Reality at odds with perceptions: narcissistic leaders and group performance

Although narcissistic individuals are generally perceived as arrogant and overly dominant, they are particularly skilled at radiating an image of a prototypically effective leader. As a result, they tend to emerge as leaders in group settings. Despite people's positive perceptions of narcissists as leaders, it was previously unknown if and how leaders' narcissism is related to the performance of the people they lead. In this study, we used a hidden-profile paradigm to investigate this question and found evidence for discordance between the positive image of narcissists as leaders and the reality of group performance. We hypothesized and found that although narcissistic leaders are perceived as effective because of their displays of authority, a leader's narcissism actually inhibits information exchange between group members and thereby negatively affects group performance. Our findings thus indicate that perceptions and reality can be at odds and have important practical and theoretical implications.     

Leader emergence: the case of the narcissistic leader

These studies investigate whether individuals with high narcissism scores would be more likely to emerge as leaders during leaderless group discussions. The authors hypothesized that narcissists would emerge as group leaders. In three studies, participants completed personality questionnaires and engaged in four-person leaderless group discussions. Results from all three studies reveal a link between narcissism and leader emergence. Studies 1 and 2 further reveal that the power dimension of narcissism predicted reported leader emergence while controlling for sex, self-esteem, and the Big Five personality traits. Study 3 demonstrates an association between narcissism and expert ratings of leader emergence in a group of executives. The implications of the propensity of narcissists to emerge as leaders are discussed.     

Analyse de la détresse psychologique de leaders narcissiques organisationnels : une étude de cas comparative

The present article is a comparative case study that explores the manifestations of psychological distress of two types of narcissistic organizational leaders. More specifically, the aim of this case study is to check for possible differences between a grandiose narcissistic leader and a vulnerable narcissistic leader in relation to three main variables associated with the manifestation of psychological distress. These variables are: trigger factors, the modulation of negative emotional reactions, the presence of early maladaptive schemas and the use of dysfunctional coping strategies. The results obtained indicate that the manifestation of psychological distress by the grandiose narcissistic leader varies in certain respects from that of the vulnerable narcissistic leader. Indeed, the psychological distress manifested by the grandiose narcissistic leader is mainly characterized by anxiety and cognitive problems. Moreover, his psychological distress appears to be accompanied by a fear of public achievement failure and the partial use of two types of dysfunctional coping strategies – self-aggrandizement with reference to ostentation and self-softening underpinned by social withdrawal. With regard to the psychological distress of the vulnerable narcissistic leader, it is essentially characterized by a profound sense of depression and irritability. Moreover, it is associated with a fear of public interpersonal rejection; the internalization of negative emotions (feelings of guilt, self-criticism and feelings of worthlessness); and the partial use of two types of dysfunctional coping strategies – self-softening underpinned by social withdrawal and self-aggrandizement with reference to ostentation.     

Is employee narcissism always toxic? – The role of narcissistic admiration,rivalry and leaders’ implicit followership theories for employee voice

Organizational researchers are increasingly interested in investigating the influence of narcissism on the workplace. Drawing on self-determination theory and recent research that distinguishes two dimensions of narcissism and their different underlying motivational dynamics, we hypothesized that employee empowerment and, in turn, voice are differentially influenced by the two narcissism facets admiration and rivalry. In particular, we expected that employees’ narcissistic admiration is positively related to voice via empowerment, whereas rivalry is negatively related to voice via empowerment. Moreover, we investigated leaders’ implicit followership theories (IFTs) as moderator of the relationships between narcissistic rivalry and narcissistic admiration with empowerment. We argue that a leader’s positive IFTs buffer the negative effect of narcissistic rivalry and foster the positive effect of narcissistic admiration on empowerment, and in turn voice (i.e., first-stage moderated mediations). We found support for most of our predictions in a multi-wave field study using data from 268 leader–employee dyads. Theoretical and practical implications are explored.     

Leaders and their treatment of subgroups: implications for evaluations of the leader and the superordinate group

This experiment examined members' evaluations of a group leader and the group in contexts where a superordinate group comprised two subgroups and the group leader was aligned with one or other subgroup. The design varied group leader (ingroup, outgroup) and leader behavior (ingroup favoring, outgroup favoring) as well as the broader comparative context (intragroup, intergroup). Across a number of measures, results indicated a consistent Group Leader × Leader Behavior interaction that was independent of comparative context. Although group members were most satisfied with an ingroup leader who favored the ingroup, ingroup leaders were perceived positively irrespective of their behavior. Outgroup leaders who unexpectedly favored the other subgroup were also perceived positively. However, outgroup leaders who favored their own subgroup were perceived as less fair and as more biased than other leaders. They also engendered less identification with the superordinate group and a less unified perception of the group. Results demonstrate the importance of social identity concerns to leadership in nested group contexts and emphasize the fact that perceptions of leader fairness and concern for the common group mediate responses to the superordinate category. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

To Apologize or Justify: Leader Responses to Task and Relational Mistakes

Abstract

Leadership roles are complex, creating an environment where leaders are likely to make mistakes that result in negative outcomes. We shift the conversation in the literature from examining the effectiveness of mistake responses toward exploring why leaders use different mistake recovery methods. We employ an online experimental method to distinguish between task and relationship mistakes for leaders and suggest that different attributions are made for these two types of mistakes (Study 1). We found that task mistakes are viewed by leaders as more specific and less personal, and that relationship mistakes are viewed as more global, describing the leader’s stable characteristics rather than a specific event. From these findings, we predict that leaders are more likely to apologize for task mistakes and are more likely to justify their relationship mistakes rather than admit wrongdoing for them. We find support for these predictions using a mixed methods approach, employing a laboratory experiment (Study 2) and a critical incident method surveying a panel of leaders (Study 3). As such, this paper extends our understanding of the mistake recovery process for leaders by demonstrating that 1) leaders’ relationship mistakes are viewed as more globally representative of the leader than task mistakes, and 2) leaders are more likely to apologize for task mistakes but more likely to justify relationship mistakes. Relational and task mistakes, however, were not found to be different in regard to their ambiguity or the extent to which they were viewed as a mistake.     

Why do narcissists take more risks? Testing the roles of perceived risks and benefits of risky behaviors

Much prior research demonstrates that narcissists take more risks than others, but almost no research has examined what motivates this behavior. The present study tested two potential driving mechanisms of risk-taking by narcissists (i.e., heightened perceptions of benefits and diminished perceptions of risks stemming from risky behaviors) by administering survey measures of narcissism and risk-taking to a sample of 605 undergraduate college students. Contrary to what might be expected, the results suggest that narcissists appreciate the risks associated with risky behaviors just as much as do less narcissistic individuals. Their risk-taking appears to instead be fueled by heightened perceptions of benefits stemming from risky behaviors. These results are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that narcissists engage in some forms of potentially problematic behaviors, such as risk-taking, because of a surplus of eagerness rather than a deficit of inhibition.     

Who's to blame? Narcissism and self‐serving attributions following feedback

The study examined the relationship between narcissism, performance attributions, and negative emotions following success or failure. As expected, narcissistic individuals showed more self‐serving attributions for their performance in an intelligence test than less narcissistic individuals: compared with less narcissistic individuals, narcissists revealed a stronger tendency to attribute success to ability and failure to task difficulty. In contrast to this, less narcissistic participants tended to show the opposite pattern by ascribing failure, but not success, to their ability. Additionally, anger and depression could be predicted by an interaction of performance feedback and performance attributions. Mediation analyses revealed that the attribution dimensions ‘task difficulty’ and ‘ability’ mediated the effect of narcissism on anger and depression following failure feedback. The results provide support for the theoretical assumption that attributional processes might, at least to some extent, explain the often reported relation between narcissism and negative emotions following failure. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Why do narcissists take more risks? Testing the roles of perceived risks and benefits of risky behaviors

Much prior research demonstrates that narcissists take more risks than others, but almost no research has examined what motivates this behavior. The present study tested two potential driving mechanisms of risk-taking by narcissists (i.e., heightened perceptions of benefits and diminished perceptions of risks stemming from risky behaviors) by administering survey measures of narcissism and risk-taking to a sample of 605 undergraduate college students. Contrary to what might be expected, the results suggest that narcissists appreciate the risks associated with risky behaviors just as much as do less narcissistic individuals. Their risk-taking appears to instead be fueled by heightened perceptions of benefits stemming from risky behaviors. These results are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that narcissists engage in some forms of potentially problematic behaviors, such as risk-taking, because of a surplus of eagerness rather than a deficit of inhibition.     

The perception of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces affects hypothetical voting decisions differently in wartime and peacetime scenarios

Facial appearance of candidates has been linked to real election outcomes. Here we extend these findings by examining the contributions of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces to perceived votability. We first use real faces to show that attractiveness and trustworthiness are positively and independently related to perceptions of good leadership (rating study). We then show that computer graphic manipulations of attractiveness and trustworthiness influence choice of leader (Experiments 1 and 2). Finally, we show that changing context from wartime to peacetime can affect which face receives the most votes. Attractive faces were relatively more valued for wartime and trustworthy faces relatively more valued for peacetime (Experiments 1 and 2). This pattern suggests that attractiveness, which may indicate health and fitness, is perceived to be a useful attribute in wartime leaders, whereas trustworthiness, which may indicate prosocial traits, is perceived to be more important during peacetime. Our studies highlight the possible role of facial appearance in voting behaviour and the role of attributions of attractiveness and trust. We also show that there may be no general characteristics of faces that make them perceived as the best choice of leader; leaders may be chosen because of characteristics that are perceived as the best for leaders to possess in particular situations.     

The perception of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces affects hypothetical voting decisions differently in wartime and peacetime scenarios

Facial appearance of candidates has been linked to real election outcomes. Here we extend these findings by examining the contributions of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces to perceived votability. We first use real faces to show that attractiveness and trustworthiness are positively and independently related to perceptions of good leadership (rating study). We then show that computer graphic manipulations of attractiveness and trustworthiness influence choice of leader (Experiments 1 and 2). Finally, we show that changing context from wartime to peacetime can affect which face receives the most votes. Attractive faces were relatively more valued for wartime and trustworthy faces relatively more valued for peacetime (Experiments 1 and 2). This pattern suggests that attractiveness, which may indicate health and fitness, is perceived to be a useful attribute in wartime leaders, whereas trustworthiness, which may indicate prosocial traits, is perceived to be more important during peacetime. Our studies highlight the possible role of facial appearance in voting behaviour and the role of attributions of attractiveness and trust. We also show that there may be no general characteristics of faces that make them perceived as the best choice of leader; leaders may be chosen because of characteristics that are perceived as the best for leaders to possess in particular situations.     

高处不胜寒? 领导工作场所孤独感的多层次双刃剑效应

在组织中,由于存在权力和地位差异等因素,领导者往往难以获得充分的人际关系满足,孤独成为领导者这一群体的普遍体验。事实上,领导者的工作场所孤独感不仅会对领导者自身产生一系列影响,且还具有独特的社会功能,会给团队及其追随者带来后续影响。然而,目前组织管理领域有关孤独感的文献主要集中于探讨员工的工作场所孤独感,罕有研究考察领导工作场所孤独感究竟会造成何种影响。并且,现有研究普遍只关注孤独感的消极效应,缺乏对其潜在积极效应的挖掘。因此,本文将通过3个子研究,结合多层次、多理论、多研究方法的全景研究范式,全面考察领导工作场所孤独感的双刃剑效应及其机制。本研究不仅可以丰富和拓展工作场所孤独感的理论体系,也能为企业发挥领导工作场所孤独感的积极作用与抑制其负面效应提供管理启示。     

领导–下属心理资本一致性对周边绩效的影响——工作关系与私人关系的中介作用

本文基于相似吸引理论,考察了领导–下属心理资本一致性能否影响双方的工作关系(领导–下属交换,LMX)和私人关系(领导–下属关系,SSG),继而塑造下属的周边绩效。采用多项式回归和响应面分析技术,对164份领导–下属配对数据进行分析,结果表明：领导–下属心理资本越一致,双方的LMX和SSG越高;在一致情形下,与“低–低一致”相比,”高–高一致”时的LMX和SSG更高。领导–下属心理资本一致性通过LMX、SSG影响下属的周边绩效。以上结果能为如何有效利用心理资本管理领导–下属的人际互动、下属周边绩效提供启发。     

Are two narcissists better than one? The link between narcissism, perceived creativity, and creative performance

The current research examines the link between narcissism and creativity at the individual, relational, and group levels of analysis. It finds that narcissists are not necessarily more creative than others, but they think they are, and they are adept at persuading others to agree with them. In the first study, narcissism was positively associated with self-rated creativity, despite the fact that blind coders saw no difference between the creative products offered by those low and high on narcissism. In a second study, more narcissistic individuals asked to pitch creative ideas to a target person were judged by the targets as being more creative than were less narcissistic individuals, in part because narcissists were more enthusiastic. Finally, a study of group creativity finds evidence of a curvilinear effect: Having more narcissists is better for generating creative outcomes (but having too many provides diminishing returns).     

You probably think this paper's about you: narcissists' perceptions of their personality and reputation

Do narcissists have insight into the negative aspects of their personality and reputation? Using both clinical and subclinical measures of narcissism, the authors examined others' perceptions, self-perceptions, and meta-perceptions of narcissists across a wide range of traits for a new acquaintance and close other (Study 1), longitudinally with a group of new acquaintances (Study 2), and among coworkers (Study 3). Results bring 3 surprising conclusions about narcissists: (a) they understand that others see them less positively than they see themselves (i.e., their meta-perceptions are less biased than are their self-perceptions), (b) they have some insight into the fact that they make positive first impressions that deteriorate over time, and (c) they have insight into their narcissistic personality (e.g., they describe themselves as arrogant). These findings shed light on some of the psychological mechanisms underlying narcissism.     

"A right to lead": The role of leader legitimacy on group reactions to transgressive leadership

Research on the transgression credit shows that groups may sometimes turn a blind eye to ingroup leaders who transgress moral norms. Although there is substantial research investigating the underlying criteria of what makes a “good” leader, research often neglects to investigate the role of followers in leader-group dynamics. In this paper, we offer a novel approach to transgressive leadership by proposing that leader legitimacy is a key factor that determines whether followers’ reactions to transgressive leaders are positive or negative. Across two experiments, participants ascribed transgression credit only to transgressive ingroup leaders perceived as legitimate (Studies 1–2, total n = 308). Transgressive illegitimate leaders were viewed as more threatening to the group, were targeted for formal punishment, received less validation for their behavior, triggered negative emotions (anger and shame), and raised higher consensus for their removal from the leadership position than did legitimate leaders. This effect also occurred irrespective of the absence of formal social control measures implemented toward the transgressive leader (Study 2). Mediation analysis showed that leader illegitimacy triggered stronger feelings of group threat and stronger negative emotions which, consequently, fuelled agreement with collective protest against the transgressive leader. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Distinguishing Subgroups of Narcissists with Latent Class Analysis

This study investigated grandiose narcissism from a categorical perspective. We tested whether subgroups of narcissists can be distinguished that differ in their expressions of more agentic (narcissistic admiration, ADM) and more antagonistic (narcissistic rivalry, RIV) pathways of narcissism. We analysed three German samples (total N = 2211; M_age = 26; 70% female) and one US sample (N = 971; M_age = 35; 74% female) using latent class analysis. Four subgroups of narcissists were consistently identified across samples from Germany and the United States: low narcissists, moderate narcissists primarily characterized by agentic aspects (ADM), moderate narcissists characterized by both agentic and antagonistic aspects (ADM + RIV), and high narcissists. The subgroups were systematically related to a number of personality traits (e.g. Machiavellianism, impulsivity) and adjustment indicators (e.g. self‐esteem, empathy). Members in the moderate narcissists—ADM subgroup showed the most adaptive characteristics while members in the moderate narcissists—ADM + RIV subgroup showed the most maladaptive characteristics. Investigating grandiose narcissism—a primarily quantitative trait—from a categorical perspective can yield valuable insights that would otherwise be overlooked. In addition, our results underline the utility of a self‐regulatory process approach to grandiose narcissism that distinguishes between agentic and antagonistic dynamics. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology     

自爱与他爱:自恋、共情与内隐利他的关系

自恋者具有低共情的人格特征,而共情是引发利他行为的重要动力。本文通过两个实验研究试图揭示不同情境下,自恋对共情与内隐利他的影响。结果表明:(1)自恋组与非自恋组被试均存在内隐利他倾向,且自恋组的内隐利他倾向显著低于非自恋组;(2)自恋组的共情能力显著低于非自恋组,其中,自恋组在情绪共情上显著低于非自恋组被试,两组在认知共情上差异不显著;(3)共情诱发对自恋组被试的共情与内隐利他均有显著影响。启动条件下自恋组被试的共情水平与内隐利他倾向显著高于控制条件下自恋组被试,且达到与非自恋组被试相同的水平,而非自恋组被试的共情与内隐利他倾向在两种实验条件下差异不显著;(4)共情诱发显著提高了自恋组被试的情感而非认知共情水平。