluntary and/or ‘forced’ occupation of high exposure

positions in organizations (Braun, 2017) does not mean that they are predominantly

experienced as effective leaders (Grijalva et al., 2015; Hoffman et al., 2013; O’Reilly, Doerr,

& Chatman, 2018). Although subordinates admire narcissists as leaders (Back et al., 2010;

Oltmanns, Friedman, Fiedler, & Turkheimer, 2004), the latter are also associated with

dysfunctional interpersonal relationships (Brunell & Campbell, 2011) and ineffective


coordination of resources to achieve group goals, due to self-overestimation (O’Reilly et al.,

2018). It has been highlighted that moderately narcissistic leaders appear to be experienced as

most effective by employees compared to those leaders who depict low and high narcissism

(Grijalva et al., 2015). Research demonstrates that an increase in low narcissism leads to more

adaptive manifestations of narcissism such as the construction of a positive self-image,

promoting leader effectiveness, whereas an increase in high narcissism evokes non-adaptive

narcissism such as entitlement, which decreases the reported leader effectiveness (Grijalva et

al., 2015). Nevertheless, several positive relations between leader narcissism and leader

effectiveness have been found (Nana, Jackson, & Burch, 2010; Nevicka, Ten Velden, De

Hoogh, & Van Vianen, 2011b). This begs the question as to how highly narcissistic leaders,

regardless of the supposed curvilinear relationship and their highly maladaptive behaviours,

can in fact be evaluated as highly effective.

Previous research may have neglected a powerful moderator of the relationship

between leader narcissism and leader effectiveness, namely differences in the extent to which

employees perceive their leader as instrumental for their own purposes. Clearly, as research

has long underscored leaders’ role in pursuing goals within organizations (Ordóñez,

Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009), it is remarkable that research on leaders’

instrumental value for pursuing personal work-related employee goals (e.g., promotional and

career goals) is lacking (see Antonakis & House, 2004; Roger Rees & Segal, 1984). Notably,

the instrumental value of other people – for pursuing personal goals – appears to be an

essential source of information for evaluating qualities of others (Fitzsimons & Shah, 2008;

Orehek, Forest, & Wingove, 2018a). Evidence even indicates that the more useful someone is

perceived to be for achieving personal goals, the more positively this person is generally

evaluated (Fishbach, Shah, & Kruglanski, 2004; Fitzsimons & Shah, 2008). For example,

people appear to evaluate others as more important (Fitzsimons & Shah, 2008), responsive,


and supportive when the other person holds higher instrumental value to them (Orehek et al.,

2018a). Specifically, based on prior research on instrumentality (Hoogervorst, De Cremer, &

Van Dijke, 2010; Orehek et al., 2018a; Orehek & Ferrer, 2018; Orehek & Forest, 2016),

leaders scoring high on instrumentality are suggested to be perceived as highly usable for

achieving employees’ personal work-related goals. Therefore, employees are presumed to be

highly motivated to derive the benefits from highly instrumental leaders, whereas they might

give leaders low on instrumentality a cold shoulder as they may believe such leaders cannot

provide them with personal benefits.

Moreover, in this research, I suggest that especially the instrumental value of

narcissistic leaders is of pivotal importance in predicting leader (in)effectiveness. Although

narcissists are evaluated as ‘brighter,’ compared to Machiavellians and psychopaths (i.e., the

Malicious Two) (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012), narcissistic leader effectiveness evaluations are

presumed to be more intentionally adjusted by employees, in case of possible personal gains.

Indeed, as narcissists’ self-concept is found to be unstable (Fukushima & Hosoe, 2011), and

most deceptive in comparison to corporate Machiavellians and psychopaths (Paulhus &

Williams, 2002), such leaders are presumed to be more easily manipulated by their

subordinates. This is because, for narcissists, being socially praised is of pivotal importance

for constructing a positive sense of self (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2011; Gardner & Pierce,

2011). It follows that the greater the narcissistic tendencies in an individual, the more external

confirmation they need and seek (see Fukushima & Hosoe, 2011), presumably making the

narcissist more reliant on, for example, employee perspectives. Moreover, as narcissistic

leaders can be beneficial for subordinates’ objective and subjective career successes, whereas

Machiavellians and psychopaths appear to be detrimental for employee success (Den Hartog,

De Hoogh, & Belschak, 2018; Volmer, Koch, & Göritz, 2016), adjusting employees’ leader

evaluations may indeed successfully influence narcissistic leaders’ behaviours. For these


reasons, employees may be particularly capable of manipulating highly narcissistic leaders,

and most motivated to do so in case of high leader instrumentality, making them more

manipulative, trying to reap the benefits from positive leader effectiveness evaluations of

these narcissists. The current study, therefore, examines to what extent leader instrumentality

influences the supposed curvilinear relationship between leader narcissism and experienced

leader effectiveness.

The current study aims to gain insight into the possible influence of leader

instrumentality, on the relationship between subclinical leader narcissism and perceived

leader effectiveness at work. The objective is to make clear to what extent leader

instrumentality and leader effectiveness are linked to each other. Strictly speaking, it is

important to shed light on this dynamic to uncover why the instrumental value, particularly of

highly narcissistic leaders, plays a pivotal part in influencing employees’ assessment of their

leadership, so that this study clarifies the degree to which maladaptive narcissistic behaviour

of leaders seems to be tolerated by employees towards colleagues and the organization as a

whole, if the leader can be used for personal gain. However, illuminating the manipulative

behaviour of the narcissistic leader should not be of our main concern, as employees may be

the ones to be watched.

First, it is assumed that the relationship between leader narcissism and leader

effectiveness is curvilinear and follows an inverted U-shape (Hypothesis 1). Second, the

relationship between narcissism in leaders and leader effectiveness is moderated by leader

instrumentality (Hypothesis 2). Specifically, in case employees perceive their leader to be low

instrumental to them personally, the curvilinear relationship (inverted U-shape) between

narcissistic leadership and leader effectiveness will weaken. However, in the case of high

leader instrumentality, it is assumed that a positive linear relationship exists between leader


narcissism and leader effectiveness. In other words, particularly highly narcissistic leaders

combined with high leader instrumentality are expected to be experienced as highly effective.

The current study establishes itself within the emerging research tradition in which an

attempt is made to demonstrate that the perceived effectiveness of narcissistic leaders is

relative (Grijalva et al., 2015). By the same token, this relation is suggested to depend on

leader instrumentality. What is more, by contrasting the current predominantly positive

approach of the existing leadership literature (Bardes & Piccolo, 2010; Higgs, 2009) (e.g., on

authentic leadership (Liu, Fuller, Hester, Bennett, & Dickerson, 2018), transformational

leadership (Turnnidge & Côté, 2018) or ethical/servant leadership (Hoch, Bommer,

Dulebohn, & Wu, 2018)), the negative aspect of apparently valuable leadership aspects such

as high leader instrumentality is emphasized. The present study thus (a) extends the existing

literature on leader narcissism and leader effectiveness by adding leader instrumentality as a

moderator to the relationship, (b) contributes to the instrumentality literature by providing the

first examination of the instrumental value of narcissistic leaders within organizations, (c)

adds a new perspective on the relationship between narcissistic leaders and (the victims of)

manipulation, by studying under which circumstances especially narcissism in leaders results

in manipulative behaviours in subordinates, and (d) has practical implications in terms of why

and when narcissistic leaders are most likely to be perceived as effective.

Theoretical framework

The relationship between leader narcissism and leader effectiveness

Research demonstrates that narcissism as a personality dimension is represented in the

general population (Fischer, 1984; Lasch, 1979)1. Evidence indicates that the narcissistic trait

is characterized by a normal distribution (Gardner & Pierce, 2011), of which pathological

narcissism is solely the highest end (Brunell et al., 2008). Moreover, the narcissistic trait is

originally derived from the narcissistic personality disorder classification criteria


(pathological narcissism): “a persistent pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behaviour), need

for admiration and lack of empathy, starting at a young adult age and is present in a variety of

contexts (...)” (DSM-V; American Psychiatric Association, 2014, p. 881)2. In this article, the

term narcissist refers to those in the general population who score along the narcissism

dimension. Specifically, the narcissistic trait constitutes of the following elements: authority,

entitlement, exploitation, exhibitionism, superiority, vanity, and autarky (NPI; Raskin &

Terry, 1988). People scoring low on subclinical narcissism tend to evaluate themselves as

potentially having leading qualities and report generally positive feelings concerning oneself,

whereas people scoring high on narcissism appear to be extremely convinced of their own

leading potential, their exceptionality, and entitlement (Ackerman, Donnellan, & Robins,

2012).

A body of research has focused directly on leader effectiveness, that is the extent to

which employees perceive their leader as an effective leader, which is a commonly used

benchmark to map narcissistic leaders’ performance (Grijalva et al., 2015; Hoffman et al.,

2013; Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009; Nevicka, Van Vianen, De Hoogh, & Voorn, 2018;

O’Reilly et al., 2018; Van Knippenberg & Van Knippenberg, 2005). Notably, effective

leadership is crucial for the successful functioning of teams within organizations (Yukl, 2012;

Zaccaro, 2001). All the same, a high score on experienced leader effectiveness does not mean

that the leader is indeed highly effective (Lord & Maher, 2002; Nevicka et al., 2011b).

Subjective performance measurements are generally used as measures of leader effectiveness

(De Cremer & Van Knippenberg, 2004; Pierro, Cicero, Bonaiuto, Van Knippenberg, &

Kruglanski, 2005), which is rarely supplemented by objective measurements (Van

Knippenberg & Van Knippenberg, 2005). In fact, narcissistic leaders appear to inhibit the

exchange of information between group members at the expense of group performance


(Nevicka et al., 2011b). Nevertheless, the explicit evaluation of leaders by employees is

suggested to provide an adequate indication of leader’s performance (Judge, Bono, Ilies, &

Gerhardt, 2002; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). Furthermore, research has long underpinned

the power of perceptions and attitudes in influencing behaviour (Petty & Brinol, 2010), even

over actual measurements (Clarkson, Hirt, Jia, & Alexander, 2010), suggesting that employee

perceptions on leader effectiveness may be more meaningful within organizational life

compared to actual performance measurements. For these reasons, narcissistic leaders’

performance is mapped by assessing their perceived leader effectiveness.

The relationship between leader narcissism and perceived leader effectiveness is

assumed to be curvilinear and follows an inverted U-shape (Grijalva et al., 2015). Deviant

results on this relationship, reported in previous studies (e.g., Judge et al., 2009; Nevicka et

al., 2018; O’Reilly et al., 2018) are logically explained by preliminary presuming linearity in

this case of non-linearity (Grijalva et al., 2015). The meta-analysis by Grijalva et al. (2015)

found evidence for the behavioural threshold theory, which states that (a) non-adaptive

behaviours are expressed at a high narcissism level, and adaptive behaviours at a low

narcissism level, and that (b) different compositions of the narcissistic trait can have a

different impact on leader effectiveness. The part of the narcissistic trait ‘positive self-image’

is, for example, adaptive and positively related to leader effectiveness (low threshold),

whereas ‘exploitative behaviour’ is non-adaptive and negatively associated with leader

effectiveness (high threshold) (Grijalva et al., 2015). It was found that an increase in low

narcissism leads to more adaptive manifestations of narcissism that promote leader

effectiveness, whereas an increase in high narcissism evokes non-adaptive narcissism such as

entitlement, which negatively affects leader effectiveness (Grijalva et al., 2015). Therefore, it

is stated that moderate narcissistic individuals perform better in terms of leader effectiveness,


compared to low and high narcissistic individuals (Grijalva et al., 2015).

Hypothesis 1: The relationship between leader narcissism and leader effectiveness is

curvilinear (inverted U-shape). The initial positive relationship changes into a negative

relationship with an increasing level of narcissism, whereby the maximum perceived

effectiveness is achieved with a moderate level of narcissism.

Furthermore, several researchers argued that the extent to which narcissism in leaders

cause either positive or negative leader evaluations in subordinates is not solely contingent on

the degree to which the leader possesses this narcissistic trait (De Hoogh, Den Hartog, &

Nevicka, 2015; Hoffman et al., 2013; Owens, Wallace, & Waldman, 2015), as dispositional

tendencies and contextual factors should also be considered in predicting perceived leader

effectiveness. Particularly, the interplay between narcissistic leaders and employees may

influence perceived leader effectiveness evaluations. Namely, highly narcissistic individuals

are especially susceptible to feedback concerning their self-image (e.g., their image as an

effective leader) (Horvath & Morf, 2009), and these leaders may – as suggested by

neurological evidence – be most easily manipulated by employees, as they need others’

validation to construct a positive sense of self (see Chester, Lynam, Powell, & DeWall, 2015;

Fukushima & Hosoe, 2011; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Most notably, however, I argue that

employees do have to be motivated to actually manipulate the narcissistic leader. This raises

the question as to under which circumstances narcissists’ vulnerability to employee

evaluations on their leadership actually results in (intentional) manipulation by employees.

Accordingly, I argue that the degree to which narcissism in leaders will result in positive

leader effectiveness evaluations by their employees will depend on leaders’ perceived

instrumentality.


The role of perceived leader instrumentality

Research has long underscored the people-as-means approach, which implicates the

importance of other people in personal goal pursuit (Converse & Fishbach, 2012; Orehek et

al., 2018a; Orehek & Forest, 2016; Orehek, Forest, & Barbaro, 2018b), as people in

interpersonal relationships are suggested to be of use by, for example, investing their time,

knowledge, and resources and/or offering support (Orehek et al., 2018b). Here, the people-as-

means approach is applied to the leader-employee relationship within the organizational

context: leaders’ instrumental value is reflected by the degree to which this leader is

experienced as helping or hindering the achievement of work-related employee goals. Clearly,

organizational leaders may help or hinder subordinates’ personal goal striving, as this role

within the organization may give them power – to some extent – over which goals to strive

for (Maner & Mead, 2010; Ordóñez et al., 2009). Nevertheless, leaders’ instrumental value to

employees may differ widely across leaders (Antonakis & House, 2004), as for example some

leaders may be authorized by organizational budgeting to pursue individual employee goals

(e.g., stimulating personal learning and development), whereas other leaders may not.

Therefore, employees should presumably be mindful of their leaders’ instrumental potential

to achieve successful goal striving within organizations personally.

Interestingly, employees may indeed be aware of leaders’ instrumental value. Notably,

people are found to be capable of identifying various personal goals (i.e., self-generated

goals); other people within interpersonal relations are perceived to be instrumental for

(Orehek et al., 2018a). Moreover, peoples’ instrumental value seems to be continuously

(re)assessed (Converse & Fishbach, 2012; Finkel & Eastwick, 2015; Fitzsimons & Fishbach,

2010). Research indicates, for example, that people lose attraction in others, in case they come

closer to achieving their goal (Finkel & Eastwick, 2015). Therefore, employees are suggested


to be highly receptive to cues for assessing their leaders’ instrumental value. Moreover, as

employees are aware of the leaders’ instrumental value, they may be determined to act on

these cues to benefit from leaders’ instrumental value, as there is so much (potentially) to gain

personally. Indeed, research has emphasized that people are strongly motivated to accomplish

their goals (Moore et al., 2018). However, people serving as means to achieve goals does not

per se imply calculatedly taking advantage of someone else’s usability (Orehek & Forest,

2016). Nonetheless, employees are expected to be highly motivated to deliberately influence

their highly instrumental leaders to reap (potential) benefits as their stake is high (i.e., as it

concerns personal goals). Moreover, as highly narcissistic leaders are presumed to be most

susceptible to this employee manipulation as argued before (i.e., employee evaluations on

narcissists’ leadership), employees may particularly expect to be highly successful in

influencing leaders scoring high on narcissism and, thereby, be more prone to do so.

Highly narcissistic leaders are also presumed to act on employees’ leader effectiveness

evaluations (i.e., feedback concerning them personally). Research indicates that feedback

directed to narcissists’ personally influences such leaders’ attitudes (Kernis & Sun, 1994) and,

ultimately, their behaviours (Horton & Sedikides, 2009). Evidence on negative ego-

threatening feedback has profoundly indicated that narcissists usually respond to these

critiques aggressively (Twenge & Campbell, 2003) and denigrate criticizing subordinates

(Horton & Sedikides, 2009). It follows that negative leader evaluations conflict with

narcissists’ exaggerated self image, evoking negative leader behaviours towards these

employees. Research on positive feedback, however, is in its infancy; narcissists’ attitudinal

change towards evaluators is examined instead of studying their actual behavioural change

towards them (Kernis & Sun, 1994). Presumably, as positive leader evaluations lead to more

positive attitudes in narcissists towards their evaluators (i.e. evaluating them as more


competent) (Kernis & Sun, 1994), this attitudinal shift towards others may also manifest itself

in narcissists expressing more positive behaviours towards these employees such as helping

them. Indeed, Maccoby (2012) proposes that the widely held conception that narcissists are

not able to express altruistic behaviours is false. However, their helpful behaviours are

presumed not to be driven by ‘concern for others,’ as they appear to lack these feelings

towards others (Lubit, 2002). Rather, narcissists are, as mentioned before, primarily driven to

deduce positive subordinate evaluations to construct a positive sense of self (e.g., Chatterjee

& Hambrick, 2011; Gardner & Pierce, 2011). In this way, positive employee evaluations on

perceived leader effectiveness are expected to positively influence narcissistic leaders’

willingness to be of instrumental value to these employees, although it is solely intended to

selfishly keep receiving positive employee feedback (i.e., narcissistic goals may be best met

by acting more helpfully towards employees). Clearly, although narcissists may have

‘destructive’ intentions, the outcomes are not necessarily negative (Spain, Harms, &

LeBreton, 2014).

Based on these findings, the expectation is that the curvilinear relationship (inverted

U-shape) between narcissistic leadership and leader effectiveness will weaken in the case of

low leader instrumentality (Figure 1). Considering that people low on instrumental value are

generally evaluated more negatively (Fitzsimons & Shah, 2008; Fishbach et al., 2004; Orehek

et al., 2018a), it is said that low, moderate, and high narcissistic leaders, will be evaluated as

less effective by employees, in case their leader is experienced as low instrumental to them

personally. Plausibly, this could be explained by the fact that employees, who consider their

leader as low instrumental to them personally, do not expect that they would benefit from

evaluating their leader positively. However, in the case of high leader instrumentality, the

curvilinear relationship between leader narcissism and leader effectiveness is expected to


assume a positive linear relationship. Likewise, based on Fitzsimons and Shah (2008) and

Orehek et al.’s (2018a) work, it is suggested that leaders with a highly perceived instrumental

value are experienced as being more effective. However, because higher narcissists are most

reliant on others’ perspectives compared to lesser narcissists (e.g., Chester et al., 2015), it is

suggested that employees may be most manipulative in case of a highly instrumental and

highly narcissistic leader, trying to exert influence on these leaders for personal gain by

evaluating them as more effective. This leads to the second hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: Leader instrumentality moderates the reversed U-shape relationship of

leader narcissism and leader effectiveness in a way that when employees consider the

leader to be highly instrumental, the leader is perceived as less effective in response to

low and moderate leader narcissism compared to high leader narcissism.

Figure 1. The conceptual model that shows the effect of perceived leader instrumentality on

the curvilineair relationship between narcissism in leaders and perceived leader effectiveness.

Method

Participants

Quadratic relations may be relatively small in magnitude and, therefore, harder to

detect (Baltes, Bauer, Bajdo, & Parker, 2002; Le et al., 2011). Previous research indicates that

the quadratic relations between narcissism in leaders and leader effectiveness were found to


be small to medium in magnitude (Grijalva et al., 2015). Hence, a small to medium effect size

was assumed, whereby 296 to 1,966 participants were needed to generate a power of 95

percent to be able to detect an effect with a significance level of .05 (Faul, Erdfelder,

Buchner, & Lang, 2009). Therefore, and feasibility considered, over 685 teams were

approached to participate in the current study, of which 653 teams participated, resulting in

541 validly measured teams.

The research group comprised 541 teams, from different organizations stationed in the

Netherlands or Netherlands Antilles (respondents had to master the Dutch language) and

arbitrary branches within both profit and non-profit sectors (e.g., from listed company to

hospital and municipality to local cosmetics store). Within each team, data was collected from

both the leader and its employees. The selection criteria for the approval of existing teams

was that each team should consist of at least three members, whereby the leader and at least

50 percent of their employees (i.e., half of the actual employee count) were given the

opportunity to complete the questionnaire. The sampled group of leaders included 291 men,

248 women and two non-defined individuals, who were aged 18 to 70 years (M = 40.85, SD =

11.53). On average, leaders’ organization tenure was 9.55 years (SD = 9.43), and team tenure

was 5.16 years (SD = 5.76). The group of employees counted 1,719 employees, of which 766

were men, 945 were women, and eight were non-defined; their age range was from 16 to 80

years (M = 35.17, SD = 12.90). On average, employees’ organization tenure was 6.68 years

(SD = 8.61), and team tenure was 3.87 years (SD = 5.24).

Evidently, the sampled group of leaders (54% males and 46% females) differed from

the target population, wherein men occupied 74% and women 26% of the leading positions

within organizations (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS), 2019). However, male and

female leaders’ age here, approached the population means of 47.41 and 43.76 years,


respectively (CBS, 2019). Although, perhaps, slightly differing from the target population,

leaders’ team tenure here approached leaders team tenure in the comparable Dutch sample

from Wisse and Sleebos (2016). Moreover, the sampled group of employees (45% males and

55% females) approached the target population, as men and women were also relatively

equally represented in non-managerial functions within organizations according to CBS

statistics (52% males and 48% females) (CBS, 2019).

Procedure

A cross-sectional research design was applied, utilizing multiple source data within

existing teams at work, selected by convenience sampling. This cross-sectional design was

preferred over an experimental design, as narcissism in leaders is not susceptible to

manipulation (see Bryman, 2015; Del Rosario & White, 2005). Therefore, as inherent to all

correlational studies, no causal inferences could be made here (Bryman, 2015). However,

narcissism in leaders presumably precedes experienced leader effectiveness, so that causal

inferences may be made with caution. Multiple source data was used to rule possible same

source bias out (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & James, 2002). Moreover, leadership can

best be captured in non-artificial situations, in naturally occurring groups, in existing groups

that have a history and a future (Van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2004), increasing study’s external

validity. Additionally, convenience sampling was chosen, as it was aimed to sample a large

variety of teams. Notably, convenience sampling is time and cost effective, easily applicable,

and appears to be more common within organizational research than probability sampling

(Bryman, 2015). More extensive and varied samples – as sampled here – may reduce potential

power reduction of such a sampling method. Provided the standardization benefits of a

structured digital interview (for asking questions and saving answers) (Bryman, 2015), and

the relatively large research group to be sampled, this survey study was applicated.


Data were obtained as part of a “Leadership and Work in the 21st Century” study.

Participants were recruited in February to May 2019. Over 130 master and premaster

students, studying Organizational Sciences at VU Amsterdam, approached leaders or team

members from various work-related teams. These students each delivered at least five teams

from one or more organizations, to which access could be gained (usually from their personal

and work network or acquaintances’ network). Respondents were contacted face-to-face, by

telephone, by email and via social media. Email addresses and organizational roles (leader

versus employee) of the participants were requested. Subsequently, the leader and their

employees were linked to each other in Qualtrics (2018) before the participants received an

email, depending on their position, with either the ‘leader’ or the ‘employee’ questionnaire.

The questionnaire started with a short introduction. It was stated that the data was

treated strictly confidential and made anonymous wherever possible. It was also ensured that

the data obtained would only be used for educational and scientific purposes. Respondents

were asked to complete the questionnaire as truthfully as possible. The respondents then

digitally signed the informed consent before they were given access to the actual survey. The

questionnaire for leaders consisted of 14 validated scales, and that for employees consisted of

20 validated scales. At the end of the survey, demographic data was requested, and the

respondents were thanked for their participation. Both questionnaires took on average 15–20

minutes to be completed. Participation was on a voluntary basis and no compensation was

provided. Filling in the questionnaire often took place during working hours.

Measures

Full scales of ‘narcissism,’ ‘perceived leader effectiveness,’ and ‘perceived leader

instrumentality’ can be found in Appendix A.

Narcissism. Narcissism in leaders was defined as the extent to which organizational


leaders possess the non-clinical narcissistic trait (Nevicka et al., 2018), which is measured by

assessing, for example, the extent to which the given leader reported to be an extraordinary

person or how easily he/she manipulated other people. Narcissism was measured among

leaders, using Dutch translations (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2010) of the 16-item scale “Narcissistic

Personality Inventory” (NPI-16) from Ames, Rose, and Anderson (2006), which is found to

have sound internal and predictive validity. Leaders had to indicate the degree of agreement

for 16 statements (e.g., “I think I am special.”) on 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree,

5 = strongly agree). NPI-score was obtained by the sum of the items, with a high score

indicating a high level of narcissism (α = .86). However, it must be noted that despite

narcissists’ vulnerability (e.g., hypersensitivity to criticisms, and problems to regulate their

sense of self-esteem) (Ackerman, Donnellan, & Wright, 2018), this facet was not measured

by the NPI-16.

Perceived leader effectiveness. Perceived leader effectiveness pertains the degree to

which leaders are experienced as effective leaders, measured by the extent to which

employees evaluate their leader to be an effective leader (O’Reilly et al., 2018). Employees

evaluated their leader on a 4-item scale, which is the slightly adjusted “Perceived Leader

Effectiveness” scale, originating from Van Knippenberg and Van Knippenberg (2005), which

was shown to have good to excellent reliability across samples, in order to measure

experienced leader effectiveness. Employees had to assign their supervisors a score along

with four propositions (e.g., “My supervisor is a good leader.”), on 5-point Likert scales (1 =

low, 5 = high). The score on experienced leadership effectiveness is obtained by averaging the

answers to each item (α = .95), where a high score means that the leader is experienced as

highly effective by their employees.

Perceived leader instrumentality. Perceived leaders’ instrumentality reflects the extent


to which employees perceive their leader as instrumental for their own purposes (see Orehek

et al., 2018a); it is measured by the degree to which this leader is evaluated as helping to

pursue this employees’ personal work-related goal(s). Leader instrumentality was also

measured among employees, on the 5-item scale “Perceived Leader Instrumentality Scale”,

which is based on the “Perceived Partner Instrumentality Scale” proposed by Orehek et al.

(2018a). Employees had to indicate to what extent the leader helps or hinders the achievement

of five employee goals (e.g., “Promotion and career goals”) on 11-point scales (–5 =

extremely hindering, 5 = extremely helping). The score for leader instrumentality was

obtained by the sum of the items, with a high score reflecting a high degree of experienced

leader instrumentality (α = .92).

Controls

Leader age (Zacher, Rosing, Henning, & Frese, 2011) and gender (De Hoogh et al.,

2015) is controlled for, as these variables are found to correlate respectively with leader

effectiveness and leader narcissism in prior studies. Additionally, Machiavellianism and

psychopathy is also controlled for, as the three Dark Triad traits are found to intercorrelate

(Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). Leader’s team tenure is excluded for

further analyses (Nevicka et al., 2018), as it does not significantly relate to leader narcissism,

leader effectiveness, or leader instrumentality here.

Analytical strategy

Data were obtained, organized and labeled online in Qualtrics (2018), and analyzed

utilizing the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS, 23.0.0.0, 2016). The main focus

of the analyses was on team level data (i.e., the correlation between leader’s score and

averaged employee scores). Multiple regression was chosen as a categorical (i.e., leader’s

gender), and multiple continuous independent variables had to be added, in predicting a


continuous outcome variable, and this analysis allows for curvilinearity (via adding a

quadratic term). First, measurement analyses were performed to assess constructs’ internal

consistency and the distinctiveness of the constructs. Subsequently, univariate statistics were

assessed (e.g., correlations and means), to identify possible irregularities in the current data.

Then, the assumptions of multiple regression were examined to rule out possible violations.

Multiple regression analyses were performed with leader narcissism, experienced leader

instrumentality, and the interaction between leader narcissism and leader instrumentality as

independent variables and experienced leader effectiveness as a dependent variable. Leaders’

gender, age, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy were controlled for. Finally, hierarchical

regression analyses (multilevel) were performed after conducting multiple regression

analyses, to assess whether initial team level analyses (i.e., the leader with aggregated

employee data for each team) yield different results from individually assessing each

employee and their leader (that is multilevel analysis).

Results

Measurement analyses

Data were gathered in 2019 in the months February to May and analysed in May.

Correlation analyses were performed per scale, to assess abnormalities in correlation patterns

of scales’ indicators (e.g., negative correlations, indicating reversed items). After finding four

negative correlations, and checking the specific items, four items for the psychopathy scale,

which is a control variable, were reversed coded. Subsequently, Confirmatory Factor

Analyses (CFA) were performed, confirming the distinctiveness of the multisource variables

used: leader narcissism, perceived leader effectiveness, and leader instrumentality. In Table 1,

factor loadings from these CFA’s are presented (Appendix B). The data for narcissism was

suitable for factor analysis (KMO = .86; X2 = 2675.72, df = 120, p < .001), indicating that


CFA results are reliable. The same holds for CFA on leader effectiveness and leader

instrumentality (KMO = .92; X2 = 4577.49, df = 36, p < .001). Scales’ internal consistency

was found to be good for narcissism (α = .86), Machiavellianism (α = .81), and psychopathy

(α = .86) and even excellent for perceived leader effectiveness (α = .95) and leader

instrumentality (α = .92), indicating that all study’s scales are reliably measured.

Correlations

The descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the variables in the current study are

presented in Table 2. In accordance with previous research (Foster, Campbell, & Twenge,

2003; Grijalva et al., 2015), male leaders scored higher on narcissism compared to female

leaders. Furthermore, in line with previous research (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016), correlations

between narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy were moderately high.

Corresponding to the study from Foster et al. (2003), older leaders appeared to report less

narcissistic tendencies compared to younger leaders. Most notably, the quadratic effect for

narcissism was not significantly related to perceived leader effectiveness, although it was

found in the expected curvilinear direction (i.e., very weak and negatively related to leader

effectiveness; inverted U-shape) (Grijalva et al., 2015). Moreover, leader instrumentality was

strongly related to leader effectiveness, i.e., leaders scoring high on perceived leader

instrumentality also scored higher on perceived leader effectiveness. Note that, correlations

between independent variables and leader effectiveness were low, except from instrumentality

(r = .66); no correlations exceeded .30, albeit correlations between .30 and .70 were preferred

(Pallant, 2013).

Furthermore, as narcissism is normally distributed in the population (e.g., Fischer,

1984), and narcissism in individuals is an antecedent for occupying leading positions (Brunell

et al., 2008), on average, a negative skew was expected to be found in leaders for narcissism


(M > 3.00). Previously, supervisors were indeed found to be on average slightly more

narcissistic (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016), compared to what would be expected in the general

population. However, no such skew was found here; leaders even reported – with lower

variability – to be less narcissistic than 3.00. Furthermore, leaders’ mean scores on

Machiavellianism and psychopathy were comparable to previous findings (see Wisse &

Sleebos, 2016). Further, no a priori expectations on leaders’ mean instrumental value were

formulated as research on perceived leaders instrumental value lacks. However, as leaders are

considered to be functionally occupied with goal pursuit within organizations (Ordóñez et al.,

2009), the high mean score on perceived leader instrumentality – with relatively low

variability – here may not be surprising. Additionally, perceived leader effectiveness scores

are found to be, on average, slightly negatively skewed in various previously conducted

experiments using student samples (Van Knippenberg & Van Knippenberg, 2005). This might

suggest that leaders’ high mean effectiveness score may represent the target populations

perceived effectiveness, although great caution is warranted here.

Table 2

Pearson’s correlations of all variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Leader

1. Gendera – – –

2. Age 40.85 11.53 –.14*** –

3. Machiavellianism 2.07 0.60 –.14*** –.19*** –

4. Psychopathy 1.78 0.38 –.15*** –.21*** .65*** –

5. Narcissism 2.74 0.54 –.18*** –.13** .39*** .40*** –

Employee

6. Leader instrumentality 8.19 1.16 .01 –.01 –.02 –.02 –.03 –

7. Leader effectiveness 3.74 0.65 .00 –.03 –.04 –.02 –.02 .66***

N = 541 (listwise); a 0 = Male, 1 = Female. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 (two-tailed).


Assumptions regression analysis

The assumptions for multiple regression were assessed by performing tests for

normality and multiple regression analyses (Pallant, 2013). First, tests for normality, as

proposed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk, indicated that the multivariate

normality assumption was violated, as data for leader effectiveness was negatively skewed

(Razali & Wah, 2011). However, regression analysis is suggested to be robust against

violations of the normality assumption, as the current sample size largely exceeds the

minimum amount of observations per variable (Schmidt & Finan, 2018). Second, a quadratic

term was added to the regression equation (i.e., narcissism2) to be able to test for

curvilinearity between leader narcissism and leader effectiveness, and preventing violating the

linearity assumption. Further, leader instrumentality was indeed found to be linearly related to

effectiveness. Third, for assessing homoscedasticity, in the scatter plot, two outliers (i.e.,

values smaller than –3.3 or greater than 3.3) were detected (both below –3.3) (Pallant, 2013).

However, Cook’s distance statistic indicated that no influential outliers were present in the

data, indicating that no point within the data was assumed to affect the regression model

negatively (Pallant, 2013). Therefore, no action is taken on outliers. Fourth, correlations

between the independent variables indicated no violation of the assumption for

multicollinearity, as no correlation exceeded .70. Fifth, for statements to justify the current

sample size see Participants. For these reasons, it is proposed that multiple regression

assumptions are not violated.

Hypotheses testing

Multiple regression analyses were performed to test whether narcissism in leaders is

curvilinearly related to perceived leader effectiveness (H1), and whether perceived

instrumentality moderated this relationship (H2) (Table 3). The variables are standardized,


and the interaction term was created based on these standardized scores. Afterwards, the

control variables were added to the regression equation (step 1), which was followed by the

variables for identifying the main effects (step 2) and the linear two-way interaction, to be

able to check for a potential linear relationship (step 3). After that, a new variable was created

and added to the equation to detect the expected curvilinear relationship between leader

narcissism and leader effectiveness (H1) (step 4). This new variable was the standardized

variable leader narcissism squared. A non significant multiple regression equation was found

for this model as a whole, F(6, 534) = 0.51, p = .804, R2 = .01. Although visual inspection

indicated that the curvilinear relation between narcissism and leader effectiveness yielded a

slightly better fit compared to the linear slope, no significant curvilinear effect for leader

narcissism was found on perceived leader effectiveness (b = –0.34, SE = 0.32, 95% CI = [–

0.96, 0.29], p = .287). This indicated that narcissism in leaders is not curvilinearly related to

perceived leader effectiveness. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Subsequently, a moderated multiple regression analysis was performed to determine

whether the experienced leader instrumentality moderated the reversed U-shape relationship

between leader narcissism and leader effectiveness (H2). The interaction term (squared leader

narcissism x leader instrumentality) was added to the regression equation in order to test

Hypothesis 2 (step 5). A significant multiple regression equation was found for this model,

F(9, 531) = 47.20, p < .001, R2 = .44, which indicated that there was a significant effect

between all predictor variables and leader effectiveness collectively. However, the regression

analysis yielded that leader instrumentality did not significantly moderate the curvilinear

relationship between leader narcissism and leader effectiveness (b = –0.96, SE = 1.29, 95% CI

= [–3.51, 1.58], p = .456). The relation between narcissism in leaders and perceived leader

effectiveness by employees does not differ in case leaders are experienced as highly


instrumental as opposed to when leaders are experienced as low instrumental to employees. In

other words, narcissism in leaders was not associated with higher leader effectiveness

evaluations when perceived leader instrumentality was high, compared to when perceived

leader instrumentality was low. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. As the regression

analysis yielded no significant interaction effect, no simple slope analyses were performed.

Table 3

The results of multiple regression analyses for experienced leader effectiveness

95% confidence interval

Predictor B SE LL UL ΔR2 ΔF

Constant 0.00 0.03 –0.07 0.07

Step 1 .00 0.46

Gender –0.02 0.03 –0.08 0.05

Age –0.03 0.03 –0.10 0.04

Machiavellianism –0.05 0.04 –0.13 0.04

Psychopathy 0.01 0.05 –0.07 0.10

Step 2 .44 209.55***

Leader narcissism –0.66 1.29 –3.19 1.88

Leader instrumentality 0.29 0.47 –0.64 1.22

Step 3 .00 0.17

Leader narcissism

x Leader instrumentality 1.21 1.55 –1.82 4.25

Step 4 .00 1.94

Leader narcissism2 0.57 1.23 –1.85 2.99

Step 5 .00 0.56

Leader narcissism2

x Leader instrumentality –0.96 1.29 –3.51 1.58

Note. N = 541 (listwise); LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. The full model predicts 44% of

the variance (F = 47.20 ***). * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 (two-tailed).


Furthermore, reducing the model to the main effects (model 2 or step 2), the multiple

regression equation for this model as a whole was significant, F(6, 534) = 70.40, p < .001, R2

= .44. Moreover, analyzing the main effects, no significant main effect for narcissism on

leader effectiveness was found (b = 0.00, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [–0.07, 0.08], p = .909). Most

notably, however, a significant main effect for perceived leader instrumentality was revealed

(b = 0.67, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.60, 0.73], p < .001), indicating that leaders scoring high on

perceived leader instrumentality were also experienced as being more effective leaders.

Specifically, the positive semi-partial correlation between leader instrumentality and leader

effectiveness was large in magnitude and significant, r = .66, t = 20.47, p < .001, indicating

that leaders who are experienced as highly instrumental also tend to have better leader

effectiveness scores, even after controlling the latter for narcissism scores in leaders (and for

the control variables).

Multilevel analyses

Results for multilevel analyses were comparable to team level analyses (i.e., no

different results were found). Therefore, and as team level analyses – by the stepwise

procedure – were proposed to be more insightful in how multiple regression analyses were

performed here (particularly concerning curvilinearity), multilevel analyses are not further

explicated.

Discussion

Conclusion

The current study investigated whether moderate narcissistic leaders are perceived as

more effective leaders compared to low or highly narcissistic leaders and whether this

relationship is moderated by experienced leader instrumentality. For this means, multisource

data from 541 teams from various organizations were gathered by applying convenience


sampling. First, results showed that the hypothesis that moderate narcissistic leaders are

perceived as more effective is not supported. Second, results indicated that experienced leader

instrumentality does not moderate the proposed curvilinear relationship between leader

narcissism and experienced leader effectiveness. Most notably, however, perceived leader

instrumentality strongly relates to perceived leader effectiveness. That is, the higher the

leaders’ instrumental value, the higher the leaders’ evaluations of effectiveness. In line with

previous studies (Fishbach et al., 2004; Fitzsimons & Shah, 2008; Orehek et al., 2018a), this

finding thus testifies the importance of leaders’ perceived usability for personal gain in

influencing employees’ leader perceptions at work.

The finding that narcissism in leaders is not curvilinearly related to perceived leader

effectiveness is inconsistent with the meta-analysis by Grijalva et al. (2015), which found that

leaders were more narcissistic brings about higher leader effectiveness evaluations, after

which being too narcissistic becomes detrimental, descending leader effectiveness

evaluations. It is worth mentioning, however, that quadratic relationships may be harder to

detect (Baltes et al., 2002; Le et al., 2011). Nevertheless, as the current sample is relatively

big, the absence of this curvilinear effect may also indicate that leader effectiveness

evaluations are indeed not contingent on leaders’ narcissism. Then, this null finding could be

explained by presuming that particularly moderate narcissists behave more inconsistently.

Specifically, moderate narcissistic leaders may exhibit more alternating adaptive and

maladaptive narcissistic manifestations, which results in more variable leader effectiveness

evaluations by employees or a general decrease in perceived effectiveness, averaging the

scores out to the same level of perceived effectiveness reported for high and low narcissistic

leaders. However, previously reported results on the relationship between leader narcissism


and leader effectiveness (e.g., Grijalva et al., 2015; Hoffman et al., 2013; Nevicka et al.,

2018) suggest a Type II error here.

The finding that effectiveness evaluations of highly instrumental and highly

narcissistic leaders are not mainly adjusted is also inconsistent with previous studies (Chester

et al., 2015; Fukushima & Hosoe, 2011; Paulhus & Williams, 2002), which suggested that

highly narcissistic individuals are most influenceable compared to lesser narcissists. Possibly,

current results may be explained as narcissists may not be equally manipulatable by all

employees, restricting narcissistic leaders’ susceptibleness to positive leader evaluations.

Notably, Maccoby (2012) proposes that narcissists solely have one sidekick within the

organization (i.e., someone who ‘truly’ understands the narcissist, viewed as an extension to

the narcissist self). By this means, adjusting leader evaluations may solely pay off for just one

employee within the whole employee count of the team (or none). For this reason, employees

may overall perceive highly narcissistic leaders not particularly as more influenceable

compared to low or moderate narcissists, which has led these employees to objectively rate

narcissistic leaders effectiveness, regardless of leaders’ instrumental value, resulting in a zero

finding. Moreover, as narcissistic leaders are widely represented organizational leaders (e.g.,

Nevicka et al., 2011a), it remains relevant to investigate if narcissists have sidekick(s), and if

so, whether this sidekick could make the narcissistic leader strive for their personal goals and,

thereby, whether this employee could be educated to strive for group goals, possibly resulting

in more actual effective leadership behaviours. However, the moderation effect may also not

have been present in this study as employees may saw no chance of influencing the

narcissistic leader (through positive effectiveness assessments) of the narcissistic leader

because of the anonymous leader evaluation in the current study. By this means, employees

may expected that what goes around (i.e., positive leader effectiveness evaluations) does not


come around (i.e., employee gains), making employees not particularly motivated to adjust

their leader evaluations. Nevertheless, as this employee influencing of instrumental leaders

may take place unconsciously, it would still be expected to find this moderation effect.

Extending prior research on instrumentality and assessing qualities of others (Fishbach

et al., 2004; Fitzsimons & Shah, 2008; Orehek et al., 2018a), the current study reveals that

leaders’ instrumental value is found to be positively related to leader effectiveness

evaluations. This finding suggests that for leaders, it may be sensible to maintain or increase

their instrumental value, in order to receive positive leader evaluations. However, proposing

that highly instrumental leaders may be particularly evaluated as being the most effective

leaders feels counterintuitive. Notably, employees’ directing leaders towards the attainment of

personal goals may reduce leaders’ actual effectiveness and team performance, although they

would intentionally radiate the highest levels of leader effectiveness. For example, promoting

employees to higher positions within the organization because of provided positive leader

evaluations (e.g., instead of capabilities) could be detrimental for the team performance and

signals that manipulation pays off.

Practical and theoretical implications

Current findings may be particularly relevant for managerial practice, as employees’

leader effectiveness evaluations may have little to do with actual leader effectiveness (De

Hoogh et al., 2015; Nevicka et al., 2011b). From a managerial point of view, leaders helping

employees to attain their goals may seduce employees to evaluate leaders performance,

regardless of leaders actual effectiveness positively. In this light, it would be relevant to

investigate whether leaders faking higher instrumental value (i.e., investing limited resources)

would be sufficient to be positively evaluated by their employees. For employees, however,

current findings may also pertain that positively evaluating their leader may evoke more


helping behaviours in leaders towards this specific employee(s), as there must be an

explanation why employees may rate leaders with a high instrumental value as highly

effective (i.e., instrumental leaders may evoke positive leader evaluations, which may cause

leaders to behave (more) helpfully towards these employees). Moreover, as employees

influencing leaders and leaders influencing employees may not be mutually exclusive, current

findings may have shed light on the leader-employee interplay by possibly revealing how

leaders secure positive employee evaluations on their leadership and what employees need to

do to make use of leaders instrumental value. Therefore, both leader and employee behaviours

may affect leaders’ effectiveness evaluations, which could make organizations reconsider

using these evaluations and perhaps even using 360 feedback (as the same processes may

occur), if not accompanied by objective performance measures, to rate leaders performance.

Additionally, in case of malfunction (e.g., not effectively pursuing group goals), it may be

presumed that leaders may not solely be the problem, although it is profoundly stated (Maner

& Mead, 2010), as they may be also fuelled by their (egocentric) employee(s).

The present study thus extends the existing literature on leader narcissism and leader

effectiveness, by not finding the presumed curvilinear relationship, and contributes to the

instrumentality literature by providing the first examination of the instrumental value of

leaders within organizations (i.e., leaders’ perceived valuability in pursuing several work-

related personal employee goals). Moreover, this study adds a new perspective on the

relationship between leaders (including narcissists) and the ‘victims’ of manipulation, by

revealing under which circumstances manipulative behaviours in subordinates towards the

leaders may be evoked (i.e., in case of high leader instrumentality).

Limitations, future directions, and final statement

Although a primary strength of the current study is analysing multi-source data from


naturally existing work groups, a potential limitation may still be study’s external validity.

Specifically, leaders themselves could decide if they wanted their team to participate, whether

all employees within their team would participate, a selected group of employees (at least 50

percent of teams’ employee count), or all compositions in between. Where things are going

well, leaders may be more willing to participate, possibly resulting in higher effectiveness

evaluations than justified in populations’ reality. Moreover, leaders possibly (un)consciously

selected employees to increase their chances on receiving best leadership evaluations, which

also may unjustifiably result in a high mean leader effectiveness score (3.73 out of 5), with

little variability. In case low and highly narcissistic leaders selected employees with most

‘positive’ attitudes towards them, their effectiveness scores may (falsely) not be deferrable

from moderate narcissistic leader effectiveness scores, decreasing study’s power to generalize

validly. Evidently, no causal inferences could be made here, as – for one thing – the

researched group is not randomly selected (Bryman, 2015). However, this possible sampling

error may be reduced by sampling this large variety of teams, whereby at least half of the total

teams’ employee count received an invitation personally to participate in this study.

Therefore, these groups of employees might still be a representative reflection of all team

members, and thereby, this may not be that problematic. In the future, making sure always to

invite all employees or applying an experimental research design instead of this correlational

study could present themselves as possible solutions.

Moreover, the scale may not be that informative in differing between leaders on

perceived effectiveness scores as the perceived leader effectiveness scale is constructed solely

of general effectiveness statements (e.g. “My supervisor is a good supervisor”). Here, most of

the leaders were evaluated as being moderate to highly effective. Furthermore, other than the

general feeling of leader effectiveness, employees may differ widely on what they assume to


be a ‘good leader,’ ‘effective method,’ or ‘doing his/her job well.’ Perhaps by adding more

specific leader effectiveness behaviours to be evaluated, such as effectively ‘setting goals,’

‘leading changes,’ ‘coordinating resources’, ‘building relationships’, ‘coaching’, and

‘communicating’, employees will be provided with more information about what to evaluate,

and thereby, it may be easier to differ leaders on perceived leader effectiveness. Additionally,

adjusting general evaluations towards the leader may be more easily done, compared to more

positively evaluating specific leader behaviours (which may require more conscious lying).

By this means, it may be also more apparent as to what occasions leader effectiveness

evaluations are indeed intentionally adjusted by employees (i.e., in case of high leader

instrumentality).

What is more, the narcissism scale NPI-16 did not explicitly incorporate narcissists’

vulnerability component (nor does the original NPI-40) (see Ackerman et al., 2018). Possibly,

adding items to this scale that despicit narcissists’ hypersensitivity to critisisms (e.g., “I never

fail to detect when someone critizises me.”) and/or items representing narcissists’ problems to

regulate their sense of self-esteem (e.g., “In case my self-esteem is affected, it takes time to

restort it.”), this may result in the construct narcissism being measured more

comprehensively. As such, it would be interesting to investigate whether adding such

‘vulnerability’ items or adding a whole subscale to the NPI would yield different results here.

In this way, it would be also possible to check whether narcissists scoring high on NPI-16

indeed scored higher on ‘vulnerability’, which would be relevant in this study. Nevertheless,

as highly narcissistic leaders would be ‘highly vulnerable’ (see e.g., Chester et al., 2015), the

lack of ‘vulnerability’ indicators may not have made a difference here.

First, future research may focus on identifying narcissists sidekick(s) at work and

investigating to what extent they can influence the narcissistic leader to evoke helping leader


behaviours for personal purposes, as compared to other employees’ influence. Second, it

would be relevant to study the extent to which leaders who solely pretend to be more

instrumental would be capable to evoke positive leader effectiveness evaluations in

subordinates. Third, concerning leaders instrumental value, it would be interesting to

investigate the extent to which leaders act on employee requests or their own intent. For this

reason, a motivational component could be added to the perceived leader instrumentality

scale, dividing leaders’ helping or hindering behaviours from achieving personal employee

goals, which are internally (e.g., leaders’ wish to help) versus externally (e.g. employee

request) driven. Specifically, this may further specify the extent to which employees perceive

leaders instrumental value as a result of their own actions (i.e., influencing the leader) or due

to the leader’s own intent. Thereby, leaders scoring high on – particularly external driven –

perceived leader instrumentality might be most deceptive for employee manipulation. For this

reason, employees may be particularly motivated to adjust these leader effectiveness

evaluations positively. Future research may explicitly unravel this aspect.

In conclusion, although it seems preliminary to fully release narcissists from this

debate, based on the current investigation, it may be suggested that, for employees, the

effectiveness of a leader is dependent on leaders’ instrumental value, regardless of the extent

to which the leader possesses the narcissistic personality trait. Namely, the more usable the

leader is perceived to be for employees’ personal gain – that counts for all organizational

leaders – the higher the leaders’ effectiveness evaluations are assumed to be. After years of

investigating (narcissistic) leaders’ performance, this work postulates the importance of all

leaders’ instrumental value as perceived by employees, in relation to employees’ evaluations

on the leader’s performance. Specifically, employees’ perceived leader instrumentality may

falsely exert influence on leader effectiveness evaluations, deriving these evaluations far from


reality. Possibly, as long as the ‘I’ wins something (i.e., for employees personal gain and for

leaders higher effectiveness evaluations), it may not matter that the ‘we’ loses something (i.e.,

decrease in actual leaders effectiveness). So, mirror, mirror, on the wall, (narcissistic) leaders

may not be solely manipulative after all.


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. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2011.645934

Ackerman, R. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Wright, A. G. (2018). Current conceptualizations of

narcissism. Current opinion in psychiatry, 32(1), 32-37. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/kdg68

American Psychiatric Association. (2014). Handboek voor de classificatie van psychische

stoornissen (DSM-5) (5th ed.) (pp. 881-885). Amsterdam, Nederland: Boom

Uitgevers.

Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of

narcissism. Journal of research in personality, 40(4), 440-450. doi:

10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002

Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2004). On instrumental leadership: Beyond transactions and

transformations. UNL Gallup Leadership Institute Summit, Omaha. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Antonakis/publication/251329345_ON_IN

STRUMENTAL_LEADERSHIP_BEYOND_TRANSACTIONS_AND_TRANSFOR

MATIONS/links/004635296fe407e747000000.pdf

Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first

sight? Decoding the narcissism–popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 98(1), 132. doi: 10.1037/a0016338

Baltes, B. B., Bauer, C. C., Bajdo, L. M., & Parker, C. P. (2002). The use of multitrait–

multimethod data for detecting nonlinear relationships: The case of psychological

climate and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 3-17. doi:

10.1023/A:1016231816394


Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2010). Goal setting as an antecedent of destructive leader

behaviors. When leadership goes wrong: Destructive leadership, mistakes and ethical

failures. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Barelds, D. P., & 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

Braun, S. (2017). Leader narcissism and outcomes in organizations: a review at multiple

levels of analysis and implications for future research. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 773.

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00773

Brunell, A. B., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Narcissism and romantic relationships. The

handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorders: Theoretical

approaches, empirical findings and treatments, 344-350. doi:

10.1002/9781118093108.ch30

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.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1663-1676. doi:

10.1177/0146167208324101

Brunell, A. B., Wicker, J. L., Deems, N. P., & Daddis, C. (2018). Can coders detect grandiose

narcissism in others?. Current Psychology, 1, 1-7. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-0085-3

Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods (4th ed.) (pp. 157-353). Oxford, England:

University Press.

Campbell, W. K., Foster, C. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2002). Does self-love lead to love for others?

A story of narcissistic game playing. Journal of personality and social psychology,

83(2), 340. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.340


Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Narcissism and

comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(3),

329-347. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.2000.2282

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2019, 14 May). Werkzame beroepsbevolking; beroep.

Retrieved from https://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=82808NE

D&DI=0&D2=a&D3=a&D4=0,54&D5=56,1&HDR=T,G4,G3&STB=G2,G1&VW=T

Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Executive personality, capability cues, and risk

taking: How narcissistic CEOs react to their successes and stumbles. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 56(2), 202-237. doi: 10.1177/0001839211427534

Chester, D. S., Lynam, D. R., Powell, D. K., & DeWall, C. N. (2015). Narcissism is

associated with weakened frontostriatal connectivity: a DTI study. Social cognitive

and affective neuroscience, 11(7), 1036-1040. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsv069

Clarkson, J. J., Hirt, E. R., Jia, L., & Alexander, M. B. (2010). When perception is more than

reality: the effects of perceived versus actual resource depletion on self-regulatory

behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(1), 29-46. doi:

10.1037/a0017539

Converse, B. A., & Fishbach, A. (2012). Instrumentality boosts appreciation: Helpers are

more appreciated while they are useful. Psychological Science, 23(6), 560-566. doi:

10.1177/0956797611433334

De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership

effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organizational behavior

and human decision processes, 95(2), 140-155. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.04.002

De Hoogh, A. H., Den Hartog, D. N., & Nevicka, B. (2015). Gender differences in the


perceived effectiveness of narcissistic leaders. Applied Psychology, 64(3), 473-498.

doi: 10.1111/apps.12015

Del Rosario, P. M., & White, R. M. (2005). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Test–

retest stability and internal consistency. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6),

1075-1081. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.08.001

Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership,

narcissism, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), 49-65. doi:

10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90030-8

Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. H., & Belschak, F. D. (2018). Toot Your Own Horn?

Leader Narcissism and the Effectiveness of Employee Self-Promotion. Journal of

Management, 25, 1-26. doi: 10.1177/0149206318785240

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & James, L. R. (2002). Neutralizing

substitutes for leadership theory: Leadership effects and common-source bias. Journal

of applied psychology, 87(3), 454-464. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.454

Fanti, K. A., & Frangou, G. (2018). Narcissism and Bullying. Handbook of Trait Narcissism

(pp. 455-462). Cham, Schwitzerland: Springer International.

Fanti, K. A., & Henrich, C. C. (2015). Effects of self-esteem and narcissism on bullying and

victimization during early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(1), 5-

29. doi: 10.1177/0272431613519498

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using

G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research

methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. E. (2015). Interpersonal attraction: In search of a theoretical

Rosetta stone. Handbook of personality and social psychology: Interpersonal


relations and group processes (pp. 179-210). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Fischer, C. H. (1984, April). Correlates of subclinical narcissism in college males and

females. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southem Society for Philosophy and

Psychology, Columbia, SC.

Fishbach, A., Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). Emotional transfer in goal systems.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 723-738. doi:

10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.001

Fitzsimons, G. M., & Fishbach, A. (2010). Shifting closeness: Interpersonal effects of

personal goal progress. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(4), 535-549.

doi: 10.1037/a0018581

Fitzsimons, G. M., & Shah, J. Y. (2008). How goal instrumentality shapes relationship

evaluations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(2), 319-337. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.319

Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism:

Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. Journal of Research in

Personality, 37(6), 469-486. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00026-6

Fukushima, O., & Hosoe, T. (2011). Narcissism, variability in self-concept, and well-being.

Journal of Research in Personality, 45(6), 568-575. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.07.002

Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (2011). A question of false self-esteem: Organization-based

self-esteem and narcissism in organizational contexts. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 26(8), 682-699. doi: 10.1108/02683941111181770

Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism

and leadership: A meta-‐analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships.


Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1-47. doi: 10.1111/peps.12072

Hart, W., Adams, J., Burton, K. A., & Tortoriello, G. K. (2017). Narcissism and self-

presentation: Profiling grandiose and vulnerable Narcissists' self-presentation tactic

use. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 48-57. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.062

Higgs, M. (2009). The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism. Journal of

change management, 9(2), 165-178. doi: 10.1080/14697010902879111

Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and

servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A

meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501-529. doi:

10.1177/0149206316665461

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.

doi: 10.1177/1548051812465891

Hoogervorst, N., De Cremer, D., & van Dijke, M. (2010). Why leaders not always disapprove

of unethical follower behavior: It depends on the leader’s self-interest and

accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 29-41. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-

0793-1

Horton, R. S., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Narcissistic responding to ego threat: When the status

of the evaluator matters. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1493-1526. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00590.x

Horvath, S., & Morf, C. C. (2009). Narcissistic defensiveness: Hypervigilance and avoidance

of worthlessness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1252-1258. doi:


10.1016/j.jesp.2009.07.011

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. doi:

10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.765

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits:

A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The leadership

quarterly, 20(6), 855-875. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004

Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations.

American Psychologist, 63(2), 96-110. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.96

Kernis, M. H., & Sun, C. R. (1994). Narcissism and reactions to interpersonal feedback.

Journal of Research in Personality, 28(1), 4-13. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1994.1002

Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2012). Envy divides the two faces of narcissism. Journal of

personality, 80(5), 1415-1451. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00767.x

Lasch, C. L. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing

expectations. New York, NY: Norton. Retrieved from

http://thezeitgeistmovement.se/files/Lasch_Christopher_The_Culture_of_Narcissism.p

df

Le, H., Oh, I. S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a

good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 113. doi: 10.1037/a0021016

Liu, Y., Fuller, B., Hester, K., Bennett, R. J., & Dickerson, M. S. (2018). Linking authentic

leadership to subordinate behaviors. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 39(2), 218-233. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-12-2016-0327


Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (2002). Leadership and information processing: Linking

perceptions and performance. London, England: Routledge.

Lubit, R. (2002). The long-term organizational impact of destructively narcissistic managers.

Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(1), 127-138. doi:

10.5465/ame.2002.6640218

Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic leaders. Harvard business review, 78(1), 69-77. Retrieved

from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/33190684/Narcissistic_lead

ers.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1558289222&

Signature=KXfplQfiQf7OaFkO%2B56WO%2BOq311%3D&response-content-

disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DNarcissistic_Leaders_The_Incredible_Pros.p

df

Maccoby, M. (2012). Narcissistic leaders. Contemporary Issues in Leadership (chapter 19).

London, England: Routledge.

Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power:

When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of personality

and social psychology, 99(3), 482-497. doi: 10.1037/a0018559

Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Stuppy, A., & Vohs, K. D. (2018). Power increases the

socially toxic component of narcissism among individuals with high baseline

testosterone. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(4), 591. doi:

10.1037/xge0000427

Moore, E., Holding, A. C., Hope, N. H., Harvey, B., Powers, T. A., Zuroff, D., & Koestner,

R. (2018). Perfectionism and the pursuit of personal goals: A self-determination

theory analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 42(1), 37-49. doi: 10.1007/s11031-017-

9654-2


Nana, E., Jackson, B., & St J Burch, G. (2010). Attributing leadership personality and

effectiveness from the leader's face: an exploratory study. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 31(8), 720-742. doi: 10.1108/01437731011094775

Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A. H., Van Vianen, A. E., Beersma, B., & McIlwain, D. (2011a). All

I need is a stage to shine: Narcissists' leader emergence and performance. The

Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 910-925. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.011

Nevicka, B., Ten Velden, F. S., De Hoogh, A. H., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2011b). Reality at

odds with perceptions: Narcissistic leaders and group performance. Psychological

Science, 22(10), 1259-1264. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417259

Nevicka, B., Van Vianen, A. E., De Hoogh, A. H., & Voorn, B. (2018). Narcissistic leaders:

An asset or a liability? Leader visibility, follower responses, and group-level

absenteeism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(7), 703-723. doi:

10.1037/apl0000298

O’Reilly III, C. A., Doerr, B., & Chatman, J. A. (2018). “See You in Court”: How CEO

narcissism increases firms' vulnerability to lawsuits. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(3),

365-378. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.08.001

O’Reilly III, C. A., Doerr, B., Caldwell, D. F., & Chatman, J. A. (2014). Narcissistic CEOs

and executive compensation. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 218-231. doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.002

Oltmanns, T. F., Friedman, J. N., Fiedler, E. R., & Turkheimer, E. (2004). Perceptions of

people with personality disorders based on thin slices of behavior. Journal of

Research in Personality, 38(3), 216-229. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00066-7

Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals gone


wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of

Management Perspectives, 23(1), 6-16. doi: 10.5465/AMP.2009.37007999

Orehek, E., & Ferrer, R. (2018). Parent Instrumentality for Adolescent Eating and Activity.

Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 1, 1-13. doi: 10.1093/abm/kay074

Orehek, E., & Forest, A. L. (2016). When people serve as means to goals: Implications of a

motivational account of close relationships. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 25(2), 79-84. doi: 10.1177/0963721415623536

Orehek, E., Forest, A. L., & Barbaro, N. (2018b). A people-as-means approach to

interpersonal relationships. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 373-389.

doi: 10.1177/1745691617744522

Orehek, E., Forest, A. L., & Wingrove, S. (2018a). People as means to multiple goals:

Implications for interpersonal relationships. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 44(10), 1487-1501. doi: 10.1177/0146167218769869

Owens, B. P., Wallace, A. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2015). Leader narcissism and follower

outcomes: The counterbalancing effect of leader humility. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 100(4), 1203-1213. doi: 10.1037/a0038698

Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS Survival Manual (5th ed). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of research in personality, 36(6), 556-

563. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

Pech, R. J., & Slade, B. W. (2007). Organisational sociopaths: rarely challenged, often

promoted. Why?. Society and Business Review, 2(3), 254-269. doi:

10.1108/17465680710825451


Petty, R. E., & Brinol, P. (2010). Attitude change. Advanced social psychology: The state of

the science (pp. 217-259). Oxford, England: University Press.

Pierro, A., Cicero, L., Bonaiuto, M., Van Knippenberg, D., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005).

Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of

need for cognitive closure. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 503-516. doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.002

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), 890-902. doi: 0022-3514/88/S00.75

Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). How “dark” are the Dark Triad traits? Examining

the perceived darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Personality

and Individual Differences, 53(7), 884-889. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.020

Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-

smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests. Journal of statistical modeling and

analytics, 2(1), 21-33. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bee_Yap/p

ublication/267205556_Power_Comparisons_of_Shapiro-Wilk_Kolmogorov-

Smirnov_Lilliefors_and_Anderson-

Darling_Tests/links/5477245b0cf29afed61446e1/P

ower-Comparisons-of-Shapiro-Wilk-Kolmogorov-Smirnov-Liliefors-and-Anderson-

Darling-Tests.pdf

Roger Rees, C., & Segal, M. W. (1984). Role differentiation in groups: The relationship

between instrumental and expressive leadership. Small Group Behavior, 15(1), 109-

123. doi: 10.1177/104649648401500106


Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The leadership quarterly,

17(6), 617-633. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005

Schmidt, A. F., & Finan, C. (2018). Linear regression and the normality assumption. Journal

of clinical epidemiology, 98, 146-151. Retrieved

from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10070182/1/Schmidt_UCL_depos_JCE2018.pdf

Spain, S. M., Harms, P., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). The dark side of personality at work.

Journal of organizational behavior, 35(1), 41-60. doi: 10.1002/job.1894

Spotnitz, H., & Resnikoff, P. (1954). The myths of Narcissus. Psychoanalytic review, 41(2),

173-181. Retrieved from https://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=psar.041.0173a

Spurk, D., Keller, A. C., & Hirschi, A. (2016). Do bad guys get ahead or fall behind?

Relationships of the dark triad of personality with objective and subjective career

success. Social psychological and personality science, 7(2), 113-121. doi:

10.1177/1948550615609735

Stein, M. (2013). When does narcissistic leadership become problematic? Dick Fuld at

Lehman Brothers. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(3), 282-293.

doi: 10.1177/1056492613478664

Turnnidge, J., & Côté, J. (2018). Applying transformational leadership theory to coaching

research in youth sport: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Sport

and Exercise Psychology, 16(3), 327-342. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2016.1189948

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). “Isn’t it fun to get the respect that we’re going to

deserve?” Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 261-272. doi: 10.1177/0146167202239051

Van Knippenberg, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership


effectiveness: the moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90(1), 25-37. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.25

Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). (2004). Leadership and power: Identity

processes in groups and organizations (pp. 5-18). London, England: Sage.

Vazire, S., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 154-165. doi:

10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_4

Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Portrait of a narcissist:

Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. Journal of Research in

Personality, 42(6), 1439-1447. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.007

Vize, C. E., Collison, K. L., Crowe, M. L., Campbell, W. K., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R.

(2019). Using dominance analysis to decompose narcissism and its relation to

aggression and externalizing outcomes. Assessment, 26(2), 260-270. doi:

10.1177/1073191116685811

Volmer, J., Koch, I. K., & Göritz, A. S. (2016). The bright and dark sides of leaders' dark

triad traits: Effects on subordinates' career success and well-being. Personality and

Individual Differences, 101, 413-418. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.046

Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls

with perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of personality and social psychology,

82(5), 819. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.5.819

Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: perceived position power

strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work

teams. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 122-126. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.019


Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more

attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85. doi:

10.5465/amp.2012.0088

Zaccaro, S. J., & Banks, D. J. (2001). Leadership, vision, and organizational effectiveness.

The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives

confronting today's leaders (pp. 181-218). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Zacher, H., Rosing, K., Henning, T., & Frese, M. (2011). Establishing the next generation at

work: Leader generativity as a moderator of the relationships between leader age,

leader-member exchange, and leadership success. Psychology and aging, 26(1), 241-

252. doi: 10.1037/a0021429


Footnotes

1 In 1898, the term “Narcissus-like” was first introduced by Ellis (Raskin & Terry,

1988). The Greek Narcissus, from which “narcissism” is derived, illustrates a myth in which

Narcissus fell in love with his own reflection in the water, languished, fell over, and drowned

(Spotnitz & Resnikoff, 1954). Inspired by myth, Freud clinically practiced “narcissism” from

1914 onward to describe behavioral phenomena (Raskin & Terry, 1988). The work “On

Narcissism: An Introduction” by Freud was seen as the starting point for the development of

the concept of narcissism (Stein, 2013). More recently, a distinction is made between

clinical/pathological narcissism (the narcissistic personality disorder) and subclinical

narcissism (Nevicka et al., 2011a, 2011b).

2 The narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by (1) an inflated sense of self-

importance, (2) the preoccupation with (unrealistic) fantasies, (3) the conviction of their

uniqueness, (4) the requirement for excessive admiration, (5) a feeling of entitlement, (6)

exploitation of other people, (7) lacking empathy, (8) being envious towards other people or

believing that others are envious of oneself, and (9) being arrogant or haughty in attitude or

behaviour (DSM-V; American Psychiatric Association, 2014). One is classified as having a

narcissistic personality disorder in case they are diagnosed of having at least five of these

characteristics (DSM-V; American Psychiatric Association, 2014).


Appendix A: Scales

Narcissism

“The following questions are about yourself. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the

following statements. Select the answer that you find most appropriate.”

Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly

disagree nor disagree agree

1. I know that I am good because 0 0 0 0 0

everybody keeps telling me so.

2. I like to be the center of attention. 0 0 0 0 0

3. I think I am a special person. 0 0 0 0 0

4. I like having authority over people. 0 0 0 0 0

5. I find it easy to manipulate people. 0 0 0 0 0

6. I insist upon getting the respect 0 0 0 0 0

that is due me.

7. I am apt to show off if 0 0 0 0 0

I get the chance.

8. I always know what I am doing. 0 0 0 0 0

9. Everybody likes to hear my stories. 0 0 0 0 0

10. I expect a great deal from 0 0 0 0 0

other people.

11. I really like to be the 0 0 0 0 0

center of attention.

12. People always seem to 0 0 0 0 0

recognize my authority.

13. I am going to be a great person. 0 0 0 0 0

14. I can make anybody 0 0 0 0 0

believe anything I want them to.

15. I am more capable 0 0 0 0 0

than other people.

16. I am an extraordinary person. 0 0 0 0 0


Perceived leader effectiveness

“The following questions concern your supervisor. We would like you to give your supervisor

a rating on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) for the following statements.”

1 2 3 4 5

1. My supervisor is a good supervisor. 0 0 0 0 0

2. My supervisor has an effective method. 0 0 0 0 0

3. My supervisor is doing his / her job well. 0 0 0 0 0

4. If I had to give my supervisor a rating 0 0 0 0 0

about his / her function, I give a:

1 = insufficient, 2 = reasonable,

3 = sufficient, 4 = good, 5 = very good.

Perceived leader instrumentality

“We would like to know how your supervisor influences you in achieving your goals (these

can be general goals, such as generally performing well, or specific goals, such as performing

well on a specific project). Please indicate to what extent your supervisor helps or hinders

you in your efforts to achieve the following goals. Scale: –5 (extremely annoying) to 0 (not

helping and not annoying) to 5 (extremely helping).”

–5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 4 5

1. Work performance goals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Social network goals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Promotional and career goals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Personal learning and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

development goals

5. Work pleasure goals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Appendix B: Factor Analysis

Table 1

Factor Loadings for Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Leader Narcissism, and Leader

Effectiveness and Leader Instrumentality With Oblimin Rotation on Team Level

Factor Loadings Item Narcissism Effectiveness Instrumentality I know that I am good because .42 everybody keeps telling me so. I like to be the center of attention. .66 I think I am a special person. .69 I like having authority over people. .62 I find it easy to manipulate people. .62 I insist upon getting the respect .50 that is due me. I am apt to show off if I get the chance. .55 I always know what I am doing. .37 Everybody likes to hear my stories. .50 I expect a great deal from other people. .42 I really like to be the center of attention. .66 People always seem to recognize .48 my authority. I am going to be a great person. .66 I can make anybody believe anything .63 I want them to. I am more capable than other people. .66 I am an extraordinary person. .62 My supervisor is a good supervisor. –.89 My supervisor has an effective method. –.93 My supervisor is doing his / her job well. –.96 If I had to give my supervisor a rating –.93 about his / her function, I give a: 1 = insufficient, 2 = reasonable, 3 = sufficient, 4 = good, 5 = very good. Work performance goals .66 Social network goals .92 Promotional and career goals .93 Personal learning and .88 development goals Work pleasure goals .72 Note. N = 541; Factor loadings > .40 are printed in bold. Note that, factor loadings for leader

effectiveness and leader instrumentality were similar at team level (N = 541) and at employee

level (i.e. employees considered individually) (N = 1719).

running head: leader narcissism, effectiveness, and 1 ... · construction of the digital survey,...

Documents