Narcissistic Leadership and Emotional Exhaustion: The mediating role of Abusive Supervision and the moderating effect of Leader-Member Exchange
Jan Thomas Brouwer (10166084)
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics and Business
Master thesis of MSc Business Administration
Track: Leadership & Management
Supervisor: mw. prof. dr. D.N. den Hartog
Second supervisor: mw. dr. A.H.B. de Hoogh
Amsterdam, 18th of August 2016
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Jan Thomas Brouwer who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of
Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
This study focuses on the mediating role of abusive supervision in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. In addition to that, leader- member exchange (LMX) has been included as a moderator in the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. Results show that there is a positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision as well as a positive relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion.
However, this study has not found a moderating effect of LMX in the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. The main goal of this study was to find evidence for a mediating effect in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. Results show that abusive supervision indeed fully mediates the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. This study has contributed to the research field by providing evidence for a full mediation effect in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion.
Keywords: Narcissistic Leadership – Abusive Supervision – Leader-Member
Exchange – Emotional Exhaustion
2 Table of Contents
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………..4 2. Literature review…………………………………………………………………..8 2.1 Leader Narcissism…………………….…………………………………....…..8 2.2 Abusive Supervision…………………………………………………………..11 2.3 Leader Narcissism and Abusive Supervision…………………………………12 2.4 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)……………………………………………13 2.5 Leader Narcissism, LMX and Abusive Supervision………………………….15 2.6 Abusive Supervision and Emotional Exhaustion……………………………..17 2.7 Leader Narcissism, Abusive Supervision and Emotional Exhaustion……...... 18 2.8 Research Model……………………………………………………………….20 3. Method…………………………………………………………………………….21 3.1 Sample………………………………………………………………………...21 3.2 Measurement of Variables…………………………………………………….23 3.3 Statistical Procedure…………………………………………………………..25 4. Results…………………………………………………………………………….26 4.1 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………….26 4.2 Hypothesis testing……………………………………………………………..27 5. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………30 5.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications…………………………...…………...30 5.2 Limitations and Future Research……………………………………...……....34 6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...36 7. References………………………………………………………………………...37 Appendix 1: Questionnaire Supervisor………………………………………………45 Appendix 2: Questionnaire Subordinate……………………………………………..56
3 1. Introduction
Narcissism is a topic that has fascinated mankind for centuries. Research that addresses narcissistic leaders has particularly begun to develop, and light has been shed on its implications. Researchers have come across an interesting trend within the narcissistic leadership field, which shows that narcissists are more likely to emerge as leaders (Brunell et al., 2008; Judge et al., 2006, Nevicka et al., 2011). This trend can be explained by narcissists’ capability of attracting groups of very dedicated followers through a combination of their attractive visions and charismatic personalities
(Maccoby, 2000).
The fact that narcissists are likely to emerge as leaders can be explained by how narcissists are perceived. For example, research has found several associations between the characteristics of a prototypical leader and a narcissist (Judge et al., 2002;
Paunonen et al., 2006). Characteristics such as dominance, high self-esteem and extraversion have been linked to prototypical leaders, but are also present in narcissistic leaders (Brunell et al., 2008; De Hoogh et al., 2015). Furthermore, individuals with higher levels of narcissism are perceived as more creative (Goncalo et al., 2010) and more stress-resistant in comparison with people with lower levels of narcissism (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002).
However, that individuals tend to perceive narcissistic leaders as prototypical leaders does not necessarily mean that they are effective leaders. Narcissists are also considered to be arrogant, exploitative and unable to empathize with others.
Furthermore, narcissists are found to be self-centered in such a way that they undermine others in order to accomplish their personal goals (Campbell et al., 2005).
These inconsistencies present a ‘light’ and ‘dark’ side of narcissists, making it impossible to provide a simple answer regarding the effectiveness of their leadership.
4 This study will focus on the ‘darker’ side of narcissism. Research has shown that narcissists are more aggressive and have a tendency to become hostile compared to people with lower levels of narcissism (Penney & Spector, 2002). Narcissists especially become aggressive when they are provoked and when they feel that their self-esteem is attacked (Baumeister et al., 1996, 2000). This can influence the relationship that narcissists have with their subordinates, as people with high levels of narcissism have been linked with high unstable levels of self-esteem. For example, research has shown that individuals with unstable high levels of self-esteem believe their self-esteem is under constant threat by others (Twenge & Cmapbell, 2003).
Narcissists are also expected to adopt aggressive strategies to support their grandiose sense of self (Twenge & Campbell, 2003). This means that narcissistic leaders are more likely to engage in abusive supervisory behaviors and are inclined to willfully act in aggressive verbal and non-verbal ways (Tepper, 2007).
In turn, such abusive supervisory behaviors have negative consequences for subordinates. Research has shown that when subordinates perceive such mistreatment by their leader, subordinates also report higher levels of anxiety and distress (Tepper,
2000; Chi & Liang, 2013). Furthermore, abusive supervision is assumed to have an impact on the emotional resources of the subordinates, which can lead to a manifestation of emotional exhaustion (Wu & Hu, 2009). Based on these theoretical argumentations, this study will examine the relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion. Apart from the examination of that direct effect, the focus of this study will be the investigation of a potential mediation effect. Narcissists are assumed to engage in abusive behaviors due to their arrogance, need of admiration and their exploitative nature. These abusive behaviors have shown to have serious consequences for employees. Research has shown that such abusive behaviors can
5 have negative implications for the health of the subordinate. Wheeler et al. (2013) have already found that abusive supervision is related to next day exhaustion.
Therefore, the focus of this research is to examine the mediating role of abusive supervision in the positive relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion.
In addition to that, this study will look at a possible moderating effect in the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. Research has been inconsistent when it comes to the relationships between narcissistic leaders and their subordinates. On one hand, it is assumed that narcissists are incapable of creating the conditions necessary for a high quality leader-member exchange (LMX) (Schyns,
2015). On the other, narcissistic leaders are considered to be charismatic and capable of attracting devoted followers (Maccoby, 2000). These devoted followers will fulfill the narcissistic leader’s demand for admiration and acknowledgement and thus create a high quality LMX. Whether the leader and subordinate have established a low quality or high quality LMX can influence the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. Harris et al., (2011) have shown that leaders express more abusive behaviors to subordinates with whom they have a low LMX. Therefore, this study will also examine the moderating role of LMX in the positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision.
The objective of this study is to investigate the mediating role of abusive supervision in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion.
Furthermore, the role of LMX as a moderator in the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision will also be studied. The research questions of this study are the following: ‘What is the mediating role of abusive supervision in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion? Furthermore, what
6 is the moderating role of LMX in the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision?’ In order to answer these research questions, this study is divided into the following sections. First of all, a literature review will provide a detailed theoretical background, followed by the data and method sections. Once the data process has been made clear, a results section will follow. Subsequently, the theoretical and practical implications of the results will be given in the discussion section, together with this study’s limitations and recommendations for future research. Finally, a conclusion of the findings will be provided.
7 2. Literature Review
This literature review focuses on key findings in current academic literature that address leader narcissism, abuse supervision, emotional exhaustion and leader- member exchange. First of all, each concept is discussed and provided with a clear definition. Following that, the relationships among the concepts are presented with their theoretical implications. Finally, the hypotheses, which are derived from the discussed academic literature, are presented with the research model.
2.1 Leader Narcissism
In order to comprehend the concept of narcissism in a leadership study setting, a brief overview of the concept’s origins and development in the psychological research field should be given. The term narcissism is derived from a Greek mythological story about a young man named Narcissus. In the story he falls in love with the person who is looking back at him from under the water. Of course, the person looking back at him was simply a reflection of himself. This story touches upon the roots of narcissism: love for oneself. Havelock Ellis (1898) was the first individual to introduce the term narcissism. According to Ellis, narcissism can be described as the process of losing oneself in perverse self-admiration, also referred to as autoeroticism.
Freud elaborated on this view by recognizing a specific narcissistic personality type that is accompanied by certain traits such as confidence, self-possessed power and arrogance (Freud, 1931; Freud, 1950, in Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). The recognition of this narcissistic personality type has had important implications; it created awareness amongst individuals and fostered research on its effects. As a result, official diagnostic criteria concerning narcissism exist, and narcissismis
8 categorized as a personality disorder by the American Psychiatry Association (DSM-
IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
Narcissism as a personality dimension is derived from the clinical criteria of narcissism, but can be applied to a normal population (Campbell et al., 2011; De
Hoogh et al., 2015, Raskin & Hall, 1981). Narcissists have a grandiose view of themselves, in combination with a preoccupation of limitless success and power
(Campbell, Goodie & Foster, 2004; De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Nevicka, 2015;
Emmonson, 1984; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006).
Narcissistic individuals believe they should be associated with those of a high status.
This requires that they receive an excessive amount of admiration (DSM-IV;
American Psychiatric Association, 2000), as they view themselves as unique and intelligent individuals (Judge et al., 2006). Furthermore, narcissists have a sense of entitlement in combination with an interpersonally exploitative nature and a lack of empathy (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
However, it should be noted that some of these features can be beneficial from a leadership point of view. Maccoby (2000) stated that narcissistic leaders come closest to a general idea of great leadership. According to the author, this is due to the fact that people view a great leader as an individual who ‘has a vision’ (Maccoby,
2000, p: 4). Because narcissistic leaders understand this vision concept quite well, and because they are charismatic speakers, they have the ability to attract followers with their alluring visions (Maccoby, 2000). Besides such visions, narcissistic leaders are also associated with prototypical leadership (De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Nevicka,
2015; Smith & Foti, 1998). This is due to the overlap between the traits in both a narcissistic leader and a prototypical leader. These traits, such as dominance (Brunell et al., 2008); self-focus (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001); self-esteem (Emmons, 1984); and
9 extraversion are associated with a prototypical leader and are also present in narcissistic leaders (De Hoogh et al., 2015, Judge et al., 2002, Paunonen et al., 2006).
Furthermore, research has shown that narcissistic leaders are more likely to emerge as leaders in groups where no leader has been appointed (Brunell et al., 2008; Judge et al., 2006, Nevicka et al., 2011).
However, that there is an association between narcissism and leader emergence does not mean that narcissists are effective leaders. Research has shown that there are both positive and negative implications concerning the outcomes of narcissistic leadership. For example, narcissists tend to work better under certain amounts of pressure compared to individuals who are less narcissistic (Wallance &
Baumeister, 2002). Furthermore, people perceive narcissists as more creative
(Goncalo et al., 2010), and more effective within a group setting (Nevicka et al.,
2011). However, the study conducted by Nevicka et al. (2011) showed that, even though narcissists were perceived as performing more effectively, narcissistic leaders inhibited information sharing and therefore lowered overall group performance.
Additionally, narcissistic traits, such as sensitivity to criticism and an unwillingness to listen (Maccoby 2004), have a negative impact on long-term performance (Campbell et al., 2005; Grijlva & Harms, 2014). Furthermore, research shows that narcissistic leaders tend to engage in more aggressive and hostile behaviors (Penney & Spector,
2002), which assumes an association between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. The concept of abusive supervision will be discussed in the following part.
10 2.2 Abusive Supervision
Abusive supervision is a concept that relates to the degree to which supervisors (from the subordinate’s point of view) engage in aggressive verbal and nonverbal behavior, excluding physical contact (Tepper, 2000). This explanation of abusive supervision encompasses some important features. First of all, abusive supervision is based on the subordinate’s subjective perception of the supervisor (Tepper, 2007). This implies that there could be factors that influence these perceptions, e.g. the ethnicity of the supervisor. Second, this definition of abusive supervision is based on sustained aggressive verbal and nonverbal behavior. This means that a supervisor is only considered abusive if he/she engages in structural and long-term aggressive verbal and nonverbal behavior (Tepper, 2007). Therefore, a supervisor who happens to be in a foul mood and, thus, behaves badly to his/her employees would not necessarily be considered abusive, unless this behavior is sustained. Finally, this explanation of abusive supervision assumes that a supervisor engages in aggressive verbal and nonverbal behavior willfully and for a particular reason. Thus, he or she would be fully aware of the negative impact on the subordinate (Tepper, 2000).
Empirical research has shown that abusive supervision has several detrimental outcomes for subordinates, such as lower levels of job satisfaction (Schat et al., 2006;
Tepper et al., 2004). Apart from that, a study conducted by Ashforth (1997) showed that subordinates reported higher levels of stress, frustration, work alienation and lower levels of work performance, leader endorsement and self-esteem when they were exposed to an abusive supervisor. Research has also shown that abusive supervision could have negative implications for the subordinate’s health and wellbeing (Burtler & Hoobler, 2006). For example, Wheeler et al. (2013) found a significant relationship between abusive supervision and next day exhaustion. It is
11 also expected that leader narcissism and abusive supervision have a positive relationship. The argumentation for this relationship is explained in the following part.
2.3 Leader Narcissism and Abusive Supervision
Narcissists have an inflated view of themselves and believe that they are superior to others (Emmons, 1987; Baumeister & Vohs, 2001). Although research has shown that individuals with higher levels of narcissism are more aggressive and tend to be more hostile (Penney & Spector, 2002), it should be noted that most studies have shown that narcissists especially become aggressive once they are provoked (Baumeister et al., 2000). Narcissists feel especially provoked in situations where their self-esteem is under attack (Baumeister et al., 1996). The reasoning is that individuals with high levels of narcissism tend to have high unstable levels of self-esteem and are therefore more inclined to react to threats made on their sense of self (Twenge & Campbell,
2003).
As individuals with higher levels of narcissism believe they are superior, there are more possible threats to their self-esteem in comparison to people with lower levels of narcissism (Baumeister et al., 1996). For example, research has shown that individuals that have unstable levels of high self-esteem persistently feel that their self-worth is endangered (Kernis et al., 1993). Research has also shown that individuals with an unstable self-esteem tend to undermine from their social group in such a way that they are considered to be most prone to undermining others (Duffy et al., 2006). Furthermore, people with an unstable level of high self-esteem are inclined towards anger and hostility (Kernis et al., 1989).
12 In line with these findings, research has also shown that people with higher levels of narcissism tend to hold other people accountable for their lack of success. In order to support their grandiose sense of self, narcissists are likely to adopt an aggressive strategy in order to gain more respect from others (Burton & Hoobler,
2011; Twenge & Campbell, 2003). Moreover, research shows that narcissists seek ways in which they can dominate others (Carroll, 1987) and that subordinates perceive their supervisor as more abusive when he/she engages in dominant, aggressive and hostile behavior (Aryee et al., 2007; Kiazad et al., 2010; Penney &
Spector, 2002; Tepper, 2000). Based on these arguments, it is proposed in this study that narcissistic leaders are more likely to practice an abusive supervisory leadership style towards their subordinates. This reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision.
This study also expects that the positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision will be moderated by LMX. The argumentation for this moderating effect will start by explaining the LMX concept and by touching upon its key findings.
2.4 Leader-member exchange theory
The leader-member exchange theory (LMX) addresses the social interaction between a subordinate and the leader. The theory assumes that the leader establishes a different relationship with each follower (Liden et al., 1993), and that the qualities of such relationships depend on the attitudes and behaviors of both the subordinate and leader
13 (Van Breukelen, 2006). The leader-member exchange theory is based on three dimensions: mutual trust, respect and obligation. Higher levels of mutual trust, respect and obligation characterize a high LMX, whereas lower levels of mutual trust, respect and obligation characterize a low LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Fairhurst 1993).
A subordinate who engages in a high leader-member exchange is also referred to as a member of the leader’s ‘in-group’, and a member that is part of a low leader- member exchange is referred to as a member of the leader’s ‘out-group’ (Engle &
Lord, 1997; (Liden et al., 1993). To be part of the leader’s in-group or the leader’s out-group have various implications. Research has shown that subordinates who are engaged in a high quality LMX with the leader receive more help and consideration from their leaders. Moreover, leaders also tend to listen more to their in-group members and offer more advice (Goodwin et al., 2008; Lin, 2001). Furthermore, research has shown that a high LMX with important leaders has an impact on the perceived reputational power of the subordinate within the organization (Sparrow &
Liden, 2005). Subordinates in a high quality relationship with their leader report higher levels of contribution and show more commitment to their leaders in comparison with subordinates with a low quality relationship (Sparrowe & Liden,
2005). Next to that, a high quality relationship between a subordinate and a leader is cohesive, as it based on mutual dependence and a substantial exchange of resources.
Furthermore, research shows that subordinates who have a high quality LMX with their leader, score higher on their performance evaluations by their leaders and seem to be more motivated than subordinates who establish a low quality LMX with their leader (Lagace et al., 1993). In addition, subordinates who maintain a high quality relationship with their leader have reported higher levels of job satisfaction and perform better than their colleagues who have a low quality relationship with
14 their leader (Graen et al., 1982; Sparrow & Liden, 2005). Since the quality of an LMX has an impact on various relationships, this study expects that LMX can also influence the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. The argumentation for this moderating effect will be discussed in the next part.
2.5 Leader narcissism, LMX and Abusive supervision
Taken into account the fact that narcissists have an exploitative nature and that they have a grandiose view of themselves (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association,
2000), it is assumed that this will influence the relationship between the subordinate and the leader. According to the research, leaders with high levels of narcissism will face difficulties in maintaining long-term relationships with subordinates (Grijalva &
Harms, 2014). Furthermore, it is assumed that narcissistic leaders are not able to create positive conditions under which a high-quality LMX is possible. This is due to the fact that a narcissistic leader refuses to acknowledge the importance of a high- quality LMX relationship and therefore will avoid establishing this dynamic (Schyns,
2015). Moreover, research has shown that narcissists are likely to adopt aggressive strategies in order to gain more respect from others (Burton & Hoobler, 2011; Twenge
& Campbell, 2003).
However, research has also touched upon a more positive side of the relationship between a narcissistic leader and a subordinate. Narcissistic leaders have also been viewed as charismatic and inspiring leaders (Maccoby, 2000, 2004).
Through a combination of their attractive visions and charisma, narcissistic leaders are capable of attracting devoted followers. These devoted followers fulfill the needs of their narcissistic leaders, such as their demand for admiration and a boost to their confidence (Maccoby, 2000). In this regard, the followers do not pose a threat to the
15 narcissistic leader and, under such conditions, it could be possible to maintain a high- quality LMX between the leader and subordinate.
Research has also shown that leaders are more abusive to subordinates with whom they have a low-quality LMX (Harris et al., 2011). Tepper et al. (2011) found that leaders tend to engage in abusive behavior with subordinates if the leader believes that the subordinate differs from him/her in deeply held values and attitudes.
This is in accordance with the Grijalva & Harms (2014) finding that characteristics, such as deeply held values and attitudes, can influence the quality of the LMX.
Based on the academic arguments that present how a difference of quality in
LMX can influence outcomes, such as being more abusive to subordinates with a low- quality LMX (Harris et al., 2011), it is assumed that LMX moderates the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. The assumption that narcissists are unable to create positive conditions under which a high-quality LMX is possible
(Schyns, 2015) will be retested, as this study assumes that a high-quality LMX can weaken the positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision.
Moreover, the recommendation of Grijalva & Harms (2015) to further research the leader-member exchange that develops between narcissistic leaders and their subordinates will be conducted. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision is moderated by LMX, so that this relationship is weaker for higher levels of LMX.
In addition to a moderating effect, this study also expects that there is a mediating effect of abusive supervision in the relationship between leader narcissism and
16 emotional exhaustion. The argumentation for this mediating effect will start by touching upon the concept of emotional exhaustion and the relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion.
2.6 Abusive Supervision and Emotional Exhaustion
Emotional exhaustion is considered one of the three aspects of burnout, together with depersonalization and diminished personal accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson,
1981; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Emotional exhaustion is considered the main component of burnout, and is therefore studied more extensively compared to the two other aspects (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001). The concept of emotional exhaustion refers to being emotionally overextended and exhausted by one’s work through a manifestation of physical fatigue and a sense of feeling emotionally and psychologically ‘drained’ (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998, p: 486).
The conservation of resources (COR) theory provides an explanation for manifestations that can lead to emotional exhaustion. According to the COR theory, subordinates can become emotionally exhausted when there is an actual loss of resources, a potential threat of resource loss, or during situations in which the individual’s resources cannot meet the demands of work (Hobfoll, 1988; Wright &
Cropanzano, 1998). Examples of such resources include level of autonomy, emotional resources and job enhancement opportunities. The demands of work refer to role ambiguity, role conflict and the level of workload (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). In a situation where individuals have the feeling they do not have enough emotional resources to meet the demands of work, emotional exhaustion can occur (Hobfoll,
1989; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998).
17 Abusive supervision is assumed to consume a large amount of the emotional resources of the employee, as feelings of mistreatment and abuse by the leader are a great interpersonal stressor (Wu & Hu, 2009). According to previous research, subordinates’ perceptions of mistreatment are associated with higher levels of anxiety, emotional exhaustion and depression (Chi & Liang, 2013; Richman et al., 1992).
Tepper (2000) showed that when subordinates report higher levels of abusive supervision, they also report higher levels of anxiety and distress. Furthermore, it has been shown that subordinates experience feelings of helplessness and frustration once they have been exposed to an abusive supervisor (Ashforth, 1997). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion.
In addition to a positive relationship between abusive supervision and emotion exhaustion, this study expects that abusive supervision will mediate the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. The following part will briefly summarize the core arguments that lead to that hypothesis.
2.7 Leader Narcissism, Abusive Supervision and Emotional Exhaustion
Research shows that narcissists are considered to be more aggressive and hostile in comparison with individuals with lower levels of narcissism, (Penney & Spector,
2002), and that narcissists are likely to engage in aggressive strategies in order to gain more respect from others to justify their grandiose sense of self (Burton & Hoobler,
2011; Twenge & Campbell, 2003). Subordinates that are subject to such abusive
18 strategies and behaviors in their relationship with their supervisor report higher levels of anxiety and distress (Tepper, 2000; Wu & Hu, 2009). Moreover, subordinates’ perceptions of such forms of mistreatment are associated with emotional exhaustion and depression (Chi & Liang, 2013; Richman et al., 1992). These findings imply an association between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion.
As narcissists have an exploitative nature and are inclined to engage in aggressive and hostile behaviors, which can result in higher levels of perceived anxiety and distress, this study assumes that there is a possible mediating effect in the relationship between narcissistic leadership and emotional exhaustion. It is expected that narcissistic leaders are more likely to engage in abusive supervisory behaviors, which in turn explains the perceived emotional exhaustion among the subordinates of narcissistic leaders. Therefore, it is assumed that abusive supervision will mediate the relationship between narcissistic leadership and emotional exhaustion. This study aims to understand the mediating role of abusive supervision in the relationship between narcissistic leadership and emotional exhaustion, and thus the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion is mediated by abusive supervision.
19 2.8 Research model
In the literature review, four hypotheses have been presented. The first hypothesis assumes a direct and positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. The second hypothesis predicts a direct and positive relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion. The third hypothesis predicts a negative moderating effect of LMX in the positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. Finally, the fourth and main hypothesis expects a mediating effect of abusive supervision in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. Based on these hypotheses, the following figure is presented (figure 1):
20 3. Data and method
This section addresses the empirical part of this study. The process of data collection is discussed followed by the measurement of variables. Finally, the statistical procedure is explained and remarks are provided.
3.1 Sample
Together with four other students from the University of Amsterdam, the data was collected for this cross-sectional study. Data was collected in a dyadic form in order to comprehend the relationship between a leader and his/her subordinate and combine views from both sides. The participants of this study are predominantly active in the
Dutch workforce. However, it should be noted that one student is from German descent, and therefore some individuals who are working in Germany have also been included in this study. The participants were selected from our own network of contacts and, therefore, this study is based on a convenience sampling method.
Reasons for this method include the limited time during the data collection period and its cost-effectiveness. The data collection process was initiated at the beginning of
March and continued until the end of April.
As we made use of a dyadic data collection form, both the subordinate and the leader were required to complete the online or paper questionnaire. If they failed to do so, a dyadic pair could not be created and not submitted into the dataset. Therefore, the whole dyadic pair was not included. For this study, 450 people were invited to participate in this research. From the 450 invited people, a total of 258 people filled in the questionnaire, which leads to a response rate of 57.3%. However, some leaders or subordinates did not fill in the questionnaire, which resulted in an incomplete dyad.
After removing these incomplete dyads, a total of 123 dyads remained. From those
21 123 dyads, 49.6% used the online version, and 50.4% used the paper-and-pencil version.
As far as the demographics of these leaders and subordinates, from the 123 leaders who completed the questionnaire, 52.1% was male and 47.9% was female.
This is different from the 123 subordinates that filled in the survey; 40.3% reported to be male and 59.7% reported to be female. The ages of the leader participants (18-24 =
13.2%, 25-34 = 35.5%, 35-44 = 21.5%, 45-54 = 22.3%, 55-64 = 7.4%) and the subordinates (18-24 = 39%, 25-34 = 42.3%, 35-44 = 10.6%, 45-54 = 4.1%, 55-64 =
4.1%) were collected in the form of age boxes. A majority of both the subordinates
(HBO = 33.9%, WO = 18.6%) and leaders (HBO = 44.1%, WO = 13.6%) attended a form of higher education. Moreover, 22.9% of the leaders and 31.4% of the subordinates attended intermediate vocational education. Only 5.1% of the leaders and 7.6% of the subordinates reported high school as their highest level of education.
Contact between the leader and subordinate was also measured. It was most frequently reported on a daily basis (Daily = 61.2%), followed by contact on a weekly basis (Weekly = 38%) and on a monthly basis (Monthly = .8%). Furthermore, it can be noted that job tenure varied greatly between the subordinates (Mtenure = 8.5, SDtenure
= 6.3) and the leaders (Mtenure = 4.4, SDtenure = 4.8).
22 3.2 Measurement of Variables
Translation Procedure
All included items in this study were derived from English studies. As this research was predominantly conducted in the Netherlands, these items had to be translated into
Dutch in order to obtain a sufficient response rate. Because there are also non-Dutch workers in the Netherlands, a Dutch and an English version were produced. Two professors from the University of Amsterdam checked both questionnaires to ensure that both measured equally.
Leader Narcissism
The degree of narcissism in leaders was measured with the Narcissistic Rivalry and
Admiration Questionnaire (NARQ; Back et al., 2013). The questionnaire consists of
18 items that were scaled on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Examples are: ‘I deserve to be seen as a great personality’ and
‘Being a very special person gives me a lot of strength’. The Cronbach’s α of this scale is .89.
Abusive Supervision
Abusive supervision as a mediator in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion is the focus of this study, and was measured in subordinates with the scale of Tepper (2000). This scale reported a Cronbach’s α of .93 and consisted of 5 items. A 7-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree) was used. An example of an item is: ‘My supervisor tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid’.
23 Emotional Exhaustion
The degree of emotional exhaustion in the subordinates was measured with the emotional exhaustion dimension of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach &
Jackson, 1986). This scale reported a Cronbach’s α of .90. The scale consisted of 5 items that could be rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Examples of this scale’s items are: ‘I feel burned out from my work’ and ‘I feel tired when I wake up in the morning and know that I have to face a new work day’.
Leader-Member Exchange
In order to measure LMX, the scale of Liden et al. (1993) was used. This scale consists of 11 items. A 7-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree) was used. The Cronbach’s α of this scale is .91. An example of an item from this scale is: ‘My supervisor understands my problems and needs’.
Demographic Variables
The control variables for the leaders were age, gender, level of education, tenure, years of being a leader of the subordinate and the frequency of contact between leader and subordinate. Age, gender, level of education, tenure were also control variables for the subordinate. An additional control variable for the subordinates was the industry in which they are working.
24 3.3 Statistical Procedure
In order to test the hypotheses of this study, the raw data was analyzed. First of all, it should be mentioned that no items had to be recoded in this study. Secondly, the missing values should be addressed. This study used a pairwise deletion of missing values, as the total number of dyads would have greatly decreased in case of a listwise deletion of missing values. After running a frequencies table, the data showed that one respondent had a missing value in the LMX scale. In addition to that, three respondents had one missing value in the NARQ scale, and one respondent did not fill in the complete emotional exhaustion scale. As it is expected that these missing values will not have a significant influence on the average, these respondents’ data was still used. Following that, the reliability was computed for all the scales by using
Cronbach’s α. All the scales were tested as reliable and, therefore, the scale means were computed together with the standard deviations. Finally, a correlation matrix was created in order to view the data before testing the hypotheses.
Furthermore, this data was checked for normality and multicollinearity. Based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnow (KS) test, kurtosis and skewness, normality of all scales cannot be assumed. Only the NARQ-scale has a bell-shape form in the histogram. The relatively small sample size of this study can be an explanation for the non-normal distribution of the scales. Furthermore, the data was checked for multicollinearity.
The output shows that the variables report a VIF lower than 10, and a tolerance that is greater than 0.1. Therefore, there is no exact linear relationship between any of the independent variables.
25 4. Results
In this section, a correlation matrix is presented and its findings are discussed.
Subsequently, the direct effects between leader narcissism and abusive supervision and between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion are given. Following that, the moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision is discussed. Finally, the mediating effect of abusive supervision on the relationship between narcissistic leadership and emotional exhaustion is considered.
4.1 Data Analysis
In table 1, the means, standard deviations and correlations of the included variables in this study are displayed. In addition, the table also displays the Cronbach’s alphas between parentheses. It can be noted that Narcissism, Abusive Supervision,
Emotional Exhaustion and LMX have a Cronbach’s alpha >.80, which indicates a good internal consistency. Furthermore, contact is included as a covariant in this study. It is assumed that frequency of contact has an influence on LMX (Antonakis &
Atwater, 2002), and therefore an influence on the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision that is moderated by LMX.
An initial observation from table 1 is that Narcissism correlates positively and significantly with Emotional Exhaustion (r = .18, p < .05). LMX correlates negatively and significantly with Narcissism, Abusive Supervision and Emotional Exhaustion.
Furthermore, Abusive Supervision correlates positively and significantly with
Narcissism and Emotional Exhaustion, of which the correlation between Abusive
Supervision and Narcissism is slightly stronger (r = .40, p < .01) in comparison with
26 Abusive Supervision and Emotional exhaustion (r = .36, p < .01). The table also
shows that contact does not correlate significantly with any of the variables.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Contact 1.40 .51
2. Narcissism 3.46 .83 -.030 (.89)
3. Abusive Supervision 1.90 1.05 -.11 .40** (.93)
4. Emotional Exhaustion 3.19 1.27 -.14 .18* .36** (.90)
5. LMX 5.55 .87 .070 -.22* -.38** -.40** (.919)
* p < .05 level (2-tailed).
** p < .01 level (2-tailed).
4.2 Hypothesis testing
In order to test this study’s hypotheses, the Process macro program made by Preacher
and Hayes (2014) was used. In this statistics program it is possible to compute the
direct effects, mediation effects and moderating effects.
Hypothesis 1 predicts that there is a positive relationship between narcissism and
abusive supervision. The results support this hypothesis as indeed they show a
significant positive relationship between narcissistic leadership and abusive
supervision (β = .47, p = < .01) (see table 2).
Hypothesis 2 concerns the moderating effect of LMX. Hypothesis 2 predicts
that the positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision is
moderated by LMX, so that this relationship is weaker for higher levels of LMX. This
moderation effect was tested with Process macro, a statistics program with which it is
27 compatible. Before conducting this test, the predictors were mean-centered. The results of this moderation test show that there is no moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion (β = -.16, p = > .05).
This means that LMX does not moderate the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. Hypothesis 2 is therefore rejected.
Table 2
Regression results of abusive supervision as a mediator of the relationship between narcissism and emotional exhaustion
Consequent
M (ABU) Y (EXH)
Antecedent Beta SE p Beta SE p
X (NARQ) a .474 .109 <. 01** c’ .087 .144 .548
Cov (CON) -.190 .174 .276 -.254 .215 .239
M (ABU) - - - b .420 .114 < .01**
Constant i1 .523 .458 .255 i2 2.441 .565 < .01**
R2 = .148 R2 = .371
F(2,117) = 10.156, p < .01 F(3,116) = 6.934, p < .01
Note: N = 120.
* p < .05 level (2-tailed).
** p < .01 level (2-tailed).
Hypothesis 3 predicts that there is a positive relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion. The results that were derived from the Process macro test show that there is indeed a positive and significant relationship between abusive
28 supervision and emotional exhaustion (β = .42, p = < .01). Based on these results, there is support for hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4 predicts that the positive relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion is mediated by abusive supervision. In order to test this hypothesis, the Process program was used. The results indicate that there is a significant indirect effect (.20) of leader narcissism on emotional exhaustion through abusive supervision. A 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that is entirely above zero (0.0765 to 0.3712) indicates that this indirect effect is statistically different from zero. Consequently, the results support hypothesis 4.
Furthermore, it is interesting to consider the mediator’s effect size and the explanation of whether this mediation effect partially or fully mediates the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. The data that was derived from Process have computed the mediation effect size at 69.66%, which can be interpreted as a large effect. In addition, the data also show that the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion is fully mediated by abusive supervision.
The argumentation for a full mediation is based, firstly, on the fact that the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion reported a direct effect that is insignificant (c’ = .0867, BCa95 = [-.199, .372]. However, the data shows that the total effect of leader narcissism on emotional exhaustion is significant, as this effect is statistically different from zero (c = 0.29, BCa95 = [.007, .564]. Because a significant total effect was observed, and this effect disappeared with the inclusion of the abusive supervision mediator, it can be concluded that the effect of leader narcissism on emotional exhaustion is completely mediated by abusive supervision.
29 5. Discussion
In this section, the most important findings are discussed together with the theoretical and practical implication of this study. In addition, the limitations and recommendations for future research are provided.
5.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications
Research that investigates narcissism and its relationship with leadership has expanded rapidly recently. Grijalva et al. (2015) noted that there is still no consensus about the relationship between narcissism and leadership. Therefore there is still much research needed in this field. This study attempts to contribute to the extension of knowledge of this topic by examining the mediating role of abusive supervision in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. Leaders can have an impact on the emotional resources of employees in specific ways, for example by exposing subordinates to abusive supervisory behaviors (Wu & Hu, 2009). Despite that, studies have not yet investigated the mediating role of abusive supervision in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion or taken LMX into account in the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision.
This study predicted that the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision would be positive. The results show that his relationship is indeed significant and strong. This implies that the more narcissistic a leader is, the more a subordinate perceives his or her leader as an abusive supervisor. Research by
(Baumeister et al. (2000) has already shown that people with higher levels of narcissism tend to be more aggressive and hostile. That finding correspondents with this study’s findings, as leaders with higher levels of narcissism are perceived by subordinates as more abusive.
30 The current study also predicted that the relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion would be positive. The results show support for this hypothesis, as the relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion is significant. This result demonstrates that when a subordinate perceives that he or she is exposed to an abusive supervisor, the subordinate also reported a higher degree of emotional exhaustion. This is in line with previous research; Tepper
(2000) reported that higher perceptions of abusive supervision by subordinates are associated with higher levels of anxiety and distress. Therefore, this finding strengthens other studies that have drawn the same conclusions concerning the relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion.
The primary aim of this study was to examine the mediating role of abusive supervision in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion.
Based on the results, it can be concluded that abusive supervision fully mediates the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. This implies that leaders with high levels of narcissism are perceived as more abusive among subordinates. Higher perceptions of abuse among the subordinates are in turn associated with a higher degree of experienced emotional exhaustion among the subordinates.
Furthermore, this study also examined the potential moderating role of LMX in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. It was expected that LMX would moderate the positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision in such a way that higher levels of LMX would weaken the positive relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion.
Based on the results, it can be concluded that LMX did not moderate the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. A possible explanation for this
31 could be that the narcissistic leaders do not acknowledge the importance of a high- quality LMX and therefore avoid actively seeking high quality LMX (Schyns, 2015).
This study has expanded knowledge of the narcissistic leadership field by, firstly, finding a positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision and, secondly, by providing further evidence for a positive relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion. The main contribution to the leadership field is by finding a mediating effect of abusive supervision in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. A reason for this can be that narcissistic leaders are more aggressive by nature and are, therefore, more likely to engage in abusive supervisory behaviors that subsequently affect the degree of emotional exhaustion among the subordinates.
In practice, this has important implications for both employees and the organization as a whole. As it is a fact that narcissists are emerging leaders (Maccoby,
2000), it is important to understand what possible consequences this has for employees. This research has shown that narcissists are more likely to engage in a more abusive relationship with their subordinate. Due to these abusive behaviors, the subordinate experiences a higher degree of emotional exhaustion. This can have important implications for the employee and the company. The employee is likely to report lower levels of job satisfaction, motivation and is at a higher risk of becoming ill. Furthermore, emotionally exhausted employees are less productive during working hours, which has consequences for the company’s revenues. In short, narcissistic leaders can have an impact, not only on their subordinates’ wellbeing, but on the entire organization as well.
As this study enhances the understanding of the negative effects that narcissistic leaders can have on their employees, organizations can anticipate such
32 effects by implementing certain policies. Organizations could put an emphasis on personality tests that determine the degree of narcissism in candidates who apply for a leadership position in the company. By doing so, individuals that score high on narcissism could be removed from the application process. In order to make narcissistic leaders within an organization more aware of the detrimental effects they have on their subordinates, organizations could offer training courses that discuss abusive supervisory behaviors and demonstrate the implications of such behaviors.
Moreover, such courses could emphasize other leadership styles and their positive implications in such a way that leaders reject their abusive supervisory style. Finally, organizations can hire counselors who can guide subordinates that suffer from the effects of a narcissistic leader. During such confidential meetings the subordinate can express his/her thoughts and feelings with the counselor in order to reduce the experienced emotional exhaustion. In addition, the counselor can take action when he/she believes that a leader is behaving in an unethical and mentally abusive way to the subordinate.
33 5.2 Limitations and Future Research
This research is subject to some limitations. First of all, it should be noted that this research was conducted in a dyadic manner. This means that both the employee and subordinate were requested to complete a questionnaire. Since our data is retrieved through questionnaires that required self-report, this study is prone to a social desirability bias. Research shows that a social desirability bias is especially the case when socially sensitive questions are being asked (King & Brunner, 2000). Since this study contained questions about narcissism, abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion, which are considered to be socially sensitive topics, it could be the case that respondents answered such question in a socially desirable way. By doing so, the respondent conforms to socially acceptable values in order to avoid criticism (Van de
Mortel, 2008). Consequently, the validity of the questionnaire could be affected
(Huang et al., 1998). Since this study did not use a validated scale that can detect social desirability, such as the Marlowe‐Crowne Social Desirability Scale, future research could include such a scale in order to ensure validity of the questionnaire
(Van de Mortel, 2008).
Secondly, another limitation is the cross-sectional design of this study. This means that variables were only measured at one point in time. Because of that, it is impossible to infer causality. Therefore, a recommendation for future research is to undertake longitudinal research to establish causality.
Thirdly, the data of this study was collected on the basis of convenience sampling. Convenience sampling holds quite some limitations, such as the potential for biased results and misrepresentation of the data. Further research could conduct research that is based on probability sampling and therefore produce results that can be generalized back to the population.
34 The final limitation addresses the sample size of this research. Due to time restrictions, a greater sample size could not be obtained. This has some consequences for this study. Although some significant direct effects were found, future research could include more dyads in order to have more statistical power to test for interaction effects.
This research can be seen as a stepping-stone for future research. As the mediating role of abusive supervision in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion has become apparent, future research can seek other mediators apart from abusive supervision. Furthermore, it was shown that LMX did not moderate the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision.
Future research could investigate if there are other moderators that influence the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. As stated before, future research could conduct a longitudinal study with a similar research model and increase its sample size with the use of probability sampling.
35 6. Conclusion
Different forms of leadership styles have different outcomes. Narcissists often emerge as leaders. In recent years, studies have begun to investigate the effects that narcissistic leaders have on their subordinates. In order to contribute to the leadership field, this study examined the mediating role of abusive supervision regarding the positive relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion.
Furthermore, LMX was expected to have a negative effect on the positive relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion.
Results of this study show that there is a positive relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. Moreover, another positive direct was found between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, the results provide evidence for a full mediating effect of abusive supervision in the positive relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion. However, results do not support a finding of a moderating effect of LMX in the relationship between leader narcissism and abusive supervision.
Finally, this study contributes to the academic field by providing evidence for the mediating role of abusive supervision in the relationship between leader narcissism and emotional exhaustion, and by providing theoretical and practical implications that are derived from this study’s results. These implications address the negative consequences that narcissistic leaders have on their subordinates’ mental health. In addition, this study also provides recommendations for organizations to diminish the negative consequences that narcissistic leaders have on their subordinates’ mental health.
36 References:
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th edn.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed
theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 673–704.
Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of
antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 14(2), 126–140.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and
outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L. & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism
to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological
Review, 103, 5–33.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Narcissism as addiction to esteem.
Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 206–210.
Baumeister, R. F, Bushman, B. J. & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Self- esteem,
narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from
threatened egotism? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 26–29.
Van Breukelen, W., Schyns, B., & Le Blanc, P. (2006). Leader-member exchange
theory and research: Accomplishments and future challenges. Leadership,
2(3), 295–316.
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.
37 Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteem and abusive
supervision. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(3), 340–355.
Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision:
The role of interactional justice and narcissism. Scandinavian journal of
psychology, 52(4), 389–398.
Campbell, W. K., Bush, C. P., Brunell, A. B., & Shelton, J. (2005). Understanding the
social costs of narcissism: The case of the tragedy of the commons.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1358–1368.
Campbell, W.K., Goodie, A.S., & Foster, J.D. (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and
risk attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 297–311.
Campbell, W.K., Hoffman, B.J., Campbell, S.M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism
in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 268–
284.
Carroll, L. (1987). A study of narcissism, affiliation, intimacy, and power motives
among students in business administration. Psychological Reports, 61, 355–
358.
Chi, S. C. S., & Liang, S. G. (2013). When do subordinates' emotion-regulation
strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates' emotional exhaustion,
and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 125–137.
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.
Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., Scott, K. L. & Tepper, B. J. (2006). The moderating roles
of self-esteem and neuroticism in the relationship between group and
individual undermining behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1066–1
38 077.
Ellis, H. (1898). Auto-eroticism: A psychological study. Alienist and Neurologist, 19,
260−299.
Emmons, R.A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291–300.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). The leader‐member exchange patterns of women leaders in
industry: A discourse analysis. Communications Monographs, 60(4), 321–351.
Freud, S. (1931/1950). Libidinal types. Collected papers, Vol. 5. London: Hogarth
Press.
Goodwin, V. L., Bowler, W. M., & Whittington, J. L. (2008). A social network
perspective on LMX relationships: Accounting for the instrumental value of
leader and follower networks. Journal of Management, 35(4), 954–980.
Goncalo J. A., Flynn F. J., Kim S. H. (2010). Are two narcissists better than one? The
link between narcissism, perceived creativity, and creative performance.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1484–1495.
Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member
exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual
attachment model. Organizational behavior and human performance, 30(1),
109–131.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The leadership
quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Grijalva, E., & Harms, P. D. (2014). Narcissism: An integrative synthesis and
dominance complementarity model. The Academy of Management
39 Perspectives, 28(2), 108–127.
Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). Abusive supervisory reactions to
coworker relationship conflict. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 1010–1023.
Huang, C. Y., Liao, H. Y., & Chang, S. H. (1998). Social desirability and the clinical
self-report inventory: Methodological reconsideration. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 54(4), 517–528.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1988). The ecology of stress. New York: Hemisphere.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing
stress. American Psychologist, 44, 13–524.
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, 765–780.
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly:
relationship of the narcissistic personality to self-and other perceptions of
workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762–776.
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.
Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C. R., Berry, A. & Harlow, T. (1993). There’s
more to self-esteem than whether it is high or low: The importance of stability
of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1190–1204.
Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010).
In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship
between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of
40 abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 512–
519.
King, M. F., & Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of
validity testing. Psychology and Marketing, 17(2), 79–103.
Lagace, R. R., Castleberry, S. B., & Ridnour, R. E. (1993). An exploratory salesforce
study of the relationship between leader-member exchange and motivation,
role stress, and manager evaluation. Journal of Applied Business Research,
9(4), 110–119.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early
development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of applied psychology,
78(4),662–674.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic leaders. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 68–78.
Maccoby, M. (2004). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons.
Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 92–101.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout.
Journal of organizational behavior, 2(2), 99–113.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of
psychology, 52(1), 397–422.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A
dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological inquiry, 12(4), 177–
196.
Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A. H., Van Vianen, A. E., Beersma, B., & McIlwain, D.
(2011). All I need is a stage to shine: Narcissists' leader emergence and
41 performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 910–925.
Nevicka B, Ten Velden FS, De Hoogh AHB, Van Vianen AEM. (2011). Reality at
odds with per- ceptions: Narcissistic leaders and group performance.
Psychological Science, 22, 1259–1264.
Paunonen, S.V., Lonnqvist, J.E., Verkasalo, M., Leikas, S., & Nissinen, V. (2006).
Narcissism and emergent leadership in military cadets. Leadership Quarterly,
17, 475–486.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work
behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems?. International Journal of
selection and Assessment, 10(1‐2), 126–134.
Raskin, R., & Hall, C.S. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Alternate
form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 45, 159–162.
Richman, J. A., Flaherty, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., & Christensen, M. L. (1992).
Mental health consequences and correlates of reported medical student abuse.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 267(5), 692–694.
Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(6), 617–633.
Schat, A. C. H., Desmarais, S., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Exposure to workplace
aggression from multiple sources: Validation of a measure and test of a model.
Unpublished manuscript, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, 331–351.
Schyns, B. (2015). Leader and follower personality and LMX. In T. N. Bauer & B.
Erdogan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of leader–member exchange. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
.
42 Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader
emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 147–160.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-
member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 50(4), 505–535.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of management
journal, 43(2), 178–190.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the
relationships between coworkers' organizational citizenship behavior and
fellow employees' attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 455–465.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis,
and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.
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, 261–272.
Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report
research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, The, 25(4), 40–48.
Wallace H. M., Baumeister R. F. (2002). The performance of a narcissist rises and
falls with perceived opportunities for glory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 819–834.
Wheeler, A. R., Halbesleben, J. R., & Whitman, M. V. (2013). The interactive effects
of abusive supervision and entitlement on emotional exhaustion and co‐worker
abuse. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 477–
496.
43 Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job
performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of applied psychology, 83(3),
486–493.
Wu, T. Y., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion
dispositional antecedents and boundaries. Group & Organization
Management, 34(2), 143–169.
44 Appendix 1: Questionnaire Leader
Welcome!
This study is being conducted by five graduate students and their research committee from the Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior at the Amsterdam Business School. The study deals with various areas of HRM, e.g. leadership, organizational culture, organizational citizenship behavior, communication. The final results will be used for five Master theses and potentially an academic paper written by the coordinating professors.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. Your responses are a vital part of our research and the data collected will be treated confidentially. Only group results will be presented, not individual responses. Therefore we would like to ask you to answer the questions honestly.
The survey should only take about 15 minutes of your time.
If you have any questions about this survey or would like further information, please contact us at [email protected].
HRM Research Team
Amsterdam Business School
45 In this study supervisor and subordinate are linked to each other. It is therefore important that you, together with one of your direct subordinates, both fill in the number provided to you, which serves as a unique code. The code you apply is solely used to link your questionnaire to the questionnaire of your supervisor. These answers to these questionnaires will be treated strictly confidential and anonymous and are intended solely for research purposes. Only the research team will see the answers, and cannot link them to one individual participant.
Please fill in you unique code below:
46 To what extent do you agree with the following statement? Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on m m m m m m m an equal plane with others. (1) I feel that I have a number m m m m m m m of good qualities.. (2) All in all, I am inclined to feel m m m m m m m that I am a failure. (3) I am able to do things as well as m m m m m m m most other people. (4) I feel I do not have much to m m m m m m m be proud of. (5) I take a positive m m m m m m m attitude toward
47 myself. (6) On the whole, I am satisfied m m m m m m m with myself. (7) I wish I could have more m m m m m m m respect for myself. (8) I certainly feel m m m m m m m useless at times. (9) At times I think I am no m m m m m m m good at all. (10)
48 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) I am great. (1) m m m m m m m I will someday be m m m m m m m famous. (2) I deserve to be seen as a great m m m m m m m personality. (3) I show others how special I m m m m m m m am. (4) I enjoy my successes m m m m m m m very much. (5) Being a very special person gives me a lot m m m m m m m of strength. (6) Most of the time I am able to draw people’s m m m m m m m attention to myself in conversations. (7) I manage to be the center of attention with my m m m m m m m outstanding contributions. (8) Mostly, I am very adept at dealing with m m m m m m m other people. (9)
49 Most people won’t achieve m m m m m m m anything. (10) Other people are worth m m m m m m m nothing. (11) Most people are somehow m m m m m m m losers. (12) I secretly take pleasure in the failure of m m m m m m m my rivals. (13) I want my rivals to fail. m m m m m m m (14) I enjoy it when another person is m m m m m m m inferior to me. (15) I react annoyed if another m m m m m m m person steals the show from me. (16) I often get annoyed when I am m m m m m m m criticized. (17) I can barely stand it if another m m m m m m m person is at the center of events. (18)
50 Now we would like to ask you some questions regarding your employee. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements. ‘He/She..’ Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) Adequately completes m m m m m m m assigned duties. (1) Fulfills responsibilities specified in m m m m m m m job description. (2) Performs tasks that are m m m m m m m expected of him/her. (3) Meets formal performance m m m m m m m requirements of the job. (4) Engages in activities that will directly m m m m m m m affect his/her performance. (5) Neglects aspects of the job he/she is m m m m m m m obligated to perform. (6) Fails to perform m m m m m m m essential duties. (7)
51 The following questions are also about the behaviour of your employee. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements. ‘He/She..’ Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) Develops and makes recommendations m m m m m m m concerning issues that affect this work group. (1) Speaks up and encourages others in this group to get m m m m m m m involved in issues that affect the group. (2) Communicates his/her opinions about work issues to others in this group even if his/her m m m m m m m opinion is different and others in the group disagree with him/her (3) Keeps well informed about issues where his/her opinion m m m m m m m might be useful to this work group. (4) Gets involved in issues that affect the quality of m m m m m m m work life here in this group. (5) Speaks up in this group with ideas for new projects m m m m m m m or changes in procedures. (6)
52
53 The following questions are also about the behaviour of your employee. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements. ‘He/She..’ Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly Agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) Helps orient new agents even though it m m m m m m m is not required (1) Is always ready to help or to lend a helping m m m m m m m hand to those around him/her (2) Willingly gives of his/her time m m m m m m m to help others (3) Respects other people’s rights to common/shared resources m m m m m m m (including clerical help, materials, etc.) (4) Considers the impact of m m m m m m m his/her actions on others (5) “Touches base” with others before initiating m m m m m m m actions that might affect them (6) Tries to avoid creating problems for m m m m m m m the other agents (7)
54
Lastly, a few general questions. Please make sure to click 'next' (the red arrows) in order to make sure you hand in the survey.
What is your age? m Under 18 (1) m 18 - 24 (2) m 25 - 34 (3) m 35 - 44 (4) m 45 - 54 (5) m 55 - 64 (6) m 65 - 74 (7) m 75 - 84 (8) m 85 or older (9)
What is you gender? m Male (1) m Female (2)
What is your highest education? m Less than high school (1) m High school graduate (2) m Some college (3) m 2 year degree (4) m 4 year degree (5) m Professional degree (6) m Doctorate (7)
How many years have you worked for this company?
How many years have you been supervisor of your employee?
How often do you have personal contact with you employee? m Daily (1) m Weekly (2) m Monthly (3)
Appendix 2: Questionnaire Follower
55 Welcome!
This study is being conducted by five graduate students and their research committee from the department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior at the Amsterdam Business School. The study deals with various areas of HRM, e.g. leadership, organizational culture, organizational citizenship behavior, communication. The final results will be used for five Master theses and potentially an academic paper written by the coordinating professors.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. Your responses are a vital part of our research and the data collected will be treated confidentially. Only group results will be presented, not individual responses. Therefore we would like to ask you to answer the questions honestly.
The survey should only take about 15 minutes of your time.
If you have any questions about this survey or would like further information, please contact us at [email protected].
HRM Research Team
Amsterdam Business School
In this study supervisor and subordinate are linked to each other. It is therefore important that you, together with your supervisor, both fill in the number provided,
56 which serves as a unique code. The code you apply is solely used to link your questionnaire to the questionnaire of your supervisor. These answers to these questionnaires will be treated strictly confidential and anonymous and are intended solely for research purposes. Only the research team will see the answers, but cannot link them to one individual participant.
Please fill in the unique code below:
57 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) I like my supervisor very much m m m m m m m as a person. (1) My supervisor is the kind of person m m m m m m m one would like to have as a friend. (2) My supervisor is a lot of m m m m m m m fun to work with. (3) My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even m m m m m m m without complete knowledge of the issue in question. (4) My supervisor would come to my defense if I m m m m m m m were “attacked by others. (5) My m m m m m m m supervisor
58 would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake. (6) I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond m m m m m m m what is specified in my job description. (7) I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally m m m m m m m required, to further the interests of my workgroup. (8) I am impressed with my supervisor's m m m m m m m knowledge of his her job. (9) I respect my supervisor's knowledge of and m m m m m m m competence on the job. (10) I admire my supervisor's m m m m m m m professional
59 skills. (11)
To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) The overall functioning of my supervisor m m m m m m m is satisfactory. (1) My supervisor has m m m m m m m leadership qualities. (2) My supervisor is an m m m m m m m effective leader. (3)
60 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) If I shared my problems with my supervisor, I know (s)he m m m m m m m would respond constructively and caringly. (1) My supervisor and I have a sharing relationship. m m m m m m m We can both freely share our ideas, feelings, and hopes. (2) I can talk freely to my supervisor about difficulties I m m m m m m m am having at work and know that (s)he will want to listen. (3) My supervisor approaches his/her job with m m m m m m m professionalism and dedication. (4) Given my supervisors track record, I see no reason m m m m m m m to doubt his/her competence and preparation for the job. (5) I can rely on m m m m m m m my supervisor
61 not to make my job more difficult by careless work. (6) Most people, even those who aren't close friends of m m m m m m m him/her, trust and respect him/her as a supervisor. (7)
62 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) I wish my supervisor would practice what he m m m m m m m or she preaches more often (1) My supervisor tells us to follow the rules but doesn’t m m m m m m m follow them himself or herself (2) My supervisor asks me to do things he or she m m m m m m m wouldn’t do himself or herself (3) My supervisor can get away with m m m m m m m doing things I can’t (4)
63 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? ‘My supervisor..’ Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) Engages in manipulative behavior m m m m m m m towards employees (1) Often reacts in a self- m m m m m m m centered way (2) Tries to influence others in m m m m m m m subtle ways (3) Often has a hidden agenda and tries to make m m m m m m m others do his/her bidding (4) Defines success not just by results but m m m m m m m also the way that they are obtained (5)
64 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? ‘My supervisor..’ Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) Believes that he/she is better m m m m m m m than others. (1) Believes that he/she is m m m m m m m always right. (2) Feels that others are m m m m m m m beneath him/her. (3)
65 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? ‘My supervisor..’ Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) Sometimes gets the feeling that he/she is m m m m m m m entitled to more things than others. (1) Demands only the best since he/she considers m m m m m m m himself worthy of it. (2) Finds that he/she necessarily m m m m m m m deserves a special treatment. (3) Thinks that he/she is entitled to m m m m m m m more things in life. (4) Finds that people like himself/herself deserve to be m m m m m m m indulged every once in a while. (5)
66 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) My supervisor does not mind to benefit at m m m m m m m someone else’s expense. (1) My supervisor is perfectly willing to m m m m m m m profit at the expense of others. (2) My supervisor is less interested in fairness m m m m m m m than getting what he/she wants. (3) My supervisor shares the opinion that m m m m m m m vulnerable people are fair game. (4) My supervisor m m m m m m m shares the opinion
67 that only weak people worry about fairness. (5) It does not bother my supervisor m m m m m m m to use other people. (6)
To what extent do you agree with the following statements? ‘My supervisor..’ Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) Put his/her own goals ahead of m m m m m m m what is best for the team. (1) Puts his/her own m m m m m m m interests first. (2) Cares more about own rewards m m m m m m m than employee well- being. (3)
68
To what extent do you agree with the following statements? ‘My supervisor..’ Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) Ridicules m m m m m m m me (1) Tells me my thoughts or m m m m m m m feelings are stupid (2) Puts me down in m m m m m m m front of others (3) Makes negative comments m m m m m m m about me to others (4) Tells me I am m m m m m m m incompetent (5)
69 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) I am great. (1) m m m m m m m I will someday be m m m m m m m famous. (2) I deserve to be seen as a great m m m m m m m personality. (3) I show others how special I m m m m m m m am. (4) I enjoy my successes m m m m m m m very much. (5) Being a very special person gives me a lot m m m m m m m of strength. (6) Most of the time I am able to draw people’s m m m m m m m attention to myself in conversations. (7) I manage to be the center of attention with my m m m m m m m outstanding contributions. (8) Mostly, I am very adept at dealing with m m m m m m m other people. (9)
70 Most people won’t achieve m m m m m m m anything. (10) Other people are worth m m m m m m m nothing. (11) Most people are somehow m m m m m m m losers. (12) I secretly take pleasure in the failure of m m m m m m m my rivals. (13) I want my rivals to fail. m m m m m m m (14) I enjoy it when another person is m m m m m m m inferior to me. (15) I react annoyed if another m m m m m m m person steals the show from me. (16) I often get annoyed when I am m m m m m m m criticized. (17) I can barely stand it if another m m m m m m m person is at the center of events (18)
71 The following statements are regarding the way you experience your work Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) I feel mentally exhausted m m m m m m m by my work. (1) A working day is a m m m m m m m heavy duty for me. (2) I feel "burned up" by m m m m m m m my work. (3) I think I put too much m m m m m m m effort into my work. (4) At the end of a working m m m m m m m day I feel empty. (5) I feel tired when I get up in the morning and know m m m m m m m I have got another working day ahead of me. (6)
72
To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) My job is extremely m m m m m m m stressful (1) Very few stressful things m m m m m m m happen to me at work (2) I feel a great deal of stress m m m m m m m because of my job (3) I almost never feel m m m m m m m stress at work (4)
73 Please think of a recent episode in which a specific co-worker requested knowledge from you. For example, this co-worker may have asked you a question about something or asked you for a specific information to solve a problem. In this situation, I.. Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) Agreed to help him/her but never really m m m m m m m intended to. (1) Agreed to help him/her but instead gave him/her m m m m m m m information different from what she wanted. (2) Told him/her that I would help him/her out later but m m m m m m m stalled as much as possible. (3) Offered him/her some other information m m m m m m m instead of what he/she really wanted. (4) Said that I did not know, m m m m m m m even though I did (5) Pretended that I did not know the m m m m m m m information (6) Said that I was m m m m m m m not very
74 knowledgeable about the topic. (7) Explained that I would like to tell him/her, m m m m m m m but wasn’t supposed to (8) Explained that the information is confidential and only m m m m m m m available to people on a particular project. (9) Told him/her that my boss would not let anyone share m m m m m m m this knowledge (10) Said that I would not m m m m m m m answer his/her question. (11) Pretended I did not know what s/he was m m m m m m m talking about (12)
75 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) Each worker is encouraged to realize his m m m m m m m or her own unique potential (1) People with good ideas make sure management m m m m m m m know the idea was theirs. (2) Employee’s ability to think for m m m m m m m themselves is valued. (3) Individuals who stand out in a high performing m m m m m m m group are recognized. (4) Employees value independence m m m m m m m in their job. (5) Competition between m m m m m m m employees is accepted. (6)
76 The following questions are regarding the culture at the company you work for. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? ‘The members of this organization..’ Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) Are willing to sabotage others’ efforts if this helps m m m m m m m them to reach their own goals (1) Believe that lying is needed here to stay m m m m m m m ahead of competitors (2) Are solely driven by their m m m m m m m personal interests (3) Cheat on each other constantly to gain m m m m m m m personal advantages (4) Take advantage of others who show m m m m m m m themselves to be vulnerable (5)
77 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Definitely true Probably true Probably false Definitely (1) (2) (3) false (4) There can be little action here until a m m m m supervisor approves a decision (1) A person who wants to make his own decisions m m m m would be quickly discouraged (2) Even small matters have to be referred to m m m m someone higher up for a final answer (3) I have to ask my boss before m m m m I do almost anything (4)
78 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree (2) agree (3) agree disagree (6) disagree (1) nor (5) (7) disagree (4) It is very important to follow the company's m m m m m m m rules and procedures here. (1) Everyone is expected to stick by company m m m m m m m rules and procedures. (2) Successful people in this m m m m m m m company go by the book. (3) (Successful) people in this company m m m m m m m strictly obey the company policies. (4)
79 Lastly, a few general questions. Please make sure to click 'next' (the red arrows) in order to make sure you hand in the survey.
What is your age? m Under 18 (1) m 18 - 24 (2) m 25 - 34 (3) m 35 - 44 (4) m 45 - 54 (5) m 55 - 64 (6) m 65 - 74 (7) m 75 - 84 (8) m 85 or older (9)
What is you gender? m Male (1) m Female (2)
What is your highest finished education? m Less than high school (1) m High school graduate (2) m Some college (3) m 2 year degree (4) m 4 year degree (5) m Professional degree (6) m Doctorate (7)
How many years have you been working for you current employer?
In which branch does the company you work for operate?
80