Exploring the relationship of leader narcissism with employee emotional exhaustion and job performance through leader demanding behavior : the role of self-efficacy of the employee

(1)

Master Thesis

MSc. in Business Administration – Leadership and Management

Exploring the relationship of Leader Narcissism

with Employee Emotional Exhaustion and Job Performance

through Leader Demanding Behavior.

The role of the Self-efficacy of the employee.

Author’s name : Klearchos Kois Student ID : 11374853

Supervisor : Dr. Annebel de Hoogh Date of submission : 19/06/2017

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Klearchos Kois who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is 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.

(3)

Table of Contents

Abstract ...1

Introduction...2

Theoretical Background ...6

Leader Narcissism ... 7

Leader Demanding Behavior ... 8

Leader Narcissism & Demanding Behavior... 8

Emotional Exhaustion... 10

Self-efficacy ... 11

Narcissistic Leader Demanding Behavior & Exhaustion – The role of Self-efficacy... 12

Job Performance ... 14

Narcissistic Leader Demanding Behavior & Job Performance – The role of Self-efficacy ... 15

Method ... 17

Sample and procedure ... 17

Measures ... 18

Leader narcissism ... 18

Leader demanding behavior ... 19

Employee emotional exhaustion ... 21

Employee in-role performance ... 21

Employee Self-efficacy ... 21

(4)

Results ... 22

Discussion ... 43

Future research directions, limitations, and practical implications ... 48

Conclusion ... 51

Reference List ... 52

Appendix A: Leader Questionnaire ... 67

(5)

List of Tables and Figures

Tables

1. Pattern Matrix for Coefficients ... 20

2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations ... 22

3. Simple Linear Regression Model of General Leader Demands for dyads in the

Dutch sample ... 23

4. Simple Linear Regression Model of General Leader Demands for dyads in the

non-Dutch sample ... 24

5. Simple Linear Regression Model of Excessive Leader Demands for dyads in the

6. Simple Linear Regression Model of Excessive Leader Demands for dyads in the

7. Simple Linear Regression Model of Employee Emotional Exhaustion for dyads in the

11. Estimated coefficients of the mediation model for dyads in the Dutch sample ... 28 12. Results of the Effects of Leader Narcissism on Employee Emotional Exhaustion

(6)

13. Estimated coefficients of the mediation model for dyads in the non-Dutch sample ... 29

14. Results of the Effects of Leader Narcissism on Employee Emotional Exhaustion

through General Leader Demands for dyads in the non-Dutch sample ... 29

15. Estimated coefficients of the mediation model for dyads in the Dutch sample ... 30 16. Results of the Effects of Leader Narcissism on Employee Emotional Exhaustion

through Excessive Leader Demands for dyads in the Dutch sample ... 30

17. Estimated coefficients of the mediation model for dyads in the non-Dutch sample ... 31 18. Results of the Effects of Leader Narcissism on Employee Emotional Exhaustion

through Excessive Leader Demands for dyads in the non-Dutch sample ... 31

19. Results of Employee Self-efficacy as moderator of the relationship between General

Leader Demands and Employee Emotional Exhaustion for dyads in the Dutch

sample ... 32

Leader Demands and Employee Emotional Exhaustion for dyadsin the

21. Results of Employee Self-efficacy as moderator of the relationship between Excessive

Leader Demands and Employee Emotional Exhaustion for dyads in the Dutch

sample ... 33

Leader Demands and Employee Emotional Exhaustion for dyadsin the

(7)

23. Results of Employee Self-efficacy as moderator of the indirect relationship between

Leader Narcissism and Employee Emotional Exhaustion through General

Leader Demands for dyads in the Dutch sample ... 35

Leader Narcissism and Employee Emotional Exhaustion through General

Leader Demands for dyads in the non-Dutch sample ... 35

Leader Narcissism and Employee Emotional Exhaustion through Excessive

Leader Demands for dyads in the Dutch sample ... 36

Leader Narcissism and Employee Emotional Exhaustion through Excessive

Leader Demands for dyads in the non-Dutch sample ... 37

Leader Demands and Employee Performance for dyads in the Dutch sample ... 38

Leader Demands and Employee Performance for dyads in the non-Dutch

sample ... 38

Leader Demands and Employee Performance for dyads in the Dutch sample ... 39

Leader Demands and Employee Performance for dyads in the non-Dutch

(8)

Leader Narcissism and Employee Performance through General Leader

Demands for dyads in the Dutch sample ... 40

Leader Narcissism and Employee Performance through General Leader

Demands for dyadsin the non-Dutch sample ... 41

Leader Narcissism and Employee Performance through Excessive Leader

Demands for dyads in the Dutch sample ... 42

Leader Narcissism and Employee Performance through Excessive Leader

Demands for dyads in the non-Dutch sample ... 42

Figures

(9)

1 Abstract

Narcissism: a puzzling construct that has been a fascinating research topic for years. This paper investigated the relationship between leader narcissism and leader demanding behavior as well as how the construct relates to employee emotional exhaustion and job performance. When it comes to the latter, employee self-efficacy was taken into account as well. For the purpose of this study, 104 dyads of supervisors and subordinates voluntarily participated; working not only in the Netherlands but also in different countries. As expected, results suggested a positive direct relationship between leader narcissism and leader demanding behavior as well as a positive indirect relationship between leader narcissism and employee emotional exhaustion. However, that was only the case for dyads that did not work in the Netherlands. No support for the moderating role of employee self-efficacy in the relationship between leader narcissism and either emotional exhaustion or job performance was found. Since findings highlighted the importance of culture, future research should investigate the relationship between leader narcissism and (1) leader demanding behavior as well as (2) employee emotional exhaustion and (3) job performance while taking culture differences into consideration.

Keywords: Leader narcissism, Leader demanding behavior, General demands, Excessive

(10)

2

Introduction

“The problem in narcissism is not the high ideals and ambitions, it's the difficulty one encounters when trying to give them body.”

— Thomas Moore

Narcissism. An enigmatic construct (Back, Küfner, Dufner, Gerlach, & Rauthmann, 2013) that continues to fascinate and stir the interest of scholars as well as the public alike (Luo, Cai, Sedikides, & Song, 2014). During the years, there has been an increasing identification of narcissism as a substantial complex of personality traits (Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2005), which encompasses grandiosity, an inflated sense of self-importance, arrogance, self-centeredness, a sense of authority and entitlement, lack of empathy, exploitation of others, a feeling of uniqueness and superiority, accompanied by a relentless desire for admiration. Fantasizing a future state where narcissists possess a dominant position of absolute power, unprecedented success as well as attractiveness is central in their world (Bogart, Benotsch, & Pavlovic, 2004; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; DSM IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

Studies on the Dark Triad – narcissism being one of the three sub-dimensions of the construct among psychopathy and Machiavellianism – relate these traits to significant workplace consequences (O'Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012; Hirschi & Jaensch, 2015; Spurk, Keller, & Hirschi, 2015). At first sight, the characteristics of narcissism can be reasonably categorized as dark personality traits. Indeed, these traits can be used as predictors of undesirable employee and organizational outcomes in a work setting (Volmer, Koch, & Göritz, 2016). For instance, findings indicate that there is an indirect, yet negative, effect of narcissism of the leader on employee job satisfaction (Shurden, 2014). It comes as no surprise that in long-term acquaintance contexts, narcissism is related to negative evaluations (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland,

(11)

3 2008; Paulhus, 1998). Interestingly enough though, prior research has identified narcissism as a “mixed blessing” (Campbell & Campbell, 2009; Paulhus, 1998). Actually, although studies have analyzed the dark side of the Dark Triad traits in organizational contexts, some have pointed to a potential bright side of them (Judge & LePine, 2007; Wisse, Barelds, & Rietzschel, 2015). Researchers have highlighted the possibility of the construct of narcissism – as well as the behaviors it entails – being productive or constructive (Galvin, Waldman, Balthazard, 2010; Maccoby, 2000; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). An example is that leader narcissism – when tempered by humility – can be associated with positive, instead of negative, effects on subordinates. Therefore, it can increase employee job engagement and job performance, while stimulating perceptions of leader effectiveness (Owens, Wallace, & Waldman, 2015). Narcissism, to some extent, may be perceived as not only being healthy, but also a prerequisite for strategies of self-enhancement, self-assertion, and self-confidence (Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000; Kansi, 2003). According to this conflicting, yet interesting, motif of outcomes, “narcissism seems to be related to contradictory processes and consequences: Narcissists’ charisma and self-assuredness can give them tremendous energy that fascinates others, yet their aggressiveness and lack of empathy hinder their progress and turn many people off” (Back et al., 2013, p. 1013).

Underlying the existence as well as comprehending in more depth both the dark and the bright side of narcissism, while realizing the consequences each side carries on employee and organizational level, have gained increased attention during the years (Back et al., 2013; Owens et al., 2015; Volmer et al., 2016). However, “little is known at present about how narcissism is expressed in terms of behavior at the workplace” (Andreassen, Ursin, Eriksen, & Pallesen, 2012, p. 889). For this reason and while leader behavior is a significant topic for any field of study (Paradise, Ceballos, & Hall, 2010), one of the goals of this paper is to investigate whether the

(12)

4 behavior narcissistic leaders present is associated with the imposition of demands on high levels – due to the high standards they set in order to achieve the extraordinary future they strongly desire. Furthermore, although prior research has focused on the effects of leader narcissism on employees, the field that describes the actual root of the followers’ response to narcissistic leader (demanding in this case) behaviors is still unexplored. Besides, research suggests that subordinate responses to leader behaviors may vary on the basis of the subordinate personality characteristics (e.g., De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009; Ehrhart & Klein, 2001). What is truly the role of the subordinates on the effect of such behaviors on different, potential outcomes? Can they control the level of these outcomes? In respect to these questions, it has been indicated that future research should take personal resources, such as self-efficacy, into consideration (Li, Wang, Li, & Zhou, 2017); thus, the self-efficacy of the employee plays a major role in this study. While research has not explored this topic yet, it is indeed crucial to investigate how employees’ belief about their ability to perform could result in designated performance levels which could have an impact on matters that affect their life. Last but not least, this paper aims to address the abovementioned gaps, by focusing on two specific outcomes: employee emotional exhaustion and performance. Since they both influence everyday work life, contributing – directly or indirectly – to the achievement or failure of organizational goals (Hockey, 1997), it is important to examine the circumstances under which the relationship between narcissistic leader demanding behavior and these outcomes can be intensified or weakened.

Narcissism remains a puzzling construct (Back et al., 2013) which does not only make its exploration a fascinating journey but also highly important – especially in business contexts. Shedding light on the unexplored areas this paper focuses on results in both theoretical and practical implications. On a theoretical level: First, an attempt to fill the gap adds to the existing

(13)

5 leader narcissism literature, while focusing on behaviors that are linked and are most likely to be presented by narcissistic supervisors; and specifically, demanding. Second, it contributes to the narcissistic leader-follower-related literature, since it incorporates the employee self-efficacy as an aspect that could be a determinant factor in shaping the life of individuals on a professional (and even personal) level and, to an extent, the future of an organization as a whole. This is a pebble that will hopefully initiate further research focusing on other elements that can have an impact on the effects of narcissistic leader behaviors on different employee and organizational outcomes. On a practical level: It is well known that leaders’ role in organizations is pivotal (Volmer et al., 2016). That is why it is important to know in depth the work behaviors that come with narcissistic individuals when filling positions of power within organizations; especially when these behaviors result in extremely high demands. Furthermore, it is crucial for organizations to compensate for such shady behaviors narcissistic leaders demonstrate, by selecting the appropriate followers that possess or can develop aspects that can buffer negative effects of them. In other words, carefully creating a suitable stage of followers – essential for narcissistic leaders in order for them to shine (Nevicka, De Hoogh, Van Vianen, Beersma, & Mcllwain, 2011) and achieve the future state of superiority and the ultimate power they crave for (Bogart et al., 2004) – could potentially translate into valuable and desired outcomes that could benefit the organization altogether. The paper touches upon all the aforementioned areas.

Whether narcissism is beneficial or detrimental when it comes to leadership effectiveness appears to be “one of the longest running issues” in the relevant literature (Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio, 2011, p. 272). Generally, the present study presents several implications by analyzing a type of behavior narcissistic leaders tend to demonstrate as well as an employee-related factor that potentially influences the outcomes that are traditionally linked to this behavior.

(14)

6 Particularly, this paper’s specific goal is to examine whether the relationship between the demanding behavior narcissistic leaders potentially present and different outcomes (i.e., employee emotional exhaustion and job performance) can be strengthened (or weakened) depending on the subordinates’ level of self-efficacy. Figure 1 depicts the proposed research model.

Theoretical Background

This part of the paper provides the theoretical basis that contributes to the better comprehension of the variables related to the proposed research model. Serving as a platform that elaborates on relevant to the model current knowledge and theories, it is a mandatory intermediate step that introduces the hypotheses that are going to be tested.

To begin with, it is important to highlight that the descriptions and analyses throughout this paper have a focus on grandiose narcissism – “the characteristic form of narcissism as a personality trait in the general population (i.e., normal narcissism)” (Back et al., 2013, p. 1014), which primarily reflects characteristics associated with grandiosity, dominance, and aggression (Miller et al., 2011). Vulnerable narcissism, reflecting an insecure and defensive grandiosity, related to

(15)

7 feelings of incompetence and inadequacy, (Miller et al., 2011), especially crucial for the investigation of narcissism’s pathological forms (Back et al., 2013), is not addressed. Therefore, this paper only refers to grandiose narcissism, whenever the construct is being discussed.

Leader Narcissism

It comes as no surprise that when it comes to leadership emergence, narcissists hold advantages over others (Braun, Aydin, Frey, Peus, 2015). Viewing themselves as more talented and skilled, which reflects their inflated sense of self-importance (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006), and having a strong desire to be seen, recognized, and to lead (Brunell et al., 2008), increases their popularity among others at first sight (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010). Undeniably, narcissists possess a mix of ingredients including overconfidence, a high-level self-esteem, extraversion, a sense of dominance, authority, and superficial charm in abundance; ingredients that followers take into consideration when choosing a leader, and overlap with most of the prototypical leadership traits (Nevicka et al., 2011).

However, followers’ perceptions of these leadership qualities narcissists possess fade away over time (Ong, Roberts, Arthur, Woodman, & Akehurst, 2016). Indeed, although narcissism can be classified as a strong predictor when it comes to leader emergence (Campbell & Campbell, 2009), it has not been consistent when it comes to leader effectiveness (Owens et al., 2015), validating the existence of a bright and a dark side of the construct. Narcissistic leadership arises “when leaders’ actions are principally motivated by their own egomaniacal needs and beliefs, superseding the needs and interests of the constituents and institutions they lead” (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006, p. 629). In the long term, narcissistic leaders can be perceived as “bossy, intolerant, cruel, argumentative, dishonest, opportunistic, conceited, arrogant, and demanding” (Wink, 1991, p. 595) by the subordinates. It is reasonable to argue that these perceptions are a product of specific

(16)

8 behaviors these supervisors demonstrate, which can eventually have a significant impact on individuals and organizations as a whole.

Leader Demanding Behavior

Narcissistic or not, it cannot be questioned that the role of leaders in organizations is vital (Volmer et al., 2016). They are the ones planning, organizing, informing, clarifying, supporting, monitoring, delegating, recognizing, consulting, mentoring (Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990). In other words, they are responsible for “running the business.” Part of their role is to plan and distribute job tasks among the employees while anticipating or demanding – no matter whether this is based on realistic or unrealistic expectations – specific outcomes.

Such demanding expectations and behaviors supervisors may present towards their subordinates basically increase and/or put pressure on the job demands the employees have been assigned. Job demands are job aspects that necessitate continuous efforts (cognitive or emotional) by the employee. They involve quantitative (e.g. workload) as well as qualitative demands (e.g. task complexity) (Hambrick et al., 2005; Janssen, 2001; Karasek, 1979). As job demands increase, individuals experience growing pressures for high performance which are likely to make them narrow their focus and attention on specific pressing tasks and deadlines (Ng, Ang, & Chan, 2008). As a result, job demands may eventually serve as job stressors resulting in numerous psychological or physical consequences (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001, Lee & Akhtar, 2011).

Leader Narcissism & Demanding Behavior

While approaching the pre-discussed variables, several questions arise. Which leaders could better fantasize a future of unlimited power, prosperity, recognition (Emmons, 1997), and ultimate success if not the narcissistic ones (Blair et al., 2008)? In business contexts, what would the role

(17)

9 of the followers towards achieving such a future be? As already stated, a stage of followers is what narcissists need in order for them to exhibit their superiority (Nevicka et al., 2011). It can be assumed that, especially in a professional setting, another dimension is equally highlighted.

Narcissistic leaders, striving to fulfill their personal needs for superiority and power rather than for collective purposes (Braun et al., 2015) and focusing on final outcomes (Raval, 2006), may view their subordinates as an instrument that will help them achieve the glorious future they crave for. It comes as no surprise that, lacking empathy (Conger, 1997; Clements & Washbush, 1999) and being willing to exploit employees in order to personally profit (Brunell et al., 2008; Campbell et al., 2011; Rauthmann, 2012), narcissistic supervisors present lower intentions of treating their subordinates in a respectful manner (Campbell et al., 2011) and get involved in unjustified credit-taking (Graham & Cooper, 2013). Indeed, being in need for recognition (Emmons, 1997) and achievement (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Doyle & Lynch, 2008), narcissistic leaders feel entitled (Emmons, 1997; Maccoby, 2000; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006) to benefit from their subordinates’ performance (Braun et al., 2015); a performance that could, however, be based on falsely magnified predictions and expectations (Hoffman et al., 2013). This could result in extreme or even paranoid requests (Smith et al., 2016). Therefore, it can be argued that narcissistic leaders – setting lofty goals and striving towards their accomplishment, while being instrumental – impose unrealistic, perfectionistic demands on others (Smith et al., 2016). In short, this view of the subordinates as an essential instrument that – performing under high pressure and demands – contributes to reaching the glorious future narcissistic leaders envision, leads to the first hypothesis:

(18)

10

Emotional Exhaustion

Perfectionistic, unrealistic, even paranoid demands: Are they able to psychologically or even physically affect employees? Actually, such behaviors may indeed drain employees’ resources, reduce energy reserves, and sooner or later lead to employee burnout (Li et al., 2017). As introduced by Maslach (1982), burnout is a three-dimensional construct, consisting of emotional exhaustion, reduced personal accomplishment, and depersonalization.

Focusing on emotional exhaustion, being burnout’s central dimension (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Maslach, 1982; Wright & Bonett, 1997), it is a state characterized by extreme tiredness (fatigue) and feelings of being drained and overextended on an emotional level, due to work-related reasons (Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Indeed, being related to depletion on a physical as well as psychological level, it truly reflects burnout’s core meaning (Shirom, 1989). Emotional exhaustion may lead to unfavorable outcomes; both individual- and organization-related (Wang & Li, 2015). It has an impact on health – associated with health-related issues, such as migraines, colds, and sleep problems (Belcastro & Hays, 1984) –, job performance (Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003), absenteeism (Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2002), voluntary turnover, work attitudes (Wolpin, Burke, & Greenglass, 1991) as well as citizenship behaviors (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998).

It has to be noted that both person- and situation-related aspects have been identified as antecedents of emotional exhaustion (Halbesleben, 2006; Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Wang, Bowling, & Eschleman, 2010). Once again, this highlights the significant role leaders play within organizations. Supervisors as well as the behaviors they present towards their subordinates can be determinant factors that can have a strong impact on the level of the employee emotional exhaustion.

(19)

11

Self-efficacy

What individuals need in order to overcome such negative states is resources. Resources may act as a buffer, protecting individuals from experiencing such feelings. The more resources one has, the less likely it is that states such as emotional exhaustion occur.

Drawing from the Social Cognitive Theory, one of the most powerful personal resources someone can have, able to impact life paths, is self-efficacy (Bandura, 1990). Self-efficacy is defined as “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives” (Bandura, 1994, p. 71). The main sources of this self-regulatory mechanism (Bandura, 1997) are personal experiences based on previous performances, verbal encouragement, observation of other individuals or groups, and attribution of others’ emotional responses (Bandura, 1989).

Self-efficacy beliefs play an influential role in individuals’ lives. They influence several aspects, such as motivation – “proven to be extraordinarily useful as a motivation concept in numerous domains of human functioning” (Locke, 2003, p. 441) –, social attitude, perseverance, and health (Bandura, 1997; Flammer, 1990). Indeed, it has been found that self-efficacy beliefs are crucial when it comes to the enhancement of psychological well-being and handling stress (Salanova, Peiró, & Schaufeli, 2002; Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2007; Bandura, 1997; Bandura, 2001), while protecting individuals from experiencing job strain and decreasing the possibility of burnout (Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008). Individuals with a high level of self-efficacy are more likely to take initiative, apply efforts, persevere in these efforts if needed, and overcome hurdles compared to others (Flammer, 2015). It comes as no surprise that in a stressful environment, highly self-efficient individuals’ stress levels remain lower, due to their confidence in being competent and able to discover ways to overcome difficulties (Flammer, 2015). On the other hand, low levels of efficacy can lead to negative outcomes. Indeed, an absence of

(20)

self-12 efficacy beliefs does not only increase the probability of burnout (Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008) but can also be the basis of depression, especially in combination with the belief that neither the concerned individual nor someone else can improve the unpleasant circumstances experienced (Flammer, 2015).

Research indicates a distinction of self-efficacy between general and domain-specific (Petersdotter, Niehoff, & Freund, 2017). General self-efficacy refers to all optimistic beliefs of one’s overall capabilities and skills to cope with challenges included in all areas of life (Schwarzer, Bäßler, Kwiatek, Schröder, & Zhang, 1997), whereas domain-specific self-efficacy narrows these beliefs down to specific tasks and fields of life (Flammer, 2015). This paper focuses on domain-specific self-efficacy, and domain-specifically, job self-efficacy.

Narcissistic Leader Demanding Behavior & Exhaustion – The role of Self-efficacy

As already mentioned, narcissistic leaders’ lofty goals can result in the imposition of unrealistic and perfectionistic demands on employees (Smith et al., 2016). Such behaviors can lead to numerous negative results on a psychological or physical level (Demerouti, et al., 2001, Lee & Akhtar, 2011). Demands exhaust employees’ resources, decrease their energy reserves, and eventually lead to burnout (Li et al., 2017). Support can be found in several studies (e.g., Demerouti et al., 2001), including a meta-analysis that analyzed 231 of them, confirming the relationship (Alarcon, 2011). Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the demanding behavior of a leader increases job demands, and thus can have an impact on the employee emotional exhaustion, since the latter reflects burnout’s core meaning (Maslach, 1993). In fact, previous research has found evidence, serving as a basis to support a positive relationship between high job demands and emotional exhaustion (Li et al, 2017). With that being said, the next hypothesis is introduced:

(21)

13 Taken the previous expectations together, it is expected that leader narcissism is indirectly related to employee emotional exhaustion through leader demanding behavior:

H3: There is a positive indirect relationship between leader narcissism and employee

emotional exhaustion, which is mediated by the leader demanding behavior.

According to the definition of self-efficacy provided beforehand, it involves “beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands” (Gist & Mitchell, 1992, p. 184). Since self-efficacy at a high level involves initiatives of overcoming difficulties, maintains stress at lower levels (Flammer, 2015), while enhancing well-being (Salanova et al., 2002; Llorens et al., 2007; Bandura, 1997; Bandura,2001), it can be argued that, when these situational demands are associated with (narcissistic) leaders presenting a demanding behavior, self-efficacy can act as a buffer that reduces employees’ feelings of emotional exhaustion. In other words, a high level of self-efficacy may prove to be a useful tool in handling stress and negative feelings, something that protects employees from experiencing job strain, especially when demands are high. This would be a result of them believing in their capabilities. It is this confidence in themselves that makes them optimistic they can overcome work-related obstacles and successfully respond to demanding behaviors. On the other hand, employees low on self-efficacy do not share the same beliefs. These individuals are more vulnerable to stress and hurdles while believing they are unable to cope with high demands. Not trusting they are capable of being in control, they are less likely to be successful in meeting such demands and to endure pressing circumstances at work. It comes as no surprise that this, in turn, may have an impact on their well-being. This leads to the next hypothesis:

(22)

14

H4: The relationship between leader demanding behavior and employee emotional

exhaustion is moderated by the self-efficacy of the employee, such that the relationship is weaker when the level of the self-efficacy is higher than lower.

Taken the previous expectations together, it is also expected that leader narcissism is indirectly related to employee emotional exhaustion through leader demanding behavior, in a way that when such demands occur, highly self-efficient employees experience less emotional exhaustion. In other words, it is expected that:

H5: The positive indirect relationship between leader narcissism and employee emotional

exhaustion, mediated by the leader demanding behavior, is weaker when the level of the self-efficacy of the employee is higher than lower.

Job Performance

Having provided the theoretical background of both leader demanding behavior and employee emotional exhaustion, it is important to note that such behavior does not solely relate to exhaustion. It could be argued that a relationship between leader demanding behavior and other individual-level variables could be found as well. Such a variable could be the employee job performance.

While there has been confusion of job performance with activities, such as output and productivity, which employees usually cannot personally control, the construct is better understood when conceptualized as behavioral (Campbell, 1990, 1999; Campbell, Gasser, & Oswald, 1996; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993; Campbell, McHenry, & Wise, 1990; Motowildo, Borman, & Schmit 1997). Indeed, by conceptualizing job performance as a combination of “actions and behaviors that are under the control of the individual that contribute to the goals of

(23)

15 the organization” (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002, p. 66), it is rendered as one of the most crucial components that grants both methods and goals that support the accomplishment of a company’s mission (Ghani, Yunus, & Bahry, 2016). As previously implied, there is agreement among most researchers that it is a multidimensional construct, consisting of not just one type of behavior (Campbell, 1990; Campbell et al., 1996; Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Motowidlo et al., 1997; Murphy & Shiarella, 1997). These behaviors must be relevant to the goals of the organization as well as within the employees’ control (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000) and basically represent what employees do at work (Woods, 2008).

In order for the employee job performance to be assessed, the displayed work behaviors are evaluated – positively or negatively (Woods, 2008). Yet, measuring job performance can be a complicated process, which is reasonable, considering that the construct is complex itself, multidimensional, and not stable over situation and time (Hough & Oswald, 2001). Nevertheless, the outcomes that derive from an employee’s job performance reflect the degree to which the individual contributes to the specific goals of a company (Woods, 2008), making, undoubtedly, job performance an essential element to any organization (Osman, Shariff, & Lajin, 2016).

Narcissistic Leader Demanding Behavior & Job Performance – The role of Self-efficacy

As previously discussed, the demanding behavior narcissistic leaders may demonstrate towards their subordinates basically results in an increase in the job demands assigned to the employees. “Although job demands are not necessarily negative, they may turn into job stressors when meeting those demands require high effort from which the employee fails to recover adequately” (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011, p. 2). Job stressors may decrease the employees’ capacity to effectively handle situations within their work environment, which therefore may lead to affecting their ability to efficiently function (Fried, Ben-David, Tiegs, Avital, & Yeverechyahu, 1998;

(24)

16 McGrath, 1976). Interestingly and in contrast to such arguments though, the conclusions drawn on the relationship between job demands and employee job performance over the years are inconsistent (Lu, Du, Xu, & Zhang, 2016). For example, studies have showed that job demands play a significant role in improving the job performance of the employee, when accompanied with a high level of job security, while hinder performance when the level of job security is low (Lu et al., 2016). An attempt to address such inconsistencies has led researchers to investigate the role of different moderators, affecting the relationship (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004). When it comes to self-efficacy as a moderator, it can be argued, that since highly self-efficient individuals are involved in self-initiatives and efforts in order to overcome hurdles (Flammer, 2015), they are more likely to find ways to effectively deal with high demands and as a result present a higher performance. More specifically, highly self-efficient individuals are confident about their capabilities; thus, they are more likely to persevere in efforts, in order to respond to pressing demands. As a consequence of these efforts, they are more likely to successfully meet such demands and produce high levels of performance. On the other end of the spectrum, employees with a low level of self-efficacy do not have trust in their skills. Not believing they are competent to face high demands, they are more likely to refrain from applying efforts to meet them or from taking initiatives in general. Hence, it can be argued that high demands, serving as job stressors, may affect their ability to efficiently function, hindering their performance levels. With that being said, the next hypothesis is introduced:

H6: The relationship between leader demanding behavior and employee job performance

is moderated by the self-efficacy of the employee, such that the relationship is positive when the level of self-efficacy is high and negative when the level of self-efficacy is low.

(25)

17 Taken the previous expectations together, it is also expected that leader narcissism is indirectly related to employee job performance through leader demanding behavior, in a way that when such demands occur, the level of the employee self-efficacy determines whether the relationship is positive or negative. The final hypothesis follows:

H7: The indirect relationship between leader narcissism and employee job performance,

mediated by the leader demanding behavior, is positive when the level of the self-efficacy of the employee is high and negative when the level of the self-self-efficacy is low.

Method

Sample and procedure

This quantitative research was conducted by using a cross-sectional survey design. Specifically, it involved two different questionnaires; one requiring the participation of a supervisor and one the participation of his/her subordinate (Appendix A, Appendix B). Working in a workgroup of four master students, the participants were approached via email, phone, and personally. A non-probability sampling technique, specifically convenience sampling, was used in order to recruit the respondents. After assuring the participants of the confidentiality of the recorded responses, the surveys were distributed via email. Respondents, both supervisors and their employees, did not only answer to questions focused on themselves but also to questions in regards to the other party. The questionnaires remained online for four weeks while reminders were sent to participants who did not start or complete the questionnaire every five days. After the four-week period, the data collected for each supervisor was linked to the data of the subordinate using their email addresses as reference points. The formation of these dyads was essential for the data analysis and results.

(26)

18 Hence, data originating from incomplete pairs was not used. It is important to note that both questionnaires were translated from English to Dutch using parallel translation and were distributed in both languages.

Overall, one hundred and four dyads of supervisors (68 males and 36 females, aged 24-70) and their subordinates (51 males and 53 females, aged 21-62) voluntarily participated in this research; both groups having a full-time job. The initial population of interest was dyads from the Netherlands and Germany. However, since it was observed that multiple nationalities were recorded during the data collection process, pairs working for companies at different countries were eventually included as well. As a result of widening the pool of participants, the sample was relatively diverse, including 56 dyads from the Netherlands, 29 from Germany, 13 from Greece, 2 from the UK, 2 from the USA, 1 from Switzerland, and 1 from India. Out of the 120 dyads that were initially contacted, the response rates of supervisors and subordinates were 94.17% and 98.33% respectively. After excluding incomplete surveys, these rates translated to an 86.67% of usable responses; in other words, 104 complete dyads. Overall, 74.04% of supervisors and 59.62% of employees attained an education higher than a bachelor’s degree. Supervisors’ mean organizational tenure was 7.71 years, while subordinates’ 4.52 years. 92.31% of the supervisor-employee dyads interacted with each other on a daily basis. Examples of industries that were included were pharmaceutical, technology, and finance sectors.

Measures

Leader narcissism

Leader narcissism was measured using the 16-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory by Ames, Rose, and Anderson (2006). Example items are “I think I am a special person” and “I am going to be a great person.” A seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 7

(27)

19 (“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) was used and was rated by the supervisors. The Cronbach’s alpha was .855.

Leader demanding behavior

In order to measure leader demanding behavior, two scales were adapted and then used. First, 3 items out of the 22-item scale measuring transformational leadership behavior by Rubin, Munz, and Boomer (2015) were selected. Example items are “Does your supervisor show you that he/she expects a lot from you?” and “Does your supervisor insist on only the best performance?” Second, 5 items were initially selected from Butler’s (2007) 6-item scale measuring job demands and were then adapted according to the needs of this study. Specifically, the word “work” from the original items was replaced with the word “supervisor.” Example items are “Does your supervisor require your working hard?” and “Does your supervisor require a great deal of work to be done?” A seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 to 7 (“never” to “every day”) was used and was rated by the subordinates.

In order to assess the dimensionality of the leader demanding behavior construct, the 8 items were subjected to principal axis factoring. The Kaier-Meyer-Olkin measure was .82 verifying the sampling adequacy for the analysis. The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was statistically significant (χ² (28) = 447.85, p = .00), indicating that the correlations between the items were sufficiently large for exploratory factor analysis. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. The analysis indicated that two components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1. These components explained 70.04% of the variance. The inspection of the scree plot signified the extraction of two factors as well. Thus, two factors were retained and were obliquely rotated using Promax rotation. Table 1 demonstrates the factor loadings after rotation. As the results suggest, the fourth and fifth items (adapted from the scale measuring job demands)

(28)

20 load on the first factor (along with items adapted from the scale measuring transformational leadership behavior) and not the second one which only included items that measured job demands. For this reason, these two items were excluded. Consequently, two subscales were created; one including items 1-3 and representing demands assigned by supervisors while workload is unspecified (from now on called “General leader demands”), and one including items 6-8 and representing demands assigned by supervisors while workload is high (from now on called “Excessive leader demands”). In order to test the hypotheses of the present study, both scales were separately used for the analyses that follow. The Cronbach’s alphas were .798 and .839 respectively.

Table 1

Pattern Matrix for Coefficients.

Questionnaire item

Rotated factor loadings General leader

demands

Excessive leader demands

Does your supervisor insist on only the best performance? .938 -.147

Will your supervisor not settle for second best? .695 -.147

Does your supervisor show you, that he/she expects a lot from you? .676 .146

Does your supervisor require you to work hard? .650 .191

Does your supervisor require a great deal of work to be done? .534 .336

Do you feel there is not enough time for you to finish the work your

supervisor requires? -.171 .946

Is there excessive work required by your supervisor in your job? .054 .777

Is there not enough time for you to do the job your supervisor requires? .033 .699

Eigenvalues 4.317 1.287

% of variance 53,96 16.08

Note. N=104 dyads. Factor loadings over .40 appear in bold.Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation

(29)

21

Employee emotional exhaustion

Employee emotional exhaustion was measured using the 6-item scale by Maslach and Jackson (1986). Example items are “I feel mentally exhausted by my work” and “A working day is a heavy duty for me.” A seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 to 7 (“never” to “every day”) was used and was rated by the subordinates. The Cronbach’s alpha was .856.

Employee in-role performance

To assess the employee in-role performance, 5 items were selected from the 7-item scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991); the 2 reversed items were excluded. Example items are “Performs tasks that are expected of him/her” and “Fulfills responsibilities specified in job performance.” A seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 7 (“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) was used and was rated by the supervisors. The Cronbach’s alpha was .959.

Employee Self-efficacy

Employee self-efficacy was measured via a 9-item scale; as revised by Perrewé et al. (2004). Example items are “I have confidence in my ability to do my job” and “I am an expert at my job.” A seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 7 (“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) was used and was rated by the subordinates. Five reversed items were recoded. The Cronbach’s alpha was .786.

Additional questions and control variables

Last but not least, the two questionnaires included demographic questions about the participants (age, gender, nationality, education level, years of employment). In addition to these questions, the leader questionnaire also included questions about the organization (country of base, industry) and the relationship between the two respondents (frequency of interaction, number of years the

(30)

22 relationship exists). Since participants worked for companies that were based in numerous countries – each one of them characterized by a different culture – the country of the organization base was included as a control variable. For this, a dummy variable was created. It also has to be noted that controlling for subordinates’ tenure with the leader did not alter the results; therefore, tenure was not included as a control variable.

Results

The means, standard deviations (SD), and correlations for the variables of interest are presented in Table 2. Interestingly, although no significant correlation was observed between leader narcissism and general leader demands (r=.06, p=.57), leader narcissism and excessive leader demands were significantly correlated (r=.22, p=.03). Another observation derived from the table is that general leader demands and employee emotional exhaustion were significantly correlated (r=.39, p=.00).

Table 2

Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Control Variable

1. Country .54 .50

Independent / dependent variables

2. Leader narcissism 3.91 .86 -.25** (.86)

3. General leader demands 4.23 1.57 -.10 .06 (.80)

4. Excessive leader demands 3.14 1.60 -.26** .22* .44** (.84)

5. Employee emotional exhaustion 2.47 1.13 -.28** .16 .39** .43** (.86)

6. Employee in-role performance 6.01 1.12 -.23* .22* -.01 -.08 .03 (.96)

7. Employee self-efficacy 5.56 .76 .12 -.02 -.05 -.01 -.12 -.19* (.79)

Note. N = 104 dyads. Countries coded as 1 represent the Netherlands; counties coded as 0 represent other countries. ⁎ p < .05; ⁎⁎ p < .01.

(31)

23 Similarly, excessive leader demands and employee emotional exhaustion also presented a significant correlation (r=.43, p=.00). Last but not least, leader narcissism, excessive leader demands as well as employee emotional exhaustion were significantly correlated with the country the organization was based. Specifically, supervisors that worked in the Netherlands were less

narcissistic (r= –.25, p=.01) and were perceived to assign less excessive demands (r= –.26,

p= .01). Additionally, subordinates that worked in the Netherlands presented a lower level of

emotional exhaustion (r= –.28, p=.01). Since country appeared to have an effect, two analyses were run for each hypothesis testing; one for dyads that worked in the Netherlands (from now on called “Dutch sample”) and one for dyads that worked in a different country (from now on called “non-Dutch sample”)1_.

The first Ηypothesis suggested that leader narcissism is positively related to leader demanding behavior. The Statistical Software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to perform a simple linear regression and test H1. First, the relationship between leader narcissism and general leader demands for dyads in the Dutch sample was tested. Table 3 presents an overview. The model was not statistically significant F (1, 54)=1.47; p=.23.

Table 3.

Simple Linear Regression Model of General Leader Demands for dyads in the Dutch sample.

R R2 _B _SE _β _t

Model 1 .16 .03

Leader narcissism -.32 .26 -.16 -1.21

Note. N=56. Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p<.001

1_{It has to be noted that the decision to split the sample in two subsamples was made after initial analyses on the}

total sample (including country as a control variable as well) indicated that the relationships between the variables of interest were not significant.

(32)

24 Investigating the same relationship for dyads in the non-Dutch sample, an overview is presented in Table 4. The model was statistically significant F (1, 46)=4.94; p=.03 and explained 9.7% of the variance in general leader demands. Leader narcissism recorded a Beta value of β=.31, p=.03. In other words, if leader narcissism increases by one, general leader demands will increase by 0.31.

Table 4.

Simple Linear Regression Model of General Leader Demands for dyads in the non-Dutch sample.

R R2 _B _SE _β _t

Model 1 .31 .10*

Leader narcissism .55 .25 .31* 2.22

Next, the relationship between leader narcissism and excessive leader demands for pairs in the Dutch sample was tested. Table 5 presents an overview. The model was not statistically significant F (1, 54)=.07; p=.80.

Table 5.

Simple Linear Regression Model of Excessive Leader Demands for dyads in the Dutch sample.

R R2 _B _SE _β _t

Model 1 .04 .00

Leader narcissism .06 .24 .04 .26

Investigating the same relationship for dyads in the non-Dutch sample, an overview is presented in Table 6. The model was statistically significant F (1, 46)=5.15; p=.03 and explained 10.1% of the variance in excessive leader demands. Leader narcissism recorded a Beta value of β=.32, p=.03. In other words, if leader narcissism increases by one, excessive leader demands will increase by 0.32. Overall, H1 was only supported for dyads that did not work in the Netherlands, no matter whether leader demands were general or excessive.

(33)

25

Table 6.

Simple Linear Regression Model of Excessive Leader Demands for dyads in the non-Dutch sample.

R R2 _B _SE _β _t

Model 1 .32 .10*

Leader narcissism .62 .27 .32* 2.27

To test the second Hypothesis, which suggested that leader demanding behavior is positively related to employee emotional exhaustion, a simple linear regression was performed using SPSS. First, the relationship between general leader demands and employee emotional exhaustion for dyads in the Dutch sample was tested. Table 7 presents an overview. The model was statistically significant F (1, 54)=9.16; p=.00, and explained 14.5% of the variance in employee emotional exhaustion. General leader demands recorded a Beta value of β=.38, p=.00. In other words, if general leader demands increase by one, employee emotional exhaustion will increase by 0.38.

Table 7.

Simple Linear Regression Model of Employee Emotional Exhaustion for in the Dutch sample.

R R2 _B _SE _β _t

Model 1 .38 .15**

General leader demands .19 .06 .38** 3.03

Investigating the same relationship for dyads in the non-Dutch sample, an overview is presented in Table 8. The model was statistically significant F (1, 46)=9.04; p=.00, and explained 16,4% of the variance in employee emotional exhaustion. General leader demands recorded a Beta value of

β=.41, p=.00. In other words, if general leader demands increase by one, employee emotional

(34)

26

Table 8.

Simple Linear Regression Model of Employee Emotional Exhaustion for dyads in the non-Dutch sample.

R R2

B SE β t

Model 1 .41 .16**

General leader demands .38 .13 .41** 3.01

Next, the relationship between excessive leader demands and employee emotional exhaustion for pairs in the Dutch sample was tested. Table 9 presents an overview. The model was statistically significant F (1, 54)=22.03; p=.00, and explained 29% of the variance in employee emotional exhaustion. Excessive leader demands recorded a Beta value of β=.54, p=.00. What this means is that if excessive leader demands increase by one, employee emotional exhaustion will increase by 0.54.

Table 9.

Simple Linear Regression Model of Employee Emotional Exhaustion for dyads in the Dutch sample.

R R2 _B _SE _β _t

Model 1 .54 .29***

Excessive leader demands .30 .06 .54*** 4.69

Investigating the same relationship for dyads in the non-Dutch sample, an overview is presented in Table 10. The model was statistically significant F (1, 46)=4.33; p=.04, and explained 8,6% of the variance in employee emotional exhaustion. Excessive leader demands recorded a Beta value of β=.29, p=.04. In other words, if excessive leader demands increase by one, employee emotional exhaustion will increase by 0.29. Overall, H2 was supported irrespectively of the type of demands or the country the organization was based.

(35)

27

Table 10.

Simple Linear Regression Model of Employee Emotional Exhaustion for dyads in the non-Dutch sample.

R R2

B SE β t

Model 1 .29 .09*

Excessive leader demands .25 .12 .29* 2.08

The third Hypothesis proposed that there is a positive indirect relationship between leader narcissism and employee emotional exhaustion, which is mediated by the leader demanding behavior. To test H3, a regression analysis using PROCESS by Hayes (model 4) was performed. First, the indirect relationship between leader narcissism and employee emotional exhaustion mediated by general leader demands for dyads in the Dutch sample was tested. Tables 11 and 12 present an overview of the results. As indicated, there was no significant indirect effect of leader narcissism on employee emotional exhaustion through general leader demands, a1b1= –.07, BCa CI [–.21, .04]; the 95% confidence interval included zero. Consequently, the mediation effect did not take place for pairs in the Dutch sample. Interestingly though, a direct effect was observed (c1’=.28, t=2.31, p=.02). This direct effect of leader narcissism is the estimated difference in employee emotional exhaustion between two subordinates facing the same level of general leader demands but whose supervisors differ by one unit in their reported leader narcissism, meaning that subordinates in the Netherlands are estimated to be 0.28 units higher in their reported emotional exhaustion when their leaders are more narcissistic.

(36)

28

Table 11.

Estimated coefficients of the mediation model for dyads in the Dutch sample.

Consequent

General leader demands Employee Emotional Exhaustion

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

Leader narcissism (X) a1 -.32 .26 .23 c1’ .28 .12 .02

General leader demands (M) --- --- --- b1 .21 .06 .00

constant i1 5.27 1.01 .00 i2 .28 .56 .62

R2_=.03 _R2_=.22

F(1, 54) = 1.47, p = .23 F(2, 53) = 7.62, p = .00

Note. N=56.

Table 12.

Results of the Effects of Leader Narcissism on Employee Emotional Exhaustion through General Leader Demands for dyads in the Dutch sample.

Effect SE p LLCI ULCI

Direct effect c1’ .28 .12 .02 .04 .52

Total effect c1 .21 .13 .11 -.05 .47

Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

Indirect effect a1b1 -.07 .06 -.21 .04

Note. N=56.

Investigating the same relationship for dyads in the non-Dutch sample, an overview of the results is presented in Tables 13 and 14. The results indicated that while there is no significant total (c1=.01, p=.96) or direct effect (c1΄= –.22, p=.36), there is a significant indirect effect of leader

narcissism on employee emotional exhaustion through general leader demands, a1b1=.23, BCa CI [.01, .58]; the 95% confidence interval is entirely above zero. In other words, there is an indirect-only mediation for dyads that worked in a country other than the Netherlands. This indirect effect of .23 means that two subordinates whose supervisors differ by one unit in their reported leader

(37)

29 narcissism are estimated to differ by 0.23 units in their reported emotional exhaustion as a result of their leaders’ general demands.

Table 13.

Estimated coefficients of the mediation model for dyads in the non-Dutch sample.

Consequent

General leader demands Employee Emotional Exhaustion

Leader narcissism (X) a1 .55 .25 .03 c1’ -.22 .23 .36

General leader demands (M) --- --- --- b1 .42 .13 .00

constant i1 2.14 1.04 .05 i2 1.87 .98 .06

R2_=.10 _R2_=.18

F(1, 46) = 4.94, p = .03 F(2, 45) = 4.94, p = .01

Note. N=48.

Table 14.

Results of the Effects of Leader Narcissism on Employee Emotional Exhaustion through General Leader Demands for dyads in the non-Dutch sample.

Direct effect c1’ -.22 .23 .36 -.69 .25

Total effect c1 .01 .24 .96 -.48 .50

Indirect effect a1b1 .23 .14 .01 .58

Note. N=48.

Next, the indirect relationship between leader narcissism and employee emotional exhaustion mediated by excessive leader demands for dyads in the Dutch sample was tested. Tables 15 and 16 present an overview of the results. According to the results, there was no significant indirect effect of leader narcissism on employee emotional exhaustion through excessive leader demands,

(38)

30 a1b1=.02, BCa CI [–.13, .17]; the 95% confidence interval included zero. Consequently, the mediation effect did not take place for dyads that worked in the Netherlands.

Table 15.

Estimated coefficients of the mediation model for dyads in the Dutch sample.

Consequent

Excessive leader demands Employee Emotional Exhaustion

Leader narcissism (X) a1 .06 .24 .80 c1’ .19 .11 .09

Excessive leader demands (M) --- --- --- b1 .29 .06 .00

constant i1 2.52 .93 .01 i2 .66 .45 .14

R2_=.00 _R2_=.33

F(1, 54) = .07, p = .80 F(2, 53) = 12.93, p = .00

Note. N=56.

Table 16.

Results of the Effects of Leader Narcissism on Employee Emotional Exhaustion through Excessive Leader Demands for dyads in the Dutch sample.

Direct effect c1’ .19 .11 .09 -.03 .41

Total effect c1 .21 .13 .11 -.05 .47

Indirect effect a1b1 .02 .08 -.13 .17

Note. N=56.

Investigating the same relationship for dyads in the non-Dutch sample, an overview of the results

is presented in Tables 17 and 18. The results indicated that while there is no significant total (c1=.01, p=.96) or direct effect (c1΄= –.16, p=.53), there is a significant indirect effect of leader

narcissism on employee emotional exhaustion through excessive leader demands, a1b1=.17, BCa CI [.00, .66]; the 95% confidence interval did not include zero. In other words, there is an

(39)

31 indirect-only mediation for dyads that worked in a country other than the Netherlands. This indirect effect of .17 means that two subordinates whose supervisors differ by one unit in their reported leader narcissism are estimated to differ by 0.17 units in their reported emotional exhaustion as a result of their leaders’ excessive demands. Overall, H3 was only supported for dyads that worked outside the Netherlands, no matter whether leader demands were general or excessive.

Table 17.

Estimated coefficients of the mediation model for dyads in the non-Dutch sample.

Consequent

Excessive leader demands Employee Emotional Exhaustion

Leader narcissism (X) a1 .62 .27 .03 c1’ -.16 .25 .53

Excessive leader demands (M) --- --- --- b1 .27 .13 .04

constant i1 1.02 1.15 .38 i2 2.48 .99 .02

R2_=.10 _R2_=.09

F(1, 46) = 5.15, p = .03 F(2, 45) = 2.34, p = .11

Note. N=48.

Table 18.

Results of the Effects of Leader Narcissism on Employee Emotional Exhaustion through Excessive Leader Demands for dyads in the non-Dutch sample.

Direct effect c1’ -.16 .25 .53 -.65 .34

Total effect c1 .01 .24 .96 -.48 .50

Indirect effect a1b1 .17 .15 .00 .66

(40)

32 The fourth Hypothesis suggested that the relationship between leader demanding behavior and employee emotional exhaustion is moderated by the self-efficacy of the employee, such that the relationship is weaker when the level of the self-efficacy is higher. A regression analysis using PROCESS (model 1) was run to test H4. First, the relationship between general leader demands and employee emotional exhaustion moderated by the self-efficacy of the employee for dyads in the Dutch sample was tested. Table 19 presents an overview of the results. The interaction term fell short of statistical significance, c3=.13, t(52)=1.14, p=.26, which indicates that the moderation effect did not occur.

Table 19.

Results of Employee Self-efficacy as moderator of the relationship between General Leader Demands and Employee Emotional Exhaustion for dyads in the Dutch sample.

Coeff. SE t p

Intercept i1 2.20 .12 18.48 .00

General leader demands (X) c1 .17 .07 2.65 .01

Employee self-efficacy (M) c2 -.11 .23 -.46 .65

General leader demands* Employee self-efficacy (XM) c3 .13 .12 1.14 .26

R2_{= .18 p = .00}

F (3, 52) = 6.01 Note. N=56. Variables were mean-centered.

Investigating the same relationship for supervisors and employees in the non-Dutch sample, an overview of the results is presented in Table 20. The interaction term was not statistically significant, c3= –.01, t(44)= –.04, p=.97, which indicates that the moderation effect did not take place.

(41)

33

Table 20.

Results of Employee Self-efficacy as moderator of the relationship between General Leader Demands and Employee Emotional Exhaustion for dyads in the non-Dutch sample.

Coeff. SE t p

Intercept i1 2.81 .19 14.75 .00

General leader demands (X) c1 .38 .15 2.49 .02

Employee self-efficacy (M) c2 -.13 .29 -.45 .66

General leader demands* Employee self-efficacy (XM) c3 -.01 .20 -.04 .97

R2_{= .17 p = .05}

Next, the relationship between excessive leader demands and employee emotional exhaustion moderated by the self-efficacy of the employee for dyads in the Dutch sample was tested. Table 21 presents an overview of the results. The interaction term fell short of statistical significance,

c3= –.06, t(52)= –.52, p=.60, indicating that the moderation effect did not occur. Table 21.

Results of Employee Self-efficacy as moderator of the relationship between Excessive Leader Demands and Employee Emotional Exhaustion for dyads in the Dutch sample.

Coeff. SE t p

Intercept i1 2.18 .10 21.79 .00

Excessive leader demands (X) c1 .30 .07 4.13 .00

Employee self-efficacy (M) c2 -.19 .19 -1.01 .32

Excessive leader demands* Employee self-efficacy (XM) c3 -.06 .12 -.52 .60

R2_{= .31 p = .00}