Edited by: Barbara Wisse, University of Groningen, Netherlands
Reviewed by: Laura Venz, Universität Mannheim, Germany; Stacey Sanders, University of Groningen, Netherlands
This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Narcissistic leaders are self-absorbed and hold beliefs of entitlement and superiority. Their aggressive tendencies in the face of criticism and inclinations to validate their self-worth by derogating others may lead others to perceive them as being abusive. Here, we test the relationship between leader narcissism and followers’ perceptions of abusive supervision. Drawing upon research related to the behavioral plasticity hypothesis, we propose that followers with low self-esteem will perceive narcissistic leaders as more abusive than those with high self-esteem. Followers low on self-esteem are more insecure, more in need of approval from their supervisor and are more likely to interpret the haughty, derogatory attitude of narcissistic leaders as abusive. Such followers also make for ‘easier targets’ and thus may actually suffer more abusive behavior from their narcissistic leaders. In a first multi-source study of 85 leaders and 128 followers, we found support for the moderating role of follower self-esteem in the relationship between leader narcissism and perceived abusive supervision: Narcissistic leaders were rated as more abusive by followers who were low on self-esteem, but not those higher on self-esteem. In a second multi-source field study among 177 leader-follower dyads, we tested a moderated mediation model and showed that this finding also holds for the broader concept of follower core self-evaluations as a moderator. Abusive supervision, in turn, was related to lower follower performance and followers experiencing more burnout symptoms. Thus, followers low on self-esteem or low on core self-evaluations seem to suffer most from narcissistic leaders as they perceive them to be abusive and, in turn, these followers show reduced performance and more burnout symptoms when working for such leaders. This research thus identifies an important moderator that might help reconcile previous inconsistent findings regarding perceptions of narcissistic leaders.
Narcissism, a personality trait characterized by grandiose and overly positive self-views, is not only rising in Western individualistic countries (
The problem with narcissists’ rise to power, however, is that narcissists also have many negative interpersonal characteristics, such as a lack of empathy, exploitativeness, a sense of entitlement, antagonism and egocentrism (
In line with this proposition of differential perceptions of narcissistic leaders by different followers, findings regarding followers’ general perceptions of narcissistic leaders are mixed. Some studies show that followers had favorable perceptions of narcissistic leaders (
In a similar vein, followers with certain personality traits might be more sensitive to the toxic characteristics of narcissistic leaders, while others may be better able to cope with such leaders. Therefore, the current research set out to answer the important question of which followers would be most likely negatively impacted by narcissistic leaders? Specifically, we expect that narcissistic leaders will be perceived as abusive especially by followers with low self-esteem. By focusing on followers’ self-esteem as an important moderator, we thus help reconcile inconsistent findings regarding followers’ perceptions of narcissistic leaders.
Self-esteem - the appraisal of a person’s self-worth (
Firstly, behavioral plasticity hypothesis contends that self-esteem moderates the extent to which individuals react to external cues (
In addition, low self-esteem individuals are more likely to interpret leaders’ toxic characteristics as stressful and threatening and they would be less able to cope with them (
Secondly, because of their insecurities about their abilities, low self-esteem individuals, also dubbed as ‘lost souls’ (
Additionally, individuals with low self-esteem might even accept derogatory or aggressive behavior toward them because of their own low perceptions of their self-worth (
We will test this hypothesis in Study 1, a multi-source empirical field study. In Study 2, we will test the same hypothesis using the broader construct of followers’ core self-evaluations, while also examining the consequences of abusive supervision for followers. We will return to this after discussing Study 1 and its results in detail.
The research presented here will make several contributions. Firstly, in focusing on the role of follower personality (i.e., follower self-esteem) in followers’ perceptions of narcissistic leaders, it proposes an important moderator to reconcile previously inconsistent findings. Secondly, this research focuses on
We used a multi-source field study to test the proposed research model. The sample consisted of 128 followers matched with 85 leaders who worked in different organizations and across different industries (e.g., hospitality, healthcare, and business). Leaders were first approached through Business School graduate student contacts. If they agreed to participate they were then sent a survey link to complete the survey online. The leaders were asked to nominate up to three followers and to provide their email addresses, after which the followers were then forwarded a separate survey link. Surveys could be completed either in English (74% of respondents) or in Dutch (26% of respondents).
The voluntary nature of participation and confidentially was stressed in the accompanying letter for each respondent. The study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Ethics Review Board of the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences of the University of Amsterdam, who approved the protocol for the study. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
The questionnaires were completed anonymously. A unique code was used to match the surveys. To increase the response rate, participants were sent several reminders and leader-follower pairs were offered a small incentive — three pairs would be randomly selected to win a voucher worth 40 euros. Out of 128 leaders who were sent the survey links, 97 completed the survey (response rate 75.8%). In total leaders nominated 203 followers, out of which 128 completed the survey (response rate 63.1%). Leaders (
Leaders filled in the Narcissism personality inventory. Followers filled in the self-esteem personality questionnaire and rated the abusive supervision of the leader.
Leaders filled in the 16-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-16;
Follower self-esteem was measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Scale (
Abusive supervision was measured using the 5-item shortened version (
It included followers’ tenure with the leader and gender of the leader and the follower. The negative effects of narcissism may increase over time (
We conducted confirmatory factor analyses to determine whether the data conformed to the assumption that each of the proposed latent variables represents a separate construct. Fitting a measurement model with a large number of indicators (and items) can adversely affect model fit (
The CFA supported the proposed 3-factor measurement model, [χ2(51,
Means, standard deviations, correlations (Study 1).
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) Leader gender | 1.31 | 0.46 | |||
(2) Leader narcissism | 5.49 | 2.75 | -0.10 | ||
(1) Follower gender | 1.60 | 0.49 | |||
(2) Tenure with leader | 2.53 | 2.83 | -0.12 | ||
(3) Follower self-esteem | 3.32 | 0.41 | -0.08 | -0.05 | |
(4) Abusive supervision | 1.43 | 0.75 | -0.08 | -0.04 | -0.25∗∗ |
To test the hypothesis, the control variables, leader narcissism, follower self-esteem and their interaction were entered into the random coefficient model. The results of this analysis are presented in
Estimated coefficients of the moderated model (Study 1).
Predictor | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abusive supervision (Model 1) |
Abusive supervision (Model 2) |
|||||
Constant | 1.42 | 0.14 | 1.43 | 0.14 | ||
Controls | ||||||
Leader gender | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.17 | ||
Follower gender | -0.18 | 0.13 | -0.21 | 0.13 | ||
Tenure with leader | 0.00 | 0.02 | -0.00 | 0.02 | ||
Predictors | ||||||
Leader narcissism | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | ||
Follower self-esteem | -0.57∗∗ | 0.17 | 0.09∗∗ | -0.62∗∗ | 0.16 | |
Interaction | ||||||
Leader narcissism × Follower self-esteem | -0.14∗ | 0.06 | 0.12∗∗ |
Effects of leader narcissism and follower self-esteem (SE) on abusive supervision (Study 1).
In a second multi-source study we aim to provide a conceptual replication of Study 1 and test whether the stronger relationship of leader narcissism with abusive supervision also occurs for followers who are low on the higher order self-esteem related construct of core self-evaluations (CSEs). In this way, we aim to not only show the robustness of our findings in Study 1, but also to broaden the scope of the research to include a more comprehensive conceptualization of who the potentially most vulnerable followers are (e.g.,
Core self-evaluations is a more general higher order construct which, in addition to self-esteem, comprises of self-efficacy, locus of control and emotional stability and refers to “basic conclusions or bottom-line evaluations that individuals hold about themselves” (
Abusive supervision has been shown to have many detrimental consequences for followers, such as psychological distress (e.g., strain, emotional exhaustion, and depression), lower family well-being, and higher turnover intentions (
In Study 2 we include the consequences of abusive supervision and test whether perceptions of abusive supervision relate to distress and job performance. Specifically, we focus on followers’ self-rated emotional exhaustion, as being reflective of their experienced psychological distress, as well as their task performance as rated by their leaders. Given the argumentation presented above we expect that leader narcissism, through greater perceived abusive supervision, will be associated with greater emotional exhaustion and worse performance, especially for followers with low CSEs. Combining the arguments presented above in the development of Hypothesis 2 we thus propose a moderated mediation model and argue that leader narcissism has an indirect negative effect on follower performance and emotional exhaustion, via perceptions of abusive supervision, and that this indirect effect is contingent on followers’ CSEs.
To sum up, we propose, in replication of the findings of Study 1 that because of their greater reliance on external cues and dependence on narcissistic leaders, followers with low general CSEs will be more likely to perceive narcissistic leaders as abusive. Furthermore, as a consequence, low CSE followers are more likely to suffer negative outcomes in terms of psychological distress as well as lower performance as a result of leader narcissism.
Proposed moderated mediation model (CSE, core self-evaluation).
We performed a multi-source field study to test the proposed moderated mediation research model. The sample consisted of 176 unique leader-follower dyads working in a wide range of jobs (lawyers, salespersons, account managers) in different organizations (e.g., health care, government, insurance) in the Netherlands. These contacts were approached through Business School graduate student contacts. Survey packets were sent to both the supervisor and the employee and the voluntary nature of participation and confidentially was stressed in the accompanying letter for each respondent. The study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Economics and Business Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, who approved the protocol for the study. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
The questionnaires were completed anonymously. Individual surveys could be returned directly to the researchers and a unique code was used to match the surveys. In total, 179 of the contacted supervisors and 186 of the employees returned fully filled out questionnaires, resulting in a response rate of 69% for complete dyads. Most leaders (Mean age 42.35 years, Mean tenure 9.00 years) were male (58.5%), and most followers (Mean age 33.84 years, Mean tenure 5.79 years) were female (56.3%).
Unless otherwise indicated, all items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Leaders filled in the Narcissism personality inventory and rated followers’ task performance. Followers filled in the CSE personality questionnaire, rated the abusive supervision of the leader and indicated their feelings of exhaustion.
Similarly as in Study 1, leaders filled in the 16-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-16;
Leaders also provided ratings for the focal follower’s performance using four items from
We measured followers’ CSEs with the 12- item scale developed and validated by
Abusive supervision was measured using the 5-item shortened version (
Followers’ emotional exhaustion was assessed with the Dutch version (
Control variables were the same as in Study 1, namely followers’ tenure with the leader and gender of the leader and the follower.
We again conducted confirmatory factor analyses to determine whether the data conformed to the assumption that each of the proposed latent variables represents a separate construct. To control for inflated measurement errors caused by multiple items for the latent variable, we divided the items for the personality constructs CSEs (12) and narcissism (16) into parcels of four items to serve as indicators of the factors using random heterogeneous assignment (
The CFA supported the proposed 5-factor measurement model, [χ2(179,
Means, standard deviations, correlations (Study 2).
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) Tenure with leader | 3.08 | 3.48 | |||||||
(2) Leader gender | 1.41 | 0.49 | -0.26∗∗ | ||||||
(3) Follower gender | 1.56 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.28∗∗ | |||||
(4) Leader narcissism | 4.01 | 0.90 | -0.10 | -0.16∗ | -0.14 | ||||
(5) Follower CSE | 5.12 | 0.75 | 0.03 | 0.06 | -0.12 | -0.06 | |||
(6) Abusive supervision | 1.71 | 1.12 | -0.06 | -0.21∗∗ | -0.07 | 0.19∗ | -0.19∗ | ||
(7) Follower performance | 7.61 | 1.19 | 0.08 | -0.04 | -0.11 | -0.05 | 0.11 | -0.27∗∗ | |
(8) Follower exhaustion | 2.76 | 1.18 | -0.05 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.28∗∗ | -0.44∗∗ | 0.29∗∗ | -0.11 |
Estimated coefficients of main effects and moderation on abusive supervision (Study 2).
Predictor | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | 2.48 | 0.35 | |||
Controls | |||||
Leader gender | -0.04 | 0.17 | |||
Follower gender | -0.44∗ | 0.18 | |||
Tenure with leader | -0.03 | 0.02 | |||
Predictors | |||||
Leader narcissism | 0.18 | 0.09 | |||
Follower CSE | -0.25∗ | 0.11 | 4.06 | 0.11∗∗ | |
Constant | 2.57 | 0.34 | |||
Controls | |||||
Leader gender | -0.11 | 0.17 | |||
Follower gender | -0.45∗ | 0.18 | |||
Tenure with leader | -0.03 | 0.02 | |||
Predictors | |||||
Leader narcissism | 0.20∗ | 0.09 | |||
Follower CSE | -0.26∗ | 0.11 | |||
Interaction | |||||
Leader narcissism × Follower CSE | -0.33∗ | 0.13 | 4.61 | 0.14∗∗ |
To test Hypothesis 2, the first step of the MODMED analysis examines the effect of the interaction between leader narcissism and follower CSEs on abusive supervision. Results are presented in
Effects of leader narcissism and follower CSE on abusive supervision (Study 2).
To test the moderated mediation model as formalized in Hypothesis 3 and 4, the second step of the MODMED procedure (
Estimated coefficients of mediation (Study 2).
Predictor | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | 8.69 | 0.42 | |||
Controls | |||||
Leader gender | -0.27 | 0.18 | |||
Follower gender | -0.13 | 0.20 | |||
Tenure with leader | 0.02 | 0.03 | |||
Predictors | |||||
Abusive supervision | -0.30∗∗ | 0.08 | |||
Leader narcissism | -0.02 | 0.10 | 3.56 | 0.09∗∗ | |
Constant | 1.66 | 0.41 | |||
Controls | |||||
Leader gender | 0.16 | 0.18 | |||
Follower gender | 0.25 | 0.19 | |||
Tenure with leader | 0.01 | 0.03 | |||
Predictors | |||||
Abusive supervision | 0.28∗∗ | 0.08 | |||
Leader narcissism | 0.34∗∗ | 0.10 | 6.01 | 0.15∗∗ |
Bootstrapping results for test of conditional indirect effects on follower task performance and exhaustion at specific values of the moderator (CSE): Mean and ±+1 standard deviation (Study 2).
Follower task performance |
95% CI | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mediator | Value of CSE | Conditional indirect effect | Lower | Upper | |
Abusive supervision | -1 |
-0.13∗ | 0.06 | -0.28 | -0.03 |
-0.06 | 0.04 | -0.15 | 0.00 | ||
+1 |
0.01 | 0.03 | -0.06 | 0.07 | |
Abusive supervision | -1 |
0.12∗ | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.28 |
0.06∗ | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.14 | ||
+1 |
-0.01 | 0.03 | -0.09 | 0.04 |
Thus, as predicted, when follower CSEs are low, leader narcissism is positively related to perceived abusive supervision, and abusive supervision in turn is negatively related to follower task performance and positively to follower exhaustion. When follower CSEs are high, the positive relationship with abusive supervision becomes insignificant and there is no longer an indirect effect through abusive supervision on task performance and exhaustion for leader narcissism.
By focusing on follower self-esteem and follower CSEs, we sought to reconcile the inconsistent findings regarding followers’ perceptions of narcissistic leaders and at the same time identify followers who are more or less vulnerable to narcissistic leaders. Despite the fact that narcissistic leaders have many negative characteristics that may predispose them to being abusive toward their followers (e.g., lack of empathy, sense of entitlement, exploitativeness, and aggressive tendencies), using two multi-source field studies we consistently found that narcissistic leaders were
Our research extends prior work in several ways. Firstly, we show that follower personality plays a critical role in determining how followers perceive and experience narcissistic leaders. This provides one explanation as to why prior research has tended to find inconsistencies when looking at followers’ evaluations of their narcissistic leaders, with followers sometimes perceiving narcissistic leaders positively or neutrally (
Secondly, our findings further inform research on susceptible followers and the initiation and persistence of destructive leadership styles in organizations (
Finally, our research can help inform literature on abusive supervision and workplace victimization in general (
The main strength of our research lies in the replication of findings across two heterogeneous samples as well as an extension of our moderator from self-esteem to the more general higher order construct of CSEs. This consistent pattern of findings is noteworthy given the acknowledged difficulty in detecting moderation within field settings (
Another methodological strength was the use of multi-source measurement which reduces concerns regarding common source variance with respect to inflating the main effects found between predictors and the dependent variables as well as regarding the attenuation of the interaction effects (
Although our two studies show consistent results and enhance our understanding regarding the interplay of leader and follower dispositional characteristics on perceived abusive leadership by followers, they are not without limitations. Firstly, while our theory provides a strong indication as to the direction of the proposed relationships, the cross-sectional nature of our data prevents assertions of causality. For example, an alternative explanation to our findings in Study 2 could be that followers with low self-esteem and low CSEs receive abusive supervision from narcissistic leaders
Secondly, because abusive supervision as it was measured in our studies concerns followers’ subjective perceptions regarding a leader’s mistreatment, it may not reflect the actual levels of mistreatment. Thus, narcissistic leaders could be actually behaving more abusively toward those with low self-esteem and low CSEs, or these followers may simply be more attuned to potential victimization (
Thirdly, in order to obtain multiple followers, in Study 1 the leaders were asked to nominate followers who would fill out the questionnaire. This might have inadvertently led to a selection bias as leaders might have chosen only those followers with whom they had a good relationship. However, given the consistent findings across both of our studies, it does not appear that this potential bias overrode or influenced the found results.
Finally, because the focus of our research was solely on narcissistic leaders, we did not measure the other two Dark Triad traits (Machiavellianism and psychopathy;
Our research focused on the impact of leader narcissism on followers’ emotional exhaustion and task performance (Study 2). Future studies could test our model using other important outcome variables that are known to be affected by abusive supervision, such as followers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job stress, vitality, turnover intentions and organizational citizenship behavior (
A final fruitful direction for future research would be to more closely examine the formation of dependence between susceptible followers and destructive leaders, such as narcissistic leaders. Because of their strong need for affirmation, desire for clarity, direction and higher self-esteem, the so-called ‘lost souls’ seek out charismatic and powerful leaders and thereby make themselves vulnerable to abuse by such leaders (
This research has several practical implications for organizations. First, given the negative impact of narcissistic leaders on vulnerable followers, organizations could consider obtaining narcissism ratings of job applicants and restricting narcissists’ entry to leadership functions, or getting rid of narcissistic leaders altogether. In light of the current findings, avoiding narcissistic individuals in leadership positions might appear to be an attractive alternative, however, narcissistic individuals also have positive characteristics which could make them useful for organizations in certain contexts (
To conclude, we show that despite having many negative characteristics such as egocentrism, aggression, exploitativeness and lack of empathy, narcissistic leaders do not indiscriminately negatively affect
BN, ADH, DDH, and FB conceived and developed the project, contributed to the interpretation of the results. Data collection was coordinated and conducted by BN and ADH. BN and ADH performed the data analyses. BN drafted the manuscript. ADH, DDH, and FB provided the critical revisions. All authors agreed to all aspects of the work and approved the final version of the manuscript.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer SS and handling Editor declared their shared affiliation.