A Narcissistic Leader; a Deadly Impact on Burnout
or just a Matter of Liking your Boss?
Does the extent of leader narcissism relate to perceived leader pro self- behaviour and consequently burnout, when moderated by leader-member exchange?
Executive Program in Management Studies Leadership and Management
Amsterdam Business School Danielle de Munck (10915745) Supervisor: dr. A.H.B. de Hoogh
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Danielle de Munck 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.
Abstract
Burnout is a psychological response to chronic work stress and is defined by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced feelings of personal accomplishment. By using a moderated mediation model, this study introduces the mediating role of perceived leader pro self-behaviour on leader narcissism and subordinate burnout and the moderating role of leader-member exchange (LMX). Several Dutch companies and their employees (leaders and subordinates) participated in the dyad study resulting in a sample of 262 participants.
Results show that the relation between subordinate burnout and leader narcissism is partially mediated by perceived leader pro self-behaviour. Thus, although perceived leader pro self-behaviour may play an important role in explaining the link between leader narcissism and subordinate burnout, other unmeasured behaviours of leader narcissism can also play a role. No evidence was found for the moderating role of LMX.
This study contributed to the research field by showing the partially mediated role of perceived leader pro self-behaviour on subordinate burnout. Finally, the importance of preventing burnout and the role leaders play is shown making this study relevant for today’s business development.
Keywords: Burnout, Narcissism, Perceived leader pro self-behaviour, Leader-Member
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Literature review ... 11
2.1 Burnout ... 11
2.2 Narcissism ... 14
2.3 Perceived leader pro self-behaviour ... 17
2.4 LMX ... 18
3. Method ... 22
3.1 Sample and procedure ... 22
3.2 Measures ... 23
3.3 Statistical procedure ... 25
4. Data analysis and results ... 26
4.1 Means, standard deviations and correlations ... 26
4.2 Mediation model ... 27
4.3 Moderated mediation model ... 28
5. Discussion ... 30
5.1 Theoretical implications ... 30
5.2 Managerial implications ... 32
5.3 Strengths and Limitations ... 33
6. Conclusion ... 35
Appendix I: Dutch questionnaire leader ... 47
Appendix II: Dutch questionnaire subordinate ... 49
Appendix III: Dutch email leader ... 51
1. Introduction
One million Dutch employees suffer from burnout or burnout-related complains according to the Dutch Organisation for applied scientific research (TNO) and the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), as published in a factsheet by the Dutch government (Rijksoverheid, 2015). The main reasons for burnout in the Dutch work environment are: low job autonomy (44%) and high job demands (38%). The average costs for employers in 2012 was 1.8 billion euros in labour costs, which is almost 40% of the total costs of job related illness (TNO, 2012). Based on these appalling figures of TNOand CBS, the Dutch government launched a
campaign in 2014, with a duration of four years and thus stressing the importance of burnout. The goal of this campaign is to increase awareness for stress in the workplace, and encourage employees and employers to take action, making burnout a pressing issue in the Netherlands. Not only in today’s society the terms ‘work stress’ and ‘burnout’ play a role, but also in the academic world. Halbesleben and Buckley (2004) mention that the interest for burnout has dramatically increased over the past 30 years by academics. The main reason for this increase is the significant negative impact of burnout on employees and in turn on organizational performance; such as reduced productivity, commitment and increased absenteeism and turnover (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). These negative impacts of burnout and the considerable amount of employees who suffer from burnout, encourage scholars to research ‘burnout’ in order to attain a better understanding. In the end, this understanding of the antecedents and consequences is beneficial for reducing burnout in the future.
Because of the popular use of the term ‘burnout’ for all stress related issues now-a-days, it is important to discuss its definition according to academics. The most often cited definition of Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1997): “Burnout is a psychological syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who work with other people in some capacity” (p. 192). In addition, Maslach,
Schaufeli and Leiter (2001) and Cropanzano, Rupp and Byrne (2003) state that emotional exhaustion is the most important element of burnout. Emotional exhaustion can be characterized by a lack of energy at work and emotional resources being drained. Some, like Shirom (1989), even describe emotional exhaustion as the core explanation of burnout. In line with this, Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli (2001) demonstrate that burnout is caused by two categories of work characteristics: job demands and job resources. On one hand, job demands are aspects of the job that require effort and when this effort (psychologically) costs too much, there is too much work to complete in a given time, and subsequently leads to burnout (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). On the other hand, job resources can assist in achieving goals and therefor lower the demands or lead to personal growth. As such, when job resources are low, they do not assist in lowering job demands and therefor have a negative effect on burnout (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). In other words, the presence of acceptable job demands and the necessary job resources assist in reducing burnout. Therefore, it is important to create a work environment where these two work characteristics are balanced.
In order to accomplish and maintain a balanced work-environment subordinates need the support of their leader or supervisor, as leaders are known to affect the performance, attitude and well-being of employees (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007; Chemers, 2000; De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2005; Densten, 2005; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). According to Bakker, Demerouti and Euwema (2005) burnout decreases when there is support from the leader and a balanced work environment. However, the opposite is also theorized by Bakker et al. (2005); when subordinates do not receive the needed support from their leader, burnout increases. This is due to the fact that subordinates without support cannot balance their work environment, resulting in high job demand and insufficient job
resources. Concluded can be that lack of leader support is an important antecedent of burnout.
An explanation for lack of leader support can be found in the concept of self-serving behaviour or pro self-behaviour of the leader. This type of behaviour shows itself in the way group interests and individual interest are being distributed (Rus, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010). When a leader tends to use the scarce resources for his or her own benefits instead of the benefits of the group (employees) this qualifies as serving behaviour. This self-serving behaviour can be harmful for the organization and subordinate (Rus et al., 2010). However, little is known about the effect of leader pro self-behaviour on subordinates, specifically the effect on employee burnout.
When looking deeper into negative leader behaviour, the personality trait ‘narcissism’ stands out. Narcissism, as defined by Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006), is a personality trait characterized by arrogance, self-absorption, entitlement and hostility. A famous example of narcissistic behaviour in a leadership role is the late Steve Jobs. He is often described as having a high level of narcissism, and thereby making narcissistic behaviour more visible in today’s society (Isaacson, 2012). As a result of the characterized arrogance and self-centred behaviour, narcissistic leaders also tend to be confident in their abilities. Furthermore, they are persistent in their pursuit of goals, making them good candidates for leadership positions (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Combining narcissistic traits and leadership results in grandiose leadership styles, which is in general represented by leaders who are motivated by their need for power and admiration and in contrast less by emphatic concern for their subordinates (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006).
Furthermore, Van Dijk and De Cremer (2006) argue that narcissistic leaders are self-serving and inclined to allocate scarce organizational resources to themselves. Meaning, less job resources for employees in order to accomplish their job demands. Narcissist’s
self-serving behaviour could also enhance subordinates’ stress by making social interactions emotionally difficult and thereby enhancing job demands. In addition, research shows that an important part of narcissism is entitlement; a sense that one deserves more than others (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004). As such, narcissistic leaders are self-aggrandizing and often take credit for success which is unwarranted based on studies from Rhodewalt and Morf (1995), and Rhodewalt, Tragakis and Finnerty (2006). Furthermore, research also showed that in dyadic tasks as well as in and group tasks narcissist take credit for the success of others. They blame others for their fail in their drive for superiority, showing self-serving behaviour (Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000; Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998; Gosling, John, Craik, & Robins, 1998; John & Robins, 1994).
Overall, one can say that leaders with narcissism are more self-serving than leaders without narcissism and therefor seem to have a negative impact on employee’s well-being and burnout. Even though scholars have found significant relationships between narcissistic leaders and poor performance ratings (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2006), counterproductive workplace behaviour (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006a) and resource destruction (Campbell, Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005) a specific link from leader narcissism to perceived leader pro self-behaviour has not yet been found. As we do believe there might be as significant link, we hypothesise narcissistic leaders to show more pro self-behaviour and as a result subordinates are more likely to experience burnout.
Another interesting variable is the quality of the relationship between a leader and a subordinate. Leader - membership exchange (LMX) theory proposes that leaders differentiate their leadership style and behaviour among their subordinators instead of choosing one leadership style for all subordinates. High LMX is characterized by mutual trust, respect and obligation, whereas low LMX is characterized by low mutual trust, little respect and less
obligation (Sin, Nahrgang, & Morgeson 2009). Thomas and Lankau (2009) argue that high quality LMX is seen as an important resource to cope with job demands and therefor also burnout. LMX (high or low) affects the way subordinates see and experiences their leader. For the proposed relationships, this means that when subordinates perceive a high LMX, the narcissistic and self-serving behaviours of the leader are less ‘visible’ due to mutual trust and respect. This leads to a positive effect on burnout. Thus, the relationship between leader narcissism, perceived leader pro self-behaviour and subordinate burnout is expected differ depending on the relationship between the leader and the subordinate. The moderating variable LMX thus proposes: when LMX is high, subordinates may experience less leader pro self-behaviour and consequently experience less burnout, whereas when LMX is low subordinates may see more leader pro self-behaviour and consequently experience more burnout. In sum, this study examines if there is a relationship between leader narcissism and subordinate burnout when mediated by perceived leader pro self-behaviour and if the relationship between leader narcissism and perceived leader pro self-behaviour is affected by LMX. This results in the following research question and conceptual model (Figure 1):
To what extent is leader narcissism related to perceived leader pro self-behaviour
and consequently burnout, and to what extend does LMX moderate the relationship
between leader narcissism, perceived leader pro self-behaviour and burnout?
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Leader Narcissism
Perceived leader pro
self-behaviour Subordinate Burnout Leader-member exchange
Based on proposed research question and model, this study contributes to the literature by identifying behaviours of narcissistic leaders and the effect of self-serving behaviour on subordinate burnout. Furthermore, it expands the literature on burnout while clarifying certain leader behaviour, and explores if the relationship between leader and subordinate effects the way the subordinate sees leader behaviour; and therefor moderates the effect on subordinate burnout.
In order to answer the stated research question, this thesis is structured as follows: First an outline of the current literature, findings on burnout, narcissism, perceived leader pro self-behaviour and LMX is presented, and hypotheses are stated accordingly. Second, an overview of the data collection, sample and measurement of used variables is given. Third, the results based on the completed analyses is shared. Strengths and limitations, conclusion and research opportunities for the future form the last part of this study.
2. Literature review
This study examines the proposed relationship between leader narcissism, mediated by perceived leader pro self-behaviour and subordinate burnout when moderated by LMX. The constructs burnout, narcissism, perceived leader pro self-behaviour and LMX will be discussed. The proposed hypothesis based on the research model will be presented.
2.1 Burnout
For the majority of the Dutch population, work is an important aspect of their life. Conrad (1988) states that workers spend approximately one third of their waking hours at work, which is a significant part of a persons’ life. According to the English dictionary the word ‘work’ stands for “Exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something as a means of earning one’s livelihood”. In order to maintain a livelihood of some sort, one must work. However, occupations, duration of work, types of contracts, educational requirements and level of pay differ. Another important difference is the individual’s experience of work. The difference of this experience can be explained by the physical, emotional, mental or social nature of the job and workplace according to Danna and Griffin (1999). Maslach et al. (2001) note that, in some situations, the work experience can be negative.
One of the terms used to describe a negative relationship with one’s work is burnout. According to Schaufeli, Leiter and Maslach (2009) the word ‘burnout’, a metaphor for loss of energy, implies that there was once a fire but due to lack of significant resources the fire cannot longer burn as brightly. The most used description of burnout uses three components to describe chronic emotional overload and interpersonal stressors on the job; exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy (Maslach et al., 2001). To be more precise Maslach, Jackson and Leiter (1996, p.20) define burnout as follows: “… a state of exhaustion in which one is cynical about the value of one’s occupation and doubtful of one’s capacity to perform”. Burnout consists of three components: (1) emotional exhaustion, (2) depersonalization, and
(3) reduced personal accomplishments. Emotional exhaustion arises from continuous psychological and emotional demand, which a subordinate can no longer accomplish. As a result, the subordinate experiences a high time pressure due to the experienced workload. Secondly, depersonalization presents itself when people become detached from their colleagues and no longer see them as people but rather as objects. The third component, reduced personal accomplishments, shows itself when a person no longer beliefs in one’s effectiveness to achieve goals (Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986). But what causes a burnout? What makes the ‘flame burn less bright’?
Originally, burnout was seen as symptom of employees who worked in a service environment with other people (Maslach et al., 1997). It was viewed as a specific condition for naïve, idealistic, young service professionals who experienced exhaustion, cynical behaviour and were discouraged in their work due to bureaucratic systems, unwilling clients and unmanageable problems (Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009). However, organizations are becoming more and more complex due to a 24/7 economy. This has its effect on work-environments and job-related stress as experienced by workers (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). Due the complexity of organizations, stressful workplaces and its negative effect on organizational costs such as reduced task performance, increased absenteeism and high levels of turnover, burnout is a well-researched subject with thousands of publications (Maslach et al., 2001).
Moving into the causes of burnout, Demerouti et al. (2001) argues that burnout can arise due to two categories of work characteristics; job demands and job resources, as mentioned before. The first category, job demands consists of organizational, social and physical aspects and requires commitment and effort that can become overwhelming. Ultimately, lacking energy can be high price paid, both psychical as psychological, resulting in burnout. The second category, job resources ensure those aspects which (1) support in achieving goals; (2)
by doing so, reduce job demands and (3) encourage personal prosperity and development. According to Demerouti et al. (2001) research has showed that when job resources are low, the chance of developing a burnout is high. This indicates that job resources function as an intermediary between job demands and burnout (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2014; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). This means that when employees receive the needed feedback, have social support of their leader and have a high quality relationship with their leader (high job resources), the likelihood of a burnout due to work overload, emotional and physical demands and work-home interference is lower (Bakker et al., 2005). Concluding, a subordinate is more likely to experience burnout when high job demands are combined with low job resources (Bakker & Costa, 2014).
The interesting connection between job demands, job resources and burnout is the role of the leader or supervisor. A leader has a significant influence on job demands and the allocation of job resources. Looking deeper into the conditions of where burnout arises, House (1981) argued that other people at work, especially the leader, has an effect on the work environment and the way people experience their work. Moreover, in recent research the importance of the role of the leader, especially when he or she is supportive, has been acknowledged (Offerman & Hellman, 1996; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). Cooper and Cartwright (1994) note that a bad leader – subordinate relationship has a negative influence on subordinate wellbeing and add considerably to feelings of stress due to low supportiveness of the leader, low quality of communications and lack of feedback. Furthermore, the leader– subordinate relationship is, according to Landeweerd and Boumans (1994) and Tepper (2000), the most accepted sources of stress in organizations. In summary, the behaviour of a leader has an effect on subordinate wellbeing and therefor might influence the chance of burnout.
Many research has been done on effective and positive leadership styles. However, the negative leadership styles or behaviours such as leader narcissism and leader pro self- behaviour can be an explanation of the reason for a low quality of leader-subordinate relationship and result in increased subordinate burnout.
2.2 Narcissism
After reviewing the literature on narcissism, one conclusion that can be drawn is that narcissism is a complex phenomenon. The question which also rises is: ‘Is narcissism only good or bad? Or can it be both?’ For example, Back, Küfner, Dufner, Gerlach, Rauthmann, and Denissen (2013) state that narcissistic people show charisma and self-assuredness. This gives them energy and it is positively received by others. However, narcissists also show aggressive behaviour and tend to lack empathy, which can result in scaring people off. Although the question to whether narcissism is good or bad for leadership effectiveness is an extensive researched issue in the current leader narcissism literature (Owens, Wallance and Waldman, 2015), a definitive answer to whether narcissism is either good or bad or both, is unfortunately not given by scholars. However, stated can be that there is a larger focus on the negative personality traits of narcissism and the negative consequences of narcissism, than the positive effects in current literature.
The ‘word’ narcissism finds it origin from the Greek myth of Narcissus who, according to the myth, was so vain and proud that he fell in love with his own reflection (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006b). This myth was later used by Ellis in 1898 to explain the clinical condition of self-love. Later Freud (1931-1950) used the term in his work on psychoanalysis (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). When looking closer into the more recent definition of narcissism, Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell and Marchisio (2011) state that narcissism contains of three components: (1) the self, (2) interpersonal relationships and (3) self-regulatory strategies. In
their explanation, Campbell et al. (2011) showed that the narcissistic self stands for specialness, uniqueness, vanity, a sense of entitlement and desire for power and esteem; merely positive characteristics. Secondly, narcissistic relationships are often shallow and consist of low levels of empathy and emotional empathy. The formed relationships are either characterized by exciting and engaging or manipulative and exploitative. Thirdly, narcissistic strategies consist of seeking out opportunities for attention and admiration, playing games or brag in order to maintain an inflated self-view.
Kets de Vries and Miller (1985) argue that narcissistic traits, such as the need to seek power, attention and admiration, are often the reason for narcissistic people to obtain leadership positions. Narcissistic people are also more likely to be perceived as a candidate for leadership, as people with narcissistic traits are perceived by others as more self-confident and outgoing than people without narcissistic traits according to Lord, Foti and DeVader (1984). Because of this significant relationship between narcissism and leadership, Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006, p. 629) even proposed a definition for narcissistic leadership: “Narcissistic leadership occurs when leaders’ action are principally motivated by their own egomaniacal needs and beliefs, superseding the needs and interest of the constituents and institutions they lead”. Based on this definition, one can assume negative consequences for subordinates when a narcissist is leading.
Drawing on the negative effects of narcissistic leadership, Kets de Vries and Miller (1997) state that the needs of a narcissistic leader are transferred to their visions, plans and actions. This means that the psychological needs are identical with their goals and with a strong focus on themselves and therefor neglecting the goals and needs of others (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). For example, narcissist leaders are more likely to manipulate and intimidate to secure a leadership position, and therefor fulfil their need for recognition, even if they are underqualified (Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990; Glad, 2002). Actions such as manipulation
and intimidation lead to counterproductive workplace behaviour (Judge et al., 2006b; Penney & Spector, 2002), elusive and dangerous decision making (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2006), and in turn poor performance ratings (Blair et al., 2006) and lower peer likability (Harms, Wood, & Roberts, 2006).
As described before, the behaviour of these narcissistic leaders consist of the preservation of ‘the self’ without considering the well-being of their employees. Because of low empathic behaviour and the drive to serve themselves, narcissistic leaders are self-centred and easily ignore advice, feedback and conflicts which does not coincide with their view or goal (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). As stated earlier, the effect leaders have on their subordinates is significant and has an impact on subordinate well-being such as the level of stress subordinates experience.
As mentioned above, another important part of leader narcissistic behaviour is the feeling of entitlement. According to Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell and Finkel (2004) entitlement means that a person, especially a person with narcissism, expects special and preferential treatment from others. Due to this feeling of entitlement a narcissist is easily offended when this special treatment is not given. Studies even suggest that narcissists attack when the self is threatened by ego-threatening feedback by others in the form of defeat, failure, social rejection, or loss of entitlement (Campbell et al., 2004; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Bushman, Bonacci, van Dijk, & Baumeister, 2003; Kernis & Sun, 1994; Twenge & Campbell, 2003).
A consequence of entitlement behaviour is also self-serving behaviour due to the feeling narcissist have that they are special and deserve special treatment. They therefor justify the use of other people’s work and success but also blame other people for their own mistakes. This self-serving behaviour is seen as a negative trait because the self of a narcissistic person is served instead of what is best for the whole group. In summary, leader narcissism can have
many negative effects on subordinates’ well-being, level of stress and therefor on the probability of burnout.
2.3 Perceived leader pro self-behaviour
Like narcissism, the actions of people who show pro self-behaviour are more and more visible in today’s world. CEO’s are being reprimanded for lavish spending in times of economic crisis and bankruptcy (Rus, Van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010b). An example in the Netherlands is an IT company who faced bankruptcy, and where managers raised their salary but asked their employees to cut back 20% in salary (Rus et al., 2010a).
When one distributes resources to their own advantages instead of serving group interests, it is considered as pro self-behaviour (Aquino & Reed, 1998). The resources, which leaders use for their own advantage, are usually scarce resources such as pay increases, bonuses and other financial benefits but also other assets such as office space, parking lots and recognition (Rus et al., 2010a). Due to the limited amount of scarce resources, the more the leader allocates these resources for themselves, the less is left for other employees (Rus et al., 2010a). Moreover, leader pro self-behaviour has negative consequences for both the organization; company goals are not being served with this behaviour, and for subordinates; resulting in lack of motivation and performance (De Cremer & Van Knippenberg, 2004). Referring to the literature on narcissistic leaders and their feeling of entitlement, we can say that narcissistic leaders are more likely to show self-serving behaviour. Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated:
Hypothesis 1: Leader narcissism is positively related to perceived leader pro
self-behaviour.
Furthermore, one can argue that leaders who show pro self-behaviour have a greater effect on subordinates’ burnout, than leaders who do not show pro self-behaviour. An important
element in the development of subordinate burnout lies in the allocation or access to the right resources. When subordinate have access to the right resources in order to fulfil the job demands, they are less likely to develop burnout. As stated before, an important outcome of pro self-behaviour is the allocation of scarce resources towards one person, usually the leader. As a result, less resources are available for subordinates and therefor job demands can no longer be met. Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated:
Hypothesis 2: Leader pro self-behaviour is positively related to subordinate burnout.
Taken the above together, narcissistic leaders are likely to show pro self-behaviour which, in turn, is likely to relate to subordinate burnout. Thus, we expect:
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between leader narcissism and subordinate burnout is
mediated by leader pro self-behaviour.
2.4 LMX
The term ‘Leader - member exchange’ (LMX) describes the quality of the relationship between a leader and each of his or her subordinates (Hesselgreaves & Scholarios, 2014). According to the theory the quality of these relationships is defined by the attitudes and behaviours of both parties (Van Breukelen, Hoffman, & Helland, 2006). This means that a leader does not use one style of leadership for all subordinates, and consequently each subordinate experiences a different relationship (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). According to Gerstner and Day (1997), LMX is a useful theory and approach when it comes to studying connections between leadership processes and outcomes. The LMX theory suggests that the quality of the relationship between a leader and a subordinate can predict the outcomes at three levels of analysis: individual, group and organizational (Gerstner & Day, 1997). These
outcomes are thus based on the quality of the relationship, which can either be high or low. A high quality LMX relationship is defined by a high level of trust, respect and emotional support from the leader (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Uhl-Bien, Grawen & Scandure, 2000; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Fairhurst, 1993), the subordinate experience higher levels of job satisfaction, stronger performance appraisal ratings, lower levels of stress (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Schriesheim, Casto, & Cogliser, 1999) and show more commitment and contribution to their leader (Sparrowe & Liden, 2005).
Furthermore, when the relationship is of good quality, the subordinate can enjoy the benefit of ‘in-group’ advantages such as favours, rewards, increased communication with the leader and more help and consideration from the leader (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997; Engle & Lord, 1997; Liden, Wayne, & Stillwell, 1993). In addition, leaders are more considered to listen to their ‘in-group’ members, which is beneficial for both parties, the group and organization (Goodwin, Bowler, & Whittington 2008; Lin, 2001). On the other hand, subordinates who have a low quality LMX relationship with their leader, do not experience the same advantages as a subordinate who has a high quality LMX relationship. These subordinates are labelled as ‘out-group’ members. They do not experience the same amount of trust, respect and emotional support (Harris & Kackmar, 2006) and do not show the same contribution and commitment as subordinates with a high quality LMX relationship (Sparrowe & Liden, 2005).
In summary, when the subordinate has a good relationship with the leader it may result in positive treatment. When subordinates feel and experience positive behaviour and treatment from their leader, they show the same kind of behaviour towards that leader (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). This results in better communication, better access towards needed resources and increased trust, because of their mutual dependence. When the relationship is of low quality, the subordinate will not receive the positive treatment as mentioned above and
therefor struggles to fulfil the given job demands. This can result in burnout. Thus, the quality of the relationship can play an important role in the development of subordinate burnout.
As mentioned before, a high quality LMX relationship is characterized by a high level of mutual trust, communication, respect and obligation (Sin et al., 2009). Based on these characteristics, one can argue that an ‘in-group’ subordinate believes that his or her narcissistic leader will treat him or her well (Varma, Pichler, Srinivas, & Albarillo, 2007). The ‘in-group’ subordinate is also less afraid that the narcissistic leader only acts on his or her self-interests due to the high level of trust (Sue-Chan, Au, & Hackett, 2012). Furthermore, the interpretation of the behaviour of a narcissistic leader by the subordinate will be more positive due to the high quality LMX relationship and the negative behaviour will be less visible. In addition, assuming the leader also experiences a high quality LMX relationship with his subordinate, one can argue that this leader is less likely to violate the trust of the subordinate (Sue-Chan et al., 2012). Also, the narcissistic leader will show less negative behaviour towards his subordinates due to the quality of the relationship (Hall, Baker, Andrews, Hunt, & Rapp, 2015).
Concluding, a high quality LMX relationship influences the way a subordinate interprets leader behaviour and the way a leader treats his subordinates. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Leader member exchange moderates the positive relationship between
leader narcissism and leader pro self-behaviour such that the relationship is stronger for lower levels of LMX.
Concluding the study with the overall hypothesis, and thereby providing the ability to answer the question whether perceived leader pro self-behaviour mediates the relationship between narcissism and burnout as moderated by LMX, the following is expected:
Hypothesis 5: Leader narcissism is related to leader pro self-behaviour and employee
burnout via conditional indirect effects, such that the positive effect via leader self-serving behaviour is stronger when LMX is low rather than high.
3. Method
3.1 Sample and procedure
The required data is collected from leaders and their subordinates (dyads) working in various organizations within different segments located in the Netherlands. The data was collected via a validated questionnaire. The survey was translated into Dutch, making it possible to distribute the questionnaire to the Dutch work society. The questionnaires were distributed via email and the participants where guided to the questionnaire in Qualtrics via an anonymous link. The email and the first page of Qualtrics contained information about the study, its educational purpose, ensured confidentiality and the strict voluntary nature of the study to ensure honest answers. In order to assure the dyad structure of the study, each participant (leader and subordinate), received a code, which they had to enter beforehand. This provided the possibility to connect leaders to subordinates and ensured no personal data need to be obtained. The leader chose the subordinate and he or she was requested by the leader to participate. After confirmation of participation, the researcher sent an email to the subordinate with a link to the survey. Non-respondents were contacted after two weeks with a reminder.
A total of 262 leaders and subordinates participated in the study. The demographics of the subordinates who completed the questionnaire showed that 40.5% was male and 56.5% female. The leader sample consisted of 56.5% men, and 42% women. Furthermore, the age distribution of the subordinates showed that the age between 25 and 34 was the most represented (37.4%), followed by the group 18 until 24 years with 28.2%. The leaders age distribution showed that the groups 25 until 34 (26%), 35 until 44 (26%), and 45 until 54 (27.5%) were well represented. Moreover, both subordinate (43.7%) and leader (54.3%) stated that their highest level of education was HBO. In addition, the contact frequency between leader and subordinate showed that 51.1% communicated daily and 47.3% weekly.
The control variable ‘duration of the relationship between leader and subordinate’, showed a mean of 4.9 and standard deviation of 4.8. Finally, the job tenure of both leader (Mtenure = 9.5,
SDtenure = 6.9) and subordinate (Mtenure = 7.2, SDtenure = 7.9) varied strongly.
3.2 Measures
Subordinates rated themselves on burnout, and rated their leader on perceived leader pro self-behaviour and LMX. Leaders self-rated their narcissistic personality. In order to rate the outcomes, a seven point Likert Scale was used (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree).
Burnout – The employee self-rated burnout was assessed by a shorted version (6-items) of
the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1986). The inventory of Maslach et al. (1986) assesses three components of burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment. Examples of used statements are: ‘I feel stressed about my work’, ‘After a day of working I am completely drained of energy’. The Cronbach’s α showed a .95, which is exceptionally good.
Narcissism – The leader self-rated narcissism was assessed by the 16-item questionnaire
developed by Back et al. (2013). The two different dimensions used where admiration and rivalry. Examples of the items used are: “I am great” (admiration), “I show others how special I am” (admiration), “I want my rivals to fail” (rivalry), “I can barely stand it if another person is at the centre of events” (rivalry). Cronbach’s alpha is found to be .85.
Perceived leader pro behaviour – The subordinate-rated perceived leader pro
self-behaviour was assessed by the 5-items scale developed by Cantor and Mischel (1977). Cantor and Mischel (1977) based their study on the trait dimensions of introversion and extraversion. Examples of used statements are: ‘My leader gives more about profit than the welfare of his
employees’, ‘My leader chooses his own interest over the interest of others’. The Cronbach’s α is .95.
Leader – Member Exchange – The employee rated leader – member exchange was
assessed by a 11-item scale developed by Liden et.al. (1993). Liden et.al. (1993) based their study on the following dimensions: Member and leader perceptions: expectations, perceived similarity, member liking of leader, member LMX. The items, transferred into statements are measured as a 7-point Likert-type scale rating from 1- strongly disagree to 7- strongly agree. Examples of used statements are: ‘I like my leader’, ‘It is nice to work with my leader’. The Cronbach’s α is .98.
Control variables – A number of control variables were included such as subordinate age
and gender and the frequency of contact between leader and subordinate. Based on previous research by Maslach et al. (2001) a relationship between age and burnout is suggested. They report that the level of burnout is higher with younger subordinates, than subordinates who are over 30 years or older. This outcome can be explained by the lack of work experience, making burnout a risk for starting, young subordinates. Furthermore, Purvanova and Muros (2010) stated that female subordinates are more likely to experience emotional exhaustion than male subordinates. As for the frequency of contact variable, Antonakis and Atwater (2002) state that the frequency of contact between leader and subordinate influences LMX, and therefor influence the relationship between leader narcissism and perceived leader pro self-behaviour, moderated by LMX. In addition, Back, Schmukle and Egloff (2010) state that narcissistic leaders make a good first impression because of their charm. However, this effect is worn of in the long run due to the continuous strive for admiration.
3.3 Statistical procedure
The data sets from the dyad questionnaire in Qualtrics were imported in the Statistical software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 24), and joined into one sample. In search for any errors, missing values or outliers, frequency checks were run. The employee-rated variables showed missing values in all three items, LMX (1 missing value), perceived pro self-behaviour (3 missing values) and burnout (6 missing values). The leader-rated variable narcissism showed two missing values. Furthermore, almost all control variables (subordinate and leader-rated) showed missing values: subordinate gender (4 missing values), subordinate education (5 missing values), subordinate tenure (22 missing values) and leader gender (2 missing values), leader age (1 missing value), leader education (3 missing values), leader tenure (23 missing values), leader relation (24 missing values) and leader contact (1 missing value). Because of the insignificant influence of these missing values on the average, the data from these respondents were still used for this study.
No counter-indicative items were located in the questionnaire making recoding of items unnecessary. As shown above, the Cronbach’s α for all the variables where of good quality, making the data reliable. Because of the reliability of the data, scale means and standard deviations of all variables were created. Furthermore, a correlation matrix was used, making it possible to look at the data before testing the hypotheses.
Intercorrelations among items were all above .30 (ranging from low to high) except some items of Narcissism (leader as well as subordinate rating). In addition, we checked that data on normality and both Skewness as Kurtosis scores where within the acceptable limits to assume normality of the data.
4. Data analysis and results
4.1 Means, standard deviations and correlations
In order to support or reject stated hypothesis, necessary analysis were run. Table 1 shows an overview of the means, standard deviations and correlations of all relevant variables in this study. Cronbach’s α is also included in the table, showing a good internal consistency for all measures because all values are above .80. Also the covariate contact, subordinate age and gender are included in the table.
First, the direct effects between the variables have been measured. At first glance, leader narcissism correlates positively and significantly with perceived leader pro self-behaviour (r = .50, ρ < .01). Meaning, a high score on leader narcissism is significantly related to a high score on pro self-behaviour. Looking further at Table 1, perceived leader pro self-behaviour correlates positively and significantly with subordinate burnout (r =.676, ρ = < .01). One can draw the conclusion that a high score on pro self-behaviour leads to a high score on subordinate burnout. In addition, LMX shows a negative correlation with subordinate burnout, perceived leader pro self-behaviour and narcissism. LMX and perceived leader pro self-behaviour showed the highest correlation value (r = -.743, ρ = < .01). The control variable age correlates positively with burnout (r = -.371, ρ = < .01). Meaning, younger employees are more likely to experience burnout than older employees. This outcome is consistent with the presented literature by Maslach et al. (2001). Finally, the control variable contact and subordinate gender shows no significant correlation with any other variable.
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Contact 1.49 .517 2. Subordinate gender .57 .496 -.096 3. Subordinate age 4.05 1.16 -.051 .170 4. Burnout 3.55 1.59 .080 .135 -.371** (.95) 5. Pro self-behaviour 3.41 1.73 .001 .128 -.446** .676** (.95) 6. Narcissism 3.75 .939 .004 .155 -.410** .463** .500** (.85) 7. LMX 4.80 1.63 -.077 -.200* .394** -.695** -.743** -.509** (.97) Note N = 131 * p <.05 level (2-tailed) ** p <.01 level (2-tailed) 4.2 Mediation model
To test the hypotheses, the application PROCESS (Model 4) was used. First, the variable perceived leader pro self-behaviour is added to the model as a mediator. Meaning, first the direct effect between leader narcissism and perceived leader pro self-behaviour is measured. Secondly, the effect between leader narcissism and subordinate burnout is measured when mediated by perceived leader pro self-behaviour. Based on the correlation results, the control variables subordinate age and gender and frequency of contact showed no significance with the main variables, therefor those control variables are excluded from further analysis.
The results, shown in Table 2, report a significant direct effect between leader narcissism and perceived leader pro self-behaviour (β = .94, ρ = .00). Based on these results, the criteria for Hypothesis 1 are met and therefor accepted. When the variable subordinate burnout is added as the outcome variable and perceived leader pro self-behaviour changed into the mediating variable, the test showed also a significant effect (β = .54, ρ = .00). Concluded can be that Hypothesis 2 can be accepted.
Furthermore, looking at the mediation effect of perceived leader pro self-behaviour one can conclude this effect is only partially present. There is still a positive significant effect of narcissism on burnout (β = .28, ρ = .03) when mediated by perceived pro self-behaviour. Concluding, there is evidence for Hypothesis 3, and therefor this hypothesis is also accepted.
Table 2: Mediation (MED)
Consequent M (Perceived leader pro
self-behaviour)
Y (Burnout)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
X (Leader Narcissism) a .94 .14 .00 c’ .28 .13 .03 M (Perceived leader pro self-behaviour) - - - b .54 .07 .00 Constant i1 .58 .63 .35 i2 .75 .48 .13 R2=.25 R2=.48 F(1,347) = 43.103, p<.01 F(1,347) = 57.411, p<.01
4.3 Moderated mediation model
The remaining Hypotheses 4 and 5 need a moderated mediation test using the application PROCESS (Model 7) in order to either accept or reject them. The variable LMX is added into the model as a moderator to complete the moderated mediation model. By inserting LMX into the model, we propose that LMX moderates the effect between leader narcissism, perceived leader pro self-behaviour and burnout. The results are shown in Table 3. Based on the results we can conclude that LMX does not moderate the positive relationship between leader narcissism and perceived leader pro self-behaviour such that the relationship is stronger for lower levels of LMX. This means that, based on these results, Hypothesis 4 is rejected. In addition, we predicted that leader narcissism is related to perceived leader pro
self-behaviour and subordinate burnout via conditional indirect effects, such that the positive effect via perceived leader pro self-behaviour is stronger when LMX is low rather than high.
We conclude that the effects between leader narcissism and perceived leader pro self-behaviour and perceived leader pro self-self-behaviour and subordinate burnout are significant. Also, perceived leader pro self-behaviour partially mediates the effect between leader narcissism and subordinate burnout. However, due to the non-significant relationship between leader narcissism, perceived leader pro self-behaviour and the moderator LMX, hypothesis 5 is not accepted.
Table 3: Moderated Mediation (MODMED)
Consequent M (Perceived leader pro
self-behaviour)
Y (Burnout)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
X (Leader
Narcissism) a1 .94 .14 .00 c’1 .28 .13 .03
M (Perceived leader pro
self-behaviour) - - - b1 .54 .07 .00 W (LMX) a2 -.65 .086 .00 c’2 X X X XW (Interaction) a3 .127 .098 .194 c’3 X X X constant i1 4.70 .127 .00 i2 1.94 .330 .00 R2=.580 R2=.477 F(1,301) = 57.432, p<.01 F(1,347) = 57.411, p<.01
5. Discussion
As mentioned many times before in this study, burnout is a serious and negative condition for both subordinate and organization. The short and long-term effects are significant, resulting in loss of energy, low job satisfaction and efficacy, high turnover and even the inability to take part in work processes for a long period of time. The primary aim of this study is to contribute to the burnout research and expand the knowledge and understanding of negative leader behaviour and its effect on subordinates. In this study the negative effects of leader behaviour; narcissism and pro self-behaviour on subordinate burnout are investigated. Previous research has been done on merely the positive leader traits or behaviours and their effect on subordinates, leaving the negative behaviours somewhat to be neglected. In order to contribute to the negative leader behaviours, the personality trait narcissism is studied as an antecedent together with the mediator perceived leader pro self-behaviour. Furthermore, the variable LMX is an important predictor of behavioural outcomes. LMX is included in the study as a moderator, to measure the effect on leader narcissism, perceived leader pro self-behaviour and ultimately burnout.
5.1 Theoretical implications
Based on the presented research question, this study predicted that the relationship between leader narcissism and perceived leader pro self-behaviour should be positive. Indeed, results show that this relationship is strong and significant. The given results confirm the assumption that when a leader has narcissistic traits, he or she, also is perceived to show pro self-behaviour. This finding coincide with the presented theory where narcissists focus on themselves and therefor ensure that scarce resources are used mainly for themselves, instead of serving the greater good. In addition, this study predicted that perceived leader pro self-behaviour would be positively related to subordinate burnout. This prediction is supported
and showed that when a leader is perceived to display pro self-behaviour the effect on burnout is higher than when the perceived pro self-behaviour of the leader is absent. Building upon the given argumentations, we can conclude that by allocating scarce resources for oneself, it increases the chance on subordinate burnout due to the insufficient access to needed job resources.
Another element of this study is the prediction of the significant effect of perceived leader pro self-behaviour as a mediator. Outcome of the analysis showed that there is enough evidence to support the claim that perceived leader pro self-behaviour partially mediates the relationship between leader narcissism and subordinate burnout. Meaning, the relationship between leader narcissism and subordinate burnout exists without perceived leader pro self-behaviour as mediator. But, when adding perceived leader pro self-self-behaviour as a mediator, this influences the relationship partially, showing the effect between leader narcissism and subordinate burnout is less high but still present. This finding is supported by previous research where significant evidence for leader narcissism and their negative effect on subordinates’ stress level was presented. An explanation for the partially mediation can be found in other variables that can have an effect on the relation between leader narcissism and subordinate burnout. Examples are: leader Machiavellianism, leader support, stress, justice and empowerment. These variables where not included in this study but could be used in future research to further explain mediation effects on leader narcissism and subordinate burnout.
Furthermore, a moderating variable was introduced and we predicted that LMX would moderate the relationship between leader narcissism and perceived leader pro self-behaviour. Meaning, we expected that LMX would moderate the positive relationship between leader narcissism and perceived leader pro self-behaviour such that the relationship is stronger for
lower levels of LMX. However, evidence did not support this claim. The result showed that it did not matter whether the levels of LMX were high or low, there was no moderation effect.
Revisiting the stated theory one would expect that when you have a high quality LMX relationship with your narcissistic leader, this reduces ultimately the effect on subordinate burnout due to the increased trust, respect, communication, support and feedback. Nonetheless, the results show a different outcome. An explanation for the rejection of this claim could be that when there is high quality LMX relationship, the leader reveals more of his behaviour making it easier to understand and anticipate the leaders’ behaviour. Meaning, as an ‘in-group’ subordinate, he or she, works closely with the narcissistic leader and therefor sees and experience a lot of the negative behaviour of the narcissistic leader. Resulting in a situation where the subordinate is frequently exposed to the negative behaviour and this behaviour becomes the ‘states quo’ of the relationship, balancing the effect of a high quality LMX out.
Another explanation could be that in this study only the subordinate rated the quality of the relationship. Meaning, the leader could have a different opinion about the quality of the relationship and therefor the effect of LMX could not be measured properly. Additionally, Schyns (2015) suggest that narcissistic leaders, who are known for lacking empathy and focus mainly on themselves, do not recognize the value and importance of high quality LMX relationship. Therefore, they do not make greater effort to create or maintain high quality LMX relationships and so neutralize the effect of LMX.
5.2 Managerial implications
In practice, the outcomes of this study have important implications for subordinates, leaders and organizations. The reality of today is that a significant part of subordinates in the Netherlands experiences burnout or burnout-like complaints. Given this immense extent of
subordinates who are unable to perform at their best, leaving organizations with great challenges to achieve their company goals, recognition, knowledge and understanding about the burnout phenomenon is needed. Due to this study, the role of negative leadership traits and behaviour such as narcissism and pro self-behaviour has been recognized and proven to be negatively related to subordinate burnout. In addition, companies can equip their HR department with this knowledge and enable them to create guidelines and procedures which prohibits or contains negative leadership traits and behaviour.
However, the role of the subordinate in creating and maintaining his or her health is also important. Not all responsibility lies with the employer. In order to enable subordinates to deal with high job demands and low job resources, special trainings or counselling can be organized. Moreover, the presence of confidential advisers can create a safe environment and ensure that subordinates can express their concerns about leader behaviour and work environments. Being open, understanding and willing to listen can create an environment where burnout can be prevented before it becomes a real problem for both subordinate and organization.
5.3 Strengths and Limitations
This study contributes to the literature by providing new insights on the behavior of narcissistic leaders and their effect on employee burnout via perceived leader pro self-behaviour and LMX, but also has several limitations.
The first limitation of this study is the increased risk of self-enhancement bias in the results because of self-rating. Secondly, the questionnaire used an average age scale (example: 25 until 35 years), which limited the study because the exact ages of the participants have not been measured. Thirdly, the selection of the data for this study was based on convenience sampling, which could lead to biased results and misrepresentation of
the data. As a result, the outcomes of this study may not represent the whole population. A suggestion for future research is the use of probability sampling in order to generalize the results to the population. Fourthly, the ability to discuss causality is limited by the use of cross-sectional data collection. Meaning that the collection and measurement of the variables happened at one point in time, making it difficult to infer causality. A longitude research study could be the answer to create causality. Fifthly, the variable LMX was only rated by the subordinate and not by the leader. Meaning, we have no indication if the leader perceives the same LMX outcomes as the subordinate. For further research the leader LMX rating can be included. Finally, the results showed that LMX did not moderate the effect between leader narcissism and perceived leader pro self-behaviour. The use of other moderators such as leader support or empowerment in future research could have a different outcome.
6. Conclusion
We started this study with the following research question: ‘To what extent is leader
narcissism related to perceived leader pro self-behaviour and consequent burnout, and to
what extend does LMX moderate the relationship between leader narcissism, perceived
leader pro self-behaviour and burnout?’ This question was followed by hypotheses to test the
conceptual model. Based on this study we can conclude that leader narcissism is related to perceived leader pro self-behaviour and consequent burnout. However, the moderation effect of LMX could not be assumed.
References
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: a review and a proposed theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 673-704. doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(02)00155-8
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of occupational health psychology, 12(3), 193.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II (1998). A social dilemma perspective on cooperative behavior in organizations: The effects of scarcity, communication, and unequal assess of the use of as shared resource. Group and Organization Management, 23, 390-413.
Bakker, A.B., & Costa, P.L. (2014). Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: A theoretical analysis. Elsevier GmbH, 1, 112-119.
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands Resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328. doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. In P.Y. Chen, & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Work and wellbeing: A complete reference guide (Vol.III) (pp. 37-64). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job Resources Buffer the Impact of Job Demands on Burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,10(2), 170-180. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170
Back, M.D., Schmukle, S.C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are Narcissist so Charming at First Sight? Decoding the Narcissism-Popularity Link at Zero Acquaintance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 132-145. doi: 10.1037/a0016338
Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,105(6), 1013-1037.
doi:10.1037/a0034431
Blair, C. A., Hoffman, B. J., & Helland, K. R. (2006). Narcissism in organizations:
An empirical look at managerial integrity and effectiveness. Paper presented at the
Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Van Breukelen, W., Schyns, B., & Le Blanc, P. (2006). Leader-member exchange theory and research: Accomplishments and future challenges. Leadership, 2(3), 295–316.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219 –229.
Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., van Dijk, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Narcissism, sexual refusal, and aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1027–1040.
Campbell, W.K., Reeder, G.D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Narcissism and
comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 329– 347.
Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004).
Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a new self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29 – 45.
Campbell, W. K., Bush, C. P., Brunell, A. B., & Shelton, J. (2005). Understanding the social costs of Narcissism: The case of the tragedy of the commons. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1358–1368. doi:10.1177/0146167205274855
Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 268-284.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.007
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (1) 38-48.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006). The narcissistic CEO: An exploratory
study of indicators and strategic consequences. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration. Group
Dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 4(1), 27.
Conrad, P. (1988). Health and fitness at work: A participants’ perspective. Social Science
Medicine, 26, 545–550.
Cooper, C.L., & Cartwright, S., (1994) Stress-management interventions in the workplace: Stress counselling and stress audits, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 22(1), 65-73, doi: 10.1080/03069889408253666
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional
exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160–169. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.160
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and Well-Being in the Workplace: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357-384.
doi.10.1177/014920639902500305
Dansereau, F, Jr., & Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership
effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 140-155.
factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership: Perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 839–865.
Demerouti, E. & Bakker, A.B. (2011). The Job Demands-Resources model: Challenges for future research. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, 1-9.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands- resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.
doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499
Densten, I. L. (2005). The relationship between visioning behaviours of leaders and follower burnout. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 105-118.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634. Ellis, H. (1898). Auto-eroticism: A psychological study. Alienst and Neuroligist, 19, 260-
299.
Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit Theories, Self-Schemas, And Leader-Member Exchange. Academy of Management Journal,40(4), 988-1010. doi:10.2307/256956
Exline, J.J., & Baumeister, R.F., & Bushman, B.J., & Campbell, W.K., & Finkel, E.J. (2004). Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgive. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 87(6), 894-912.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communications Monographs, 60(4), 321–351.
Farwell, L., & Wohlwend-Lloyd, R. (1998). Narcissistic processes: Optimistic expectations, favorable self-evaluations, and self-enhancing attributions. Journal of Personality, 66, 65– 83.
Freud, S. (1931/1950). Libidinal types. Collected papers, Vol. 5. London: Hogarth Press. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader-member exchange
theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.82.6.827
Glad, B. (2002). Why tyrants go too far: Malignant narcissism and absolute power. Political
Psychology, 23, 1-37.
Goodwin, V. L., Bowler, W. M., & Whittington, J. L. (2008). A social network perspective on LMX relationships: Accounting for the instrumental value of leader and follower networks. Journal of Management, 35(4), 954-980.
Gosling, S.D., John, O.P., Craik, K.H., & Robins, R. W. (1998). Do people know how they behave? Self-reported act frequencies compared with on-line codings by observers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1337–1349.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 219– 247.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of
Management, 30(6),859–879.doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.004
Hall, K. K., Baker, T. L., Andrews, M. C., Hunt, T. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2015). The
Importance of Product/Service Quality for Frontline Marketing Employee Outcomes: The Moderating Effect of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX). Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice,24(1), 23-41. doi:10.1080/10696679.2016.1089762
Harms, P. D., Wood, D., & Roberts, B. W. (2006). The role of self-enhancement in
leadership appraisals, performance outcomes, and group cohesiveness. Manuscript under
review.
