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

Past empirical studies relating narcissism to leadership have offered mixed results. This study integrates prior research findings via meta-analysis to make four contributions to theory on narcissism and leadership, by (a) distinguishing between leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness, to reveal that narcissism displays a positive relationship with leadership emergence, but no relationship with leadership effectiveness; (b) showing narcissism’s positive effect on leadership emergence can be explained by leader extraversion; (c) demonstrating that whereas observerreported leadership effectiveness ratings (e.g., supervisor-report, subordinate-report, and peer-report) are not related to narcissism, self-reported leadership effectiveness ratings are positively related to narcissism; and (d) illustrating that the nil linear relationship between narcissism and leadership effectiveness masks an underlying curvilinear trend, advancing the idea that there exists an optimal, midrange level of leader narcissism. During the last decade, organizational researchers have become increasingly interested in narcissism, as recently evidenced by several insightful contributions (e.g., Galvin, Waldman, & Balthazard, 2010; Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011; Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006; Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009; Nevicka, Ten Velden, De Hoogh, & Van Vianen, 2011; Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012), digitalcommons.unl.edu 2 G r i j a lva , H a r m s , N e w m a N , G a d d i s & F r a l e y i N P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y 68 (2015) including a meta-analysis of narcissism and work performance (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). Narcissism’s rise in popularity coincides with a larger trend in the field of organizational psychology toward building a more thorough understanding of negative workplace behaviors (e.g., counterproductive work behaviors [CWB], abusive supervision, and incivility; Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Sackett, 2002; Tepper, 2000). Within this context, negative personality traits have a newfound appeal, as they carry the potential to harness validity left untapped by trait paradigms focused on the more positive side of personality (Grijalva & Newman, in press; Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Judge et al., 2006; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Penney & Spector, 2002; Wu & LeBreton, 2011). This paper seeks to integrate and extend existing findings regarding narcissism’s impact on leadership. To be clear, much existing research already focuses on narcissism’s role in leadership (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985; Maccoby, 2000; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006); but this research has not produced consensus concerning whether narcissistic leaders hinder or benefit their organizations. To begin clarifying this issue, we first note that researchers typically define narcissism by listing several diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder-IV (DSM-IV; APA, 2000; e.g., “has a grandiose sense of self-importance”; “requires excessive admiration”; “has a sense of entitlement”; “has a lack of empathy”; “tends to be exploitative, manipulative, and arrogant”; p.717); however, our current focus is on subclinical narcissism. Since the beginning of narcissism’s relatively long history as a psychological construct, there have been those who suggest that narcissism is a key ingredient to leadership success. For example, Freud wrote that, “the leader himself needs love no one else, he may be of a masterful nature, absolutely narcissistic, self-confident, and independent.” (Freud, 1921, p. 123–124, emphasis added). Researchers have also argued that because leadership roles are often held by narcissists, such as chief executive officers and U.S. presidents (Deluga, 1997; Maccoby, 2000; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006), there must be something about narcissism that affords opportunities for leadership. The claim that narcissism is positively associated with leadership has been supported by multiple studies (Davies, 2004; Galvin et al., 2010; Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011; Judge et al., 2006). For example, in a longitudinal study of military school cadets, narcissism positively predicted leadership development and performance (Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011). Further, Judge and colleagues (2006) found that narcissism was positively related to supervisor reports of transformational leadership, even after controlling for the Big Five personality traits—and despite narcissism’s moderate positive relationship with extraversion (Trzesniewski, N a r c i s s i s m a N d l e a d e r s H i p : a r e v i e w o F l i N e a r a N d N o N l i N e a r r e l at i o N s H i p s 3 Donnellan, & Robins, 2008). Finally, narcissism is positively related to charismatic leadership through the visionary boldness component of charisma—or the component representing the tendency to take risks and be inspirational and exciting (Galvin et al., 2010). At the same time, a separate set of studies has found a negative association between narcissism and leadership (Benson & Campbell, 2007; Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008; Khoo & Burch, 2008; Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009; Yocum, 2006). For example, narcissism has been negatively related to charismatic leadership through the socialized vision component of charisma—or the component representing the tendency to act altruistically (Galvin et al., 2010). In other words, narcissists are less likely to selflessly place the needs of others above their own needs. Also, in a group of Major League Baseball CEOs, narcissism was negatively associated with contingent reward leadership (i.e., narcissists were less likely to promote equitable exchange relationships); and as an indirect effect of this association, narcissistic CEO’s firms had higher manager turnover (Resick et al., 2009). Finally, having a narcissistic leader has been associated with reduced group-level information exchange, which can prove detrimental to team performance (Nevicka, Ten Velden, et al., 2011). This finding lends credence to the longheld suspicion that narcissists’ pattern of resisting and devaluing others’ input eventually has negative consequences (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985; Maccoby, 2000; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Despite the growing body of literature focusing on the relationship between narcissism and leadership, no consensus has been reached regarding narcissism’s impact on leadership. There are several possible reasons for this inconsistency of past findings. First, past theorizing on the leadership outcomes of narcissism (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007) has differentiated narcissism’s association with leadership emergence (i.e., “whether (or to what degree) an individual is viewed as a leader by others, who typically have only limited information about that individual’s performance”; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002, p. 767; Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1986) versus narcissism’s association with leadership effectiveness (i.e., “a leader’s performance in influencing and guiding the activities of his or her unit toward achievement of its goals” [Judge et al., 2002, p. 767; see Stogdill, 1950]). Research shows that narcissists generally make a positive first impression, as others preliminarily perceive them to be charming and self-confident; but over time more negative qualities such as arrogance, exploitativeness, and self-centeredness damage narcissists’ relationships (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010; Paulhus, 1998; Robins & Beer, 2001). Second, past inconsistent findings might be attributable to the use of different sources of leadership reports, with self-reports of leadership outcomes likely yielding larger correlations to 4 G r i j a lva , H a r m s , N e w m a N , G a d d i s & F r a l e y i N P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y 68 (2015) narcissism because narcissists tend to inflate their own importance and achievements. In this work, we will assess these and other possible explanations for inconsistent past findings. The current series of studies will attempt to make four main contributions to theory on narcissism and leadership by using meta-analytic methods to: (a) distinguish between leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness to reveal whether these two types of leadership display differing linear relationships with narcissism, (b) examine whether the source of leadership ratings (e.g., self-report, supervisor report, subordinate report, and peer report) substantially impacts the narcissism–leadership relationship, (c) investigate leader extraversion as an explanation for the observed positive association between narcissism and leader emergence, and (d) evaluate whether the relationship between narcissism and leadership effectiveness is curvilinear. This research also has clear practical implications, as the results may determine the type of advice offered to organizations regarding the selection of narcissists into leadership roles. For example, should limited resources be expended to actively avoid hiring narcissistic leaders, or are narcissistic leaders not as ineffective as originally feared?