Leader narcissism versus follower narcissism : one step closer to finding the key to a contemporary paradox

(1)

Leader Narcissism versus Follower Narcissism:

One step closer to finding the key to a

contemporary paradox

A. Goriounova (10000790)

University of Amsterdam

Faculty of Economics and Business

Master thesis MSc in Business Administration Specialisation: Leadership and Management Supervisor: mw. Dr. A.H.B. de Hoogh

Second Supervisor: mw. Prof. Dr. D.N. den Hartog

(2)

2 Statement of originality

This document is written by Alexandra Goriounova 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)

3

1. Abstract

This study focuses on the mediating role of follower job stress on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance. Furthermore, follower narcissism is proposed as a moderator of the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress. Data were collected from 123 supervisors and 123 corresponding subordinates within different organisations. Contrary to the expectations, neither a relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress, nor a mediating role of follower job stress on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance were found within this study. Follower job stress, however, was found to be negatively related with follower job performance. Follower narcissism did not have a moderating role on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress; however, contrary to the expectation, it correlated positively with follower job stress, providing an interesting new insight for both current and potential future research.

(5)

5

2. Introduction

In our modern society, narcissism in general and narcissistic leadership in particular has become a rather popular discussion topic, mainly due to its paradoxical characteristics. The term “narcissism” can be best defined as a merger of several personality characteristics, such as self-admiration, egoism (Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro & Rusbult, 2004), self-confidence, extraversion and willingness to compete (Byrne & Worthy, 2013). Many famous leaders, ranging from CEOs, such as Steve Jobs, to presidents, such as Theodore Roosevelt, are known for their questionable, yet effective leadership style (Resick, Whitman, Weingarden & Hiller, 2009). Being competitive by nature, they are often considered good leaders, irrespective of their arrogance and lack of empathy (Judge, LePine& Rich, 2006). Several authors have focused on exploring the peculiar characteristics of narcissistic leadership (see e.g. Campbell & Campbell, 2009; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2011; Nevicka, De Hoogh, Van Vianen, Beersma & McIIwain, 2013). A similar finding across these studies is that narcissistic leaders tend to justify their means by their ends, making others willing to overlook the negative aspects of their leadership style, such as their manipulative behaviour, by showing outstanding end results (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001).

Although the aforementioned researchers, amongst others (see e.g. Hoffman, Strang, Kuhnert, Campbell, Kennedy & LoPilato, 2013; Nevicka, Van Vianen & Ten Velden, 2011), have explored the consequences of narcissistic leadership style, these studies generally had a focus on the effect of narcissistic leadership and on its effects on followers’ well being. Relatively less attention has been paid to the effect of leader narcissism on follower job performance. The main purpose of this study is to fill this gap by examining the nature of this relationship. Previous research has shown that narcissistic leaders are manipulative, deceptive and intimidating towards their followers and exploit them in order to achieve their own goals (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Thus, one could argue for a negative effect that narcissistic leaders might have on their followers’ job performance.

Narcissistic leaders may cause stress within their followers due to their exploitative nature, unrealistic goal setting and outrageous expectancy patterns (Lubit, 2002). The stress that the followers have to cope with due to the constant sense of fear caused by their narcissistic leader’s manipulative nature is likely to have negative effects on them. More specifically, stress is found to reduce both cognitive performance (Vuori, Akila, Kalakoski, Pentti, Kivimaki, Vahtera, Harma & Puttonen, 2014) and task performance (Szalma & Teo, 2012). Thus, the stress followers are likely

(6)

6

to experience due to their supervisor’s narcissistic leadership style may result in their reduced performance.

Following this logic, it is paradoxical that many CEOs of successful, global companies have been proven to be highly narcissistic individuals (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). These seemingly contradicting findings suggest that there may be certain conditions that affect the way narcissistic leaders’ behaviour influences their followers’ job performance. More specifically, given the fact that previous research suggests that high levels of stress negatively affect performance (Vuori et al., 2014; Szalma & Teo, 2012 ), a factor moderating the relationship between narcissistic leadership and follower job stress may play a role. In this paper, follower narcissism is proposed as a moderating factor affecting the relationship between leader narcissism, follower job stress and, subsequently, reduced follower job performance in such a way that high levels of follower narcissism may reduce the negative effects of leader narcissism on follower job stress, and subsequently on follower job performance. Therefore, follower narcissism might be the reason that the relationship between the aforementioned variables is paradoxical, resulting in contradictory findings in scientific literature on the effectiveness of narcissistic leadership.

The reasoning behind this proposition is twofold; firstly, recent research (Hart & Adams, 2014) showed that narcissists are more tolerant towards others’ narcissistic traits than

non-narcissists. Moreover, in another recent study Maass, Lämmle, Bensch and Ziegler (2016) showed that narcissists, as opposed to non-narcissists, are likely to have prolonged friendships with other narcissists. These findings suggests that similar scenarios might be possible in business

environments, where a positive relationship between a leader and a follower, built on mutual understanding, might be highly beneficial for reduced stress levels and higher performance of the latter. Secondly, narcissists’ renowned self-confidence (Byrne & Worthy, 2013) can be helpful for dealing with high demands of their narcissistic leaders. Whereas non-narcissists could feel

pressured and, therefore, experience high levels of stress as they might feel unable to meet the high expectations of their leaders, narcissists could see it as a chance to reinforce their positive self-image and to receive admiration from others as they do not consider failing possible. Therefore narcissistic followers, as opposed to non-narcissistic followers, would have low stress levels, resulting in better job performance of the former.

In a study on 123 dyads, I examine the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance, as well as the mediating role of follower job stress and the moderating

(7)

7

role of follower narcissism on this relationship. The present research thus contributes to existing literature by examining a possible cause of contradicting findings on this topic.

In order to reach a comprehensive conclusion, this study is structured as follows. In the next chapter, a brief overview of the relevant literature on the aforementioned topics will be given, followed by hypotheses and a research model. Subsequently, within the fourth chapter information on the research method will be provided. The fifth chapter will consist of results based on the collected data. Finally, in chapter six a discussion on these findings, limitations of the current study and suggestions for future research will be provided, followed by a conclusion.

(8)

8

3. Literature review

Within this chapter the most relevant findings from the existing literature on leader narcissism, follower narcissism, follower job stress and follower job performance will be discussed. This way, a theoretical framework is created that will serve as a platform for the proposed hypotheses. The chapter ends with a research model which graphically illustrates the stated hypotheses.

3.1 Narcissism and narcissistic leadership

The term “narcissism” derives from an ancient Greek myth about Narcissus, a handsome young man who looked at his own reflection in a pool, astonished by the beauty he saw. He did not realise it was merely an image of himself, and he fell in love with his own appearance. Eventually, the love he had for his own reflection cost him his life, as he drowned in it. Nowadays, this ancient story still covers the meaning of narcissism quite well, as narcissism is considered mainly a negative personality trait that can be destructive in many ways for both narcissists and the people that surround them. Within the spectrum of normal psychology, narcissism has been studied thoroughly since the 1970s and interest has intensified ever since. Although some authors suggest that the entire society we live in has become more narcissistic (Lasch, 1979), individuals differ in the extent to which their personalities can be considered narcissistic (Judge, LePine & Rich, 2006; Raskin & Hall, 1981).

Although the differences between narcissistic individuals can be great, they have certain common traits that characterise them as such; most of these traits are linked to self-enhancement (Campbell & Campbell, 2009). These are the aforementioned admiration, extremely high self-esteem and egoism (Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro & Rusbult, 2004), willingness to be in the centre of attention at all times and lack of empathy (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Narcissists’ emotions are highly unstable (Stucke & Sporer, 2002), and when their ego is threatened they show aggression, anxiety, anger and hostility (Cheng, Tracy and Miller, 2013). They are unable to build deep, lasting relationships (Campbell & Campbell, 2009), as they are poor listeners and dislike to be mentored (Maccoby, 2000). Furthermore, they tend to overrate their overall intelligence and cognitive ability (Campbell, Goodie & Foster, 2004; Robins & Beer, 2001) and overestimate the extent to which they are liked by peers (Paulhus, 1998). In other words, arrogance is the core disposition of narcissists that is usually mostly apparent to others (Resick, Weingarden, Whitman & Hiller, 2009).

(9)

9

As narcissists’ overconfidence in their abilities is unlimited it makes it extremely difficult for them to live up to their own expectations, which makes it seem inevitable for them to fail. Campbell and Campbell (2009) draw a simplistic picture of this phenomenon, namely the “enhance until things go poorly” model. According to the authors, narcissistic individuals are mainly concerned with gaining and maintaining a positive self-view and a high self-esteem. In order to do so, others are being used to provide enhancement for narcissists through attention and admiration. To get their support and admiration, narcissistic individuals are willing to do anything so that they get the enhancement needed, which then boosts their self-esteem, which then needs more enhancement, and so on. This vicious circle isn’t likely to break, until narcissists can no longer run this system, because they reach a point where self-enhancement is no longer possible. Either self-deception does not work anymore, or they become unable to get external admiration, because others notice their inability to build and maintain lasting relationships (Campbell & Campbell, 2009).

The negative spiral that narcissists tend to get in due to the unfortunate combination of their personality characteristics makes it hard to believe that narcissists in fact can be very successful, famous individuals and even world leaders (Deluga, 1997). Nevertheless, various studies show surprising results on narcissists’ abilities (Maccoby, 2000). A study by Watts, Lilienfeld, Smith, Miller, Campbell, Waldman and Faschingbauer (2013), for instance, revealed that US presidents tend to score significantly higher on narcissism compared to the general population; moreover, narcissism positively correlated with presidential success. Also, the levels of narcissism within US presidents tend to increase as time passes. Furthermore, Young and Pinsky (2006) studied celebrity narcissism, which showed that the levels of narcissism are extremely high within that group and exceed the average narcissism levels of the general population. A more concrete, although slightly cliché, yet excellent example of a successful and famous narcissistic individual is Steve Jobs (Maccoby, 2000). Jobs is one of the best examples of successful narcissists as he showed many narcissistic personality characteristics, and yet he was an extremely successful entrepreneur who ruled the Apple empire for many years (Maccoby, 2000; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). He remains a great inspiration for many young entrepreneurs, regardless of his infamous arrogance and bad reputation for mistreatment of his subordinates (Issacson, 2011).

The success of Jobs, among other famous narcissists, can be explained by the fact that narcissists in general and narcissistic leaders in particular tend to seek high profile jobs as they have a strong desire for glory and admiration from others (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). However, this explanation is insufficient for accurately describing the manner in which they

(10)

10

actually acquire these roles; other, more deeply rooted grounds need to be sought. It seems that narcissists possess certain personality characteristics that are beneficial for becoming leaders (Brunell, Gentry, Campbell, Hoffman, Kuhnert & DeMarree, 2008). They tend to be socially extraverted, decisive and dominant (Brunell et al., 2008), charismatic and confident (Rosenthal &Pittinsky, 2006), highly likeable at first appearance and successful in forming short-term relationships (Brunell et al, 2008). Additionally, they are capable of showing vision, creativity and inspiration, which helps them rise to the top (Maccoby, 2000). Finally, they score high on self-esteem and self-efficacy (Watson, Sawrie & Biderman, 1991). Nevicka et al. (2011) mentioned that as narcissistic individuals are likely to possess these prototypical leadership characteristics, they are likely to emerge as leaders. Indeed, Brunell et al. (2008) found that narcissistic individuals tend to emerge as leaders more often than others in leaderless group discussions. Moreover, Nevicka et al. (2011) found that they are likely to emerge as leaders across various situations irrespective of the context. Also, Nevicka et al. (2013) found that when times are uncertain, people tend to choose leaders that are more narcissistic as they are perceived capable of reducing uncertainty. Byrne and Worthy (2013) found that narcissism is a preferred personality trait for leaders in situations in which there is ambiguous and misleading information. Others however, found that narcissistic leadership also may occur in stable environments (Campbell, Hofman, Campbell & Marchisio, 2011). All in all, the above findings provide some clarity on the increasing popularity of narcissistic leaders, although the paradox of narcissistic leadership and its mixture of appealing and toxic characteristics remain existing.

Irrespective of their positive features, narcissistic leaders are often considered difficult to work for due to their manipulative nature and a general lack of empathy for others (Jugde, LePine & Rich, 2006). They are willing to do anything in order to achieve their goals, which are often very difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish. In order to do so, they exploit their employees to their full extent, using various techniques, such as deception and intimidation (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). In order to preserve a grandiose self-image (Glad, 2002), they blame the subordinates for their own failures (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006).

Several authors mention the difference between short-term and long-term effects of narcissistic leadership (Stein, 2013; Grijalva & Harms, 2014); it appears that while short-term effects of narcissistic leadership might be beneficial, its toxic features may cause serious problems for organizations in the long run (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Campbell and Campbell (2009) found that for both narcissistic leaders and their followers, great costs that outweigh the benefits, appear in the long run. This is explained by the lack of care, empathy and compassion for others. A clear, although slightly extreme, example of this peculiar dynamic is Adolf Hitler. Hitler was

(11)

11

considered a highly desirable and appealing leader in the successful beginning of his political career. He gained millions of followers, but as time passed his leadership had most dramatic effects on the entire planet. Hitler can be seen as an extreme personification of several negative narcissistic leadership characteristics, such as dominance, arrogance and, above all, ruthlessness (Nevicka et al., 2013).

3.2 Job stress

Job stress, which is often referred to as occupational stress (Manning, Jackson and Fusilier, 1996) or job related stress (Sosik & Godschalk, 2000) has been studied extensively in the past decades, as during this time organizational environments have become increasingly complex. According to Jons, Huxtable, Hodgson and Prince (2003), 5 million British employees felt ‘very’ to ‘extremely’ stressed due to high job demands, which resulted in work-related health problems. Job stress has various negative consequences, such as employee dissatisfaction, alienation, low productivity and turnover (Parker & DeCotiis, 1983). Furthermore, it has been linked to physical health problems and mental illness (Sosik & Godschalk, 2000) and decreased performance levels (Motowidlo, Packard & Manning, 1986). Also, it can have negative financial consequences for companies; a research by Greenberg, Finkelstein and Berndt (1995) showed that job stress has been estimated to cost corporate America approximately $200 billion annually in absenteeism, lost productivity and accidents. Moreover, a research by Sullivan and Bhagat (1992) showed that job stress related costs can approximate 10% of the US Gross National Product.

Job stress derived from a broader concept of stress, which, according to Motowidlo, Packard and Manning (1986) is enshrouded by a ‘thick veil of conceptual confusion’ as there is a great lack of consensus on the definition of stress. Nevertheless, Lazarus (1990), who is

considered a pioneer of stress research, managed to find a broad yet concrete definition of stress that has been used widely in literature. He conceptualised stress as a complex, multivariate process, resulting from a broad system of variables involving inputs, outputs and the mediating activities of appraisal and coping. Furthermore, Janis and Leventhal (1968) described stress as an unpleasant emotional experience associated with elements of fear, dread, anxiety, irritation, annoyance, anger, sadness, grief and depression. Finally, stress is a multi-facet construct that revolves around antecedents (e.g. demands, resources), intervening processes (e.g. coping, personality), indicators of immediate stress response and long term consequences of stress for individuals and, in cases where the stress experienced is job related, for the workplace as well (Gillespie, Walsh, Winefield, Dua & Stough, 2001). As this paper focuses solely on job stress, the following definition, adapted from Parker and DeCotiis (1983) will be used in order to describe

(12)

12

this concept properly: ‘Job stress is an uncomfortable or undesirable feeling experienced by an individual who is required to deviate from normal or self-desired functioning in the workplace as a result of opportunities, constraints, or demands relating to potentially important work-related outcomes’.

3.3 Follower job stress as a consequence of leader narcissism

In order to understand the effects that narcissistic leadership can have on the stress levels of followers, it is important to take a closer look at the possible consequences of the behaviour of narcissistic leaders. It is noteworthy that literature on narcissistic leadership and stress levels of followers is rare. Many authors (e.g. Judge et al., 2016; Rosenthal & Pittinsky), however, have examined narcissistic leaders and the way they treat their subordinates, so some inferences on the effect of their behaviour on their followers’ job stress levels can still be made from the results of literature on stress-related concepts, such as well being. In his research, Lupit (2002) mentions the highly negative effects of narcissistic leadership on follower well being. In their meta-analysis, Schyns and Schilling (2012) found similar results that show that followers’ well being is very likely to be negatively affected by leader narcissism.

Due to their manipulative nature and a general lack of empathy towards others (Jugde, LePine & Rich, 2006), narcissistic leaders are often considered difficult to work for. They consider themselves superior, which automatically makes them believe that their followers are inferior to them (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001). Due to their inflated self-concept which they aim to sustain, they have an unhealthy desire for recognition and a high degree of self-reference when interacting with others (Kernberg, 1989). Furthermore, narcissistic leaders are known for their tendency to exaggerate achievements, their preoccupation with fantasies of power and their intolerance towards compromise (Resick et al., 2009).They are willing to do anything in order to achieve their goals, which are often very difficult, or even impossible, to accomplish. In order to do so, they exploit their employees to the full extent, using various techniques, such as deception and intimidation (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). In order to preserve a grandiose self-image (Glad, 2002), they blame their followers for their own failures (Rosenthal &Pittinsky, 2006), which can create great stress for the latter. Narcissistic leaders tend to be manipulative, deceptive and intimidating towards their followers and exploit them to the full extent in order to achieve their goals (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006).

The above characteristics give enough reason to think that leader narcissism, which often results in deviant behaviour towards followers, has a negative effect on followers’ stress levels

(13)

13

and can create a difficult work environment. According to Higgs (2009) narcissistic leadership may be the cause of ‘toxic’ organisational cultures, due to the unethical behaviour and the abuse of power of narcissistic leaders. According to Kets de Vries and Miller (1985) subordinates sometimes feel that they have to follow their leader’s exact instructions in order to survive; in worse scenarios, narcissistic leaders’ carelessness towards their employees might even lead to employee turnover.

Taking into account the above considerations, the first hypothesis of this study is proposed.

H1: Leader narcissism is positively related to follower job stress 3.4 Follower job stress and follower job performance

In order to understand the concrete consequences that narcissistic leadership is likely to have on both the followers and the organisation, the direct effects of follower job stress need to be looked upon. One of the most important areas affected by excessive (follower) job stress is (follower) job performance, defined as an activity in which an individual is able to accomplish successfully the task/goal assigned to him, subject to the normal constraint of the reasonable utilization of available resources (Jamal, 1984). The increase in information communication technology, globalisation and other factors have transformed many industries in a dramatic manner over the last decades (Sparks, Faraghar & Cooper, 2001), causing stress levels to rise and affecting organisations negatively. As most researchers tend to focus on employee wellbeing and mental and physical health as outcome variables of job stress (Motowidlo et al., 1986), which inevitably are related to job performance to a certain degree, it is of utmost importance to examine the direct relationship between follower job stress and follower job performance in order to get a better understanding of the way follower job stress can affect a company’s success on both the individual and the organisational level.

The first studies on the effects of stress on performance-related concepts, such as verbal reasoning, sentence formation and other kinds of verbal performance revealed the potential negative effects that high levels of stress can have (Lazarus, Deese & Osler, 1952) on individuals. Furthermore, a research by Cohen (1980) showed that individuals who experience high stress levels tend to perform worse on tasks which call for tolerance for frustration and accuracy. Although these outcome variables differ from job performance as such, they allow us to make inferences on potential effects of follower job stress on follower job performance.

(14)

14

Literature focused on the relationship between job stress and job performance specifically, showed that job stress is likely to have a negative effect on job performance

(Motowidlo et al., 1986; Edwards et al., 2007). The main reason for this effect is that stressors are likely to distract employee from work, which then results in worsened performance (Siu, 2003). This is mainly due to the fact that stress reduces the working memory capacity and therefore slows the speed of thinking (Vuori et al, 2014). More specifically it can significantly reduce both cognitive performance (Vuori at al., 2014) and task performance (Szalma & Teo, 2012). In their meta-analysis, Gilboa, Shirom, Fried and Cooper (2008) managed to explain the three underlying mechanisms that are considered responsible for these effects by several authors (Jex, 1998; Motowidlo et al., 1986; Cohen, 1980). According to Gilboa et al. (2008), one of the reasons employees’ performance can reduce, is the fact that they perceive a demand as threatening or potentially harmful. This leads them to focus on coping with this stressor and their immediate reactions to it, such as anxiety. As a consequence, they end up using their time and energy to deal with the stressor instead of putting effort in performing job functions. As a second explanation, Gilboa et al. (2008) mention that high levels of job stress are likely to provoke involuntary physiological responses that interfere with performance. Thirdly, they say that job stress may cause information overload, which can cause their perceptual attention to narrow significantly. This way, employees may involuntarily ignore important information and cues that are vital for their performance. The aforementioned findings (e.g. Gilboa et al., 2008; Motowidlo et al. 1986) provide sufficient evidence to assume a negative relationship follower between job stress and follower job performance, which brings me to the second hypothesis of this study.

H2: Follower job stress is negatively related to follower job performance

Taking into account both the proposed relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress, and the relationship between follower job stress and follower job

performance, it is expected that folloeer job stress will mediate the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance. This brings me to the third hypothesis of this study.

H3: Follower job stress mediates the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance.

(15)

15

3.5 The role of follower narcissism

Many authors have studied the role of leader narcissism in organisations (e.g. Judge et al., 2006; Campbell & Campbell, 2009; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2011), and the aforementioned findings are contradicting and paradoxical. Considering their behaviour towards others, it is counterintuitive to think that narcissistic leaders can be good for either an individual or an

organisation. Nevertheless, many narcissistic leaders have been proven to be extremely successful in their careers (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2011), which suggests that there may be certain conditions that allow them to prosper.

Following the logic of this study, it is important to take a second look at the relationship between leader narcissism, follower job stress and follower job performance. Considering the fact that previous research suggest that leader narcissism may cause followers’ stress levels to rise and, consequently, to reduce their performance, a variable moderating the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress may serve as an explanation for the paradoxical nature of narcissistic leadership. In this study, I decided to look at follower narcissism as a potential moderating variable affecting the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress to change. In the following sections of the paper, I will discuss two pathways that serve as potential explanations for this proposition.

3.5.1 Narcissism and similarity

Although research on the interaction and relationship between narcissists is extremely rare, a recent study by Hart and Adams (2014) showed surprising results on this topic. They studied narcissists’ perception of others’ narcissistic traits and found that narcissists are in fact more tolerant of others’ narcissistic traits as opposed to non-narcissists. Even more interestingly, however, is the fact that this relationship is mediated by narcissists’ self-reported possession of narcissistic personality characteristics, which implies that this effect is based on the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971). It suggests that the more similar an individual perceived another person to be, the more that other person is liked. According to Hart and Adams (2014) the similarity-attraction paradigm particularly holds for individuals that merely like themselves in general, and for narcissistic individuals in particular. Furthermore, as narcissists are likely to be aware of their narcissistic traits and find them favourable to a certain degree (Campbell & Foster, 2007) they may find these characteristics favourable in others as well. Another thought that leads to the conclusion that narcissists might be tolerant for others’ narcissistic traits is the fact that narcissists like to be surrounded by people with high status or physically attractive people (Campbell, 1999). Contrary to the findings of other authors (e.g. Campbell, Rudich & Sedikides,

(16)

16

2002), Hart and Adams (2014) propose that this is not solely for vanity purposes of narcissistic individuals (e.g. to show off one’s beautiful wife). To the contrary, it can be related to the fact that they are drawn to individuals that possess at least some narcissistic traits that covary with physical attractiveness and high status, such as egoism and aggression, because of the similarity-attraction paradigm.

Moreover, another recent research by Maass et al. (2016) showed that narcissists are more likely to become friends with other narcissists. The aim of their research was to, firstly, find out who would like to become friends with a narcissists and, secondly, to see whether friendships among narcissists are similar to their romantic relationships. Just as Foster, Shrira and Campbell (2006), who researched romantic relationships among individuals with narcissistic personality traits, Maass et al. (2016) found that narcissists choose to be surrounded by other narcissists. In both cases, the reason is twofold; on one hand, narcissists seek people who offer potential for self-enhancement, either through admiration or by being very positive and providing a platform for identification (Campbell, 1999).On the other hand, as they love themselves a lot, they seek people who remind them of themselves and who resemble their personality traits (Hart & Adams, 2014). Although previous studies do not provide direct evidence for the nature of a relationship between narcissistic leaders and narcissistic followers, they provide enough ground to assume that the similarity-attraction paradigm will hold for these relationships as well. A study by Lankau, Riordan and Thomas (2005) showed results that may serve as additional

argumentation for this phenomenon; in a dyad study they examined whether similarity increases liking among mentors and protégés and found confirmative results. They showed that mentors were able to develop better mutual understanding with their protégés if they had similar

personality traits, as it made them like each other more. This gives enough ground to think that a leader-follower relationship might be analogous, making it easier for narcissistic followers, as opposed to non-narcissistic followers, to deal with narcissistic leaders.

The relationship between leaders and followers is a thoroughly researched topic as many authors (e.g. Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Wayne & Stilwell, 1993) have studied it as a function of the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX). In short, LMX is a concept that concerns the social exchange between a leader and a follower; it is used as a measure of the quality of the relationship between leaders and followers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). High-quality LMX

relationships, as opposed to their low-quality equivalents, have proved to be highly beneficial for subordinates, providing them multiple advantages due to better mutual understanding and

communication (Wayne, Shore &Liden, 1997). Positive outcomes for subordinates include higher degrees of job satisfaction, better job performance appraisal ratings and lower stress levels (Liden

(17)

17

et al., 1997; Schriesheim, Castro & Cogliser, 1999). Especially the fact that a good relationship between a (narcissistic) leader and a (narcissistic) follower would lower the stress levels of the latter is of interest for the current study, as it would provide another reason to assume that narcissistic followers are better able to cope with narcissistic leadership, and therefore experience less stress than their non-narcissistic counterparts.

3.5.2 Narcissism, similarity and self-esteem

The above thoughts on narcissism and similarity become even more appealing taking into account a study by Karylowski (1976). Within this study the link between similarity, liking and self-esteem was examined, and the results showed that liking of similar partners correlated positively with the subject’s self-esteem. In other words, the author found that the stronger the self-esteem of an individual, the more likely he is to like a person with similar personality traits. This idea was based on the simple thought that people tend to like themselves; therefore, the more they like their own traits, the more they will like others with these traits as well. This idea serves as an excellent bridge between the two sides of the reasoning behind the proposed moderator (follower narcissism) within this study. As narcissists are known for their high levels of self-esteem (Byrne & Worthy, 2013), it seems even more likely that they will appreciate similarity between themselves and their narcissistic leader and therefore will be better able to interact with them. If so, this could mean that narcissistic followers, compared to non-narcissistic followers, would have a better relationship with their narcissistic leaders.

Another function that the high levels of self-esteem of narcissistic followers might serve (Raskin et al., 1991, is that it could make them less vulnerable for the way they are treated by a narcissistic leader. Early research within this area (e.g. Hoffman et al., 1988; Cohen et al., 1987) suggested that there is a strong negative relation between self-esteem and experienced stress and the study by Dumont and Provost (1998) proved the existence of this relationship empirically. They showed that the higher the level of self-esteem, the less likely one is to experience levels of stress that are too high.

Whereas high stress levels are definitely undesirable, LePine, Podsakoff and LePine (2005) suggested that low amounts of stress are less harmful. Cavanaugh et al. (2000) went even further by saying that in some cases, small amount of stress can be beneficial. This is mainly due to the fact that a stressor can be seen as either a challenge, when stress levels are low, or as a threat, when stress levels are (too) high. Podsakoff et al. (2007) showed that whether a stressor is considered either a threat or a challenge depends not only on the actual stress level, but on differences in personality characteristics as well. Whether a stressor is seen as either a challenge or

(18)

18

a threat depends on the relative evaluation of the demands individuals have to deal with and sources they have (Blascovitsch et al., 2004). Examples of demands are danger and uncertainty, and examples of sources are skills, knowledge and abilities of an individual. Whenever the sources of an individual are equal to, or exceeding the level that is necessary to cope with the demands, an individual tends to find the stress level low. To the contrary, whenever an individual feels threatened because the sources available are insufficient to cope with the demands, an individual might experience stress levels that are too high. Due to the fact that narcissistic individuals tend to be highly self confident, they may be more likely to consider their sources sufficient to cope with certain demands, which can make experience them low stress levels, whereas non-narcissistic individuals, that are less self-confident, might consider their sources insufficient to cope with the demands they are facing, causing them to feel more stress

(Blascovitch et al., 2004). Thus, narcissistic followers may experience less stress due to their high levels of self-esteem compared to non-narcissistic followers.

All in all, the above findings supporting both sides of the argumentation for follower narcissism as a variable moderating the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress, which provides enough ground for the fourth hypothesis of this study:

H4: Follower narcissism moderates the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress so that when the level the follower narcissism is high, it weakens this relationship, and vice versa

3.6 Leader narcissism, follower narcissism, follower job stress and follower job performance In the previous sections of this chapter several relationships between leader narcissism, follower narcissism, follower job stress and follower job performance have been discussed, leaving me to examine one remaining relationship within this study, which is the overarching relationship between the above variables. In the end, the final goal of this study is to examine follower narcissism as a potential moderator of the mediating effect of follower job stress on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance. Thus, the fifth and final hypothesis is formed.

H5: Leader narcissism is related to follower job performance via conditional indirect effects, such that the interaction between leader narcissism and follower narcissism is related to follower job stress, which in turn is related to follower job performance

(19)

19

3.7 Research model

In previous sections of this chapter five hypotheses have been established. The first three hypotheses concern the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress, and the relationship between follower job stress and follower job performance, as well as the mediating role of follower job stress on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job

performance. The last two hypotheses firstly concern the moderating role of follower narcissism on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress. Secondly, they concern the role of the interaction between leader narcissism and follower narcissism within the complete model, which refers to the main research question of this study. Below, the hypotheses are shown in a conceptual model. Figure 1. Conceptual Model Follower Job Performance Leader Narcissism Follower Job Stress Follower Narcissism

(20)

20

4. Method

Within this chapter the empirical part of the study will be introduced. First, the characteristics of the sample will be presented, followed by an extensive description of the research method1_{and the instruments used for the operationalisation of the constructs.}

4.1 Procedure

Five students, under the supervision of two professors, took part in the data collection process which started in March and was by the end the second week of April. As this was a dyad based study, two separate questionnaires were developed and distributed across personal

networks of the students, both online and on paper. As the number of supervisors within personal networks of the students was limited, subordinates were approached as well, and asked whether they would be willing to invite their direct supervisors to participate. Finding pairs of supervisors and their direct subordinates was crucial within this research, as was their anonymity. Therefore, potential respondents were sent e-mails with a brief description of the research and a link to the questionnaires or given the paper-and-pencil version of the questionnaires separately. Both supervisor and subordinate were given a unique code to fill in the questionnaire, which would be used to pair their questionnaires anonymously afterwards.

The questionnaires were available in Dutch and English, depending on the preference of the participant. Both supervisors and subordinates were free to choose their language of

preference. As the questionnaire was composed of scales from English studies, it was translated into Dutch. In both the online version and the paper-and-pencil version of the questionnaire a description of the study, its purpose and contact details of the researchers were provided. Also, instructions on how to fill in the questionnaire were provided. Next, several scales measuring different construct were administered, followed by some questions on demographical data, such as age, gender, educational background and job tenure. The total amount of time needed to fill in the supervisor questionnaire or the subordinate questionnaire was approximately 15 or 10

minutes respectively. 4.2 Sample

In total, 450 potential respondents received an invitation to participate in this study, of whom 258 filled in the survey, resulting a response rate of 57.3%. However, the actual number of

1_{As this research is part of a larger study at the University of Amsterdam, not all the collected data was relevant for this study;} within this chapter only relevant information regarding the data collection and the used instruments will be given.

(21)

21

dyads was then reduced to 123, as some participants did not complete the survey, making the dyad unusable. Furthermore, the online version of the questionnaire was slightly more popular that the paper-and-pencil version (49.6%). The data was collected within a great variety of industries, such as retail (16.3%), hospitality (15.3%) and healthcare (2.6%).

Of the group of 123 supervisors 47.5% were female. As the respondents did not need to provide their exact age, but to tick an age box instead, the age distribution was as follows. 12.5% of the supervisor respondents were between 18 and 24 years old, 35.8% were between 25 and 34 years old, 21.7% were between 35 and 44 years old, 22.5% were between 45 and 54 years old and 7.5% were between 55 and 64 years old. Furthermore, 58.1% of the supervisors were higher educated (44.4% received a degree for attending an educational programme at the university of applied sciences (HBO) and 13.7% received an academic degree), whereas 42% completed either a secondary education programme (5.1%) or received a higher vocational education degree (MBO, 22.2%). Job tenure varied greatly among the supervisors, ranging from less than a year to 35 years (M = 8.5, SD = 6.3). The amount of time that a supervisor was in charge of the

subordinate ranged from less than a year to 30 years (M = 4.4, SD = 4.8). Furthermore, the frequency of contact between a supervisor and the subordinate was mostly daily (60.8%), followed by weekly (38.3%) and monthly (0.8%).

Of the group of 123 subordinates 57.7% were female. 39% of the subordinates were between 18 and 24 years old, 42.3% were between 25 and 34 years old, 11.4% were between 35 and 44 years old, 4.1% were between 45 and 54 years old and 3.3% were between 55 and 64 years old. Furthermore, 52.5% of the supervisors were higher educated (33.9% received a degree for attending an educational programme at the university of applied sciences (HBO) and 18.6% received an academic degree), whereas 38.2% completed either a secondary education

programme (6.8%) or received a higher vocational education degree (MBO, 31.4%). Job tenure varied greatly among the subordinates as well, ranging from less than a year to 33 years (M = 8.5, SD = 6.3).

4.3 Measurement of variables

To be consistent, all the items within the survey were answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Mostly Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Agree, 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 5 = Somewhat Agree, 6 = Mostly Agree, 7 = Strongly Agree) as this scale format is highly preferable for questionnaires (Dawes, 2012).

(22)

22

4.3.1 Leader narcissism and follower narcissism

Both leader and follower narcissism were measured using the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ) 18 items scale (Back, Küfner, Dufner, Gerlach, Rauthman & Denissen, 2013). We chose to use the NARQ scale as this scale outperformed the highly popular Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) scale in predicting outcome measures. Also, its moderate amount of items, compared to the 40-item NPI scale, seems very appealing (Back et al., 2013). As an example of the items on the NARQ scale, the following may be considered: “I am great” and “I want my rivals to fail”.

4.3.2 Follower job stress

Follower job stress was assessed by a 4 item scale, based on Motowidlo, Packard and Manning (1986). This scale is adapted from a longer questionnaire measuring stress experienced in a working environment; as an example of the items that are being presented on the scale, the following may be considered: “My job is extremely stressful” and “I feel a great deal of stress because of my job”.

4.3.3 Follower job performance

Job performance of followers was measured by using a 7 item scale, adapted from

Williams and Anderson (1991). Within this scale, supervisors are asked to answer questions about their subordinates’ performance in order to rate it. As an example of items presented on the scale, the following may be considered: [The subordinate] “adequately completes assigned duties” and “performs tasks that are expected of him/her”.

(23)

23

5. Results

In this section of the paper the statistical procedure will be discussed, followed by a correlation matrix and information on the reliability of the scales and the normality of the distribution of the items. Finally, the testing of the hypotheses will be discussed.

5.1 Statistical procedure

Before testing the hypotheses, the raw data were analysed. To perform the analysis, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software with the PROCESS macro (Preacher and Hayes, 2008) was used. Cases with significant amounts of missing data have been deleted; these were the dyads of which either the supervisor or the subordinate failed to fill in the questionnaire. After recoding counter indicative items, the correlational matrix was computed. Furthermore, several tests have been performed in order to test the normality of distribution of the items. Finally, the five hypotheses were tested.

5.2 Data Analysis

5.2.1 Means, standard deviations and correlations

Means, standard deviations and correlations of the four variables are presented in Table 1. A number of significant correlations between several variables implied direct relationships. The first thing that catches the attention is the correlation between follower narcissism and follower job stress. Contrary to the expected negative correlation between these two variables, the observed correlation is positive (r = .19, p < .05). This correlation might indicate that highly narcissistic followers experience higher job stress levels compared to non-narcissistic followers. Next significant correlation is between leader narcissism and follower job performance. As expected, the correlation is negative (r = -.28, p < .01), which indicates that followers of narcissistic leaders show lower scores on job performance compared to followers of non-narcissistic leaders. Furthermore, in line with the expectations there is a negative correlation between follower job stress and follower job performance (r = -.26, p < .01). This indicates that followers who experience higher levels of job stress show lower scores on job performance. Finally, contrary to the expected results, there is a negative correlation between follower narcissism and follower job performance (r = -.30, p < .01), which might indicate that highly narcissistic followers perform less well in comparison to their non-narcissistic counterparts.

(24)

24 Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations

Variables M SD 1 2 3 1. Leader narcissism 3.44 0.81 2. Follower job stress 3.79 1.24 .14 3. Follower narcissism 3.12 0.78 .14 .19* 4. Follower job performance 5.83 0.70 -.28** -.26** -.30** *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

5.2.2 Normality

Normality was checked by using kurtosis and skewness tests. It is noteworthy to say that none of the NARQ items were normally distributed; all items were either above 1 or below -1 (with a distribution between -2.6 and 1.5). Also, kurtosis was quite large for these questionnaires, and included both positive and negatives extremes, which means that some items are distributed very flat and others very peaked (distributed between -1.9 and 7.4). The lack of normal

distribution of the items of the NARQ questionnaire might have to do with the fact that this study is dyad-based. As the number of dyads (123) is smaller than the traditional 200 that is considered appropriate for assuming a normal distribution of items, the results on this part might be slightly biased. Although the dyad-based sample size is 123, the actual sample size is 246, which allows to assume normal distribution of the items so that the skewness and kurtosis have a non-significant effect on it. As for the follower job stress questionnaire, the items were normally distributed, with a skewness between -0.5 and 0.5. With lowest kurtosis of 0.3 it was slightly flatter distributed. Also, the items on the follower job performance questionnaire were normally distributed, with a skewness between -0.5 and 0.5. With lowest kurtosis of 0.4 it was slightly flatter distributed as well.

5.2.3. Reliability

Next, the reliability of the scales was checked. The reliability of the NARQ scale, for both leader narcissism and follower narcissism was high with Cronbach's Alphas of .89 and .87 respectively. Furthermore, the follower job stress scale had a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.77 and the

(25)

25

follower job performance scale had a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.85, which means that all the scales within this survey are, as expected, highly reliable as their Cronbach’s Alphas exceed 0.7.

5.3 Hypothesis Testing

Table 2.

Regression results of follower job stress as a mediator of the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance

Consequent

M (Follower Job Stress) Y (Follower Job Performance)

Antecedent Beta SE p Beta SE p

X (Leader Narcissism) a .22 .14 >. 05 c’ -.21 .08 <.01 M (Follower Job Stress) - - - b -.13 .05 < .05 Constant i1 3.04 .08 < .001 i2 7.03 .30 < .01

R2_{= .02} _R2_{= .13} F(1,118) = 2.44, p > .05 F(2,117) = 8.47, p < .01

Note: N = 120.

In order to test hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 the PROCESS test (Preacher & Hayes, 2008: Model 4, Simple Mediation) was conducted. Regression results of follower job stress as a mediator of the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance are shown in Table 2. First, the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress was examined. There is no negative relation found between leader narcissism and follower job stress, β = 0.22, t(118) = 0.16, p > 0.05. This means that two followers, whose leaders differ by one unit in their scores on leader narcissism, are estimated to differ by 0.22 units in their follower job stress, as a result of the tendency of those followers who have narcissistic leaders to experience more follower job stress. However statistically, this effect does not differ from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that is no entirely above zero (-0.06 to 0.41). As these findings do not support the first hypothesis, it is rejected.

(26)

26

The relationship between follower job stress and follower job performance is, however, significant; β = -.13, t(117) = -2.56, p <.05. This means that two followers, whose follower job stress levels differ by one unit, are estimated to differ by -2.56 units in their follower job

performance, as a result of the tendency of the followers who experience more job stress to show lower job performance scores. This effect is statistically different from zero, t = -2.56, p < .05, with a 95% confidence interval from -0.22 to -0.03. This outcome indicates that follower job stress is negatively related to follower job performance. As this is in line with the expectation, hypothesis 2 is confirmed.

H2: Follower job stress is negatively related to follower job performance

Next, the mediating role of follower job stress on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance is investigated. The indirect effect of -0.03 means that two followers, whose leaders differ by one unit in their leader narcissism, are estimated to differ by -0.03 units in their follower job performance, as a result of the tendency of those followers who have narcissistic leaders to experience more follower job stress, which in turn translates into lower follower job performance. However statistically, this indirect effect does not differ from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that is no entirely below zero (-0.09 to 0.00).

The direct effect of leader narcissism (β = -0.21) is the estimated difference in two followers who experience the same level of follower job stress but whose leaders’ levels of leader narcissism differ by one unit, meaning that the followers whose leaders have higher levels of leader narcissism but who experience the same levels of follower job stress are estimated to be -0.21 units lower on their follower job performance. This direct effect is statistically different from zero, t = -2.82, p < .01, with a 95% confidence interval from -0.36 to -0.06.

The total effect of leader narcissism on follower job performance is β = -0.24, meaning that two followers, whose leaders differ by one unit in leader narcissism are estimated to differ by -0.24 units in their follower job performance. The negative sign means that the followers, whose leaders score higher on leader narcissism, score lower on follower job performance. This effect is statistically different from zero, t = -3.15, p < .01, or between -0.29 and -0.09, with 95%

confidence.

Finally the Sobel test, which is another indicator of the significance of a mediation, confirmed the lack of a mediating effect of follower job stress on the relationship between leader

(27)

27

narcissism and follower job performance. This test normally assumes a normal distribution of the indirect effect; as this is not the case, bootstrapping was performed to compensate for the lack of normal distribution. Nevertheless, the Sobel test shows that in this case no mediation effect has occurred, Z = -1.27, p = >.05, κ² = .02. Together these results indicate follower job stress does not mediate the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance. Therefore, the third hypothesis is rejected.

H3: Follower job stress mediates the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance

Table 3.

Regression results of follower narcissism as a moderator and follower job stress as a mediator of the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance

Consequent M (Follower Job

Stress) Y (Follower Job Performance)

Antecedent Beta SE p Beta SE p

X (Leader Narcissism) a .22 .65 >. 05 c’1 -.21 .08 <.01 M (Follower Job Stress) - - - b1 -.13 .06 < .05 W (Follower Narcissism) a2 .11 .63 >. 05 - - - XW (Leader Narcissism x Follower

Narcissism) a3 .05 .20 >. 05 - - -

Constant i1 2.82 2.01 >. 05 i2 7.03 .29 < .01

R2_{= .05} _R2_{= .13}

F(3,116) = 2.41, p > .05 F(2,117) = 7.59, p < .01

Note: N = 120.

In order to test hypotheses 4 and 5 the PROCESS test by Preacher and Hayes, 2008: Model 7, Moderated Mediation) was conducted. Results are presented in Table 3. The results indicate that there is no significant interaction between leader narcissism and follower narcissism (β = .053, p > .05). More specifically, this means that leader narcissism is neither related to follower job stress when follower narcissism is low (1 SD below the mean, β = -.02, p > .05), nor when follower narcissism is high (1 SD above the mean, β = -.02, p > .05). Followers with leaders

(28)

28

who score high on narcissism do not experience lower stress levels when they themselves score high on narcissism, than when they themselves score low on narcissism. As the lack of a significant interaction effect between leader narcissism and follower narcissism on follower job stress does not allow for further analyses, these results imply that neither a moderation, nor a moderated mediation are to be found within this model; both hypotheses 4 and 5 are rejected.

H4: Follower narcissism moderates the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress so that when the level the follower narcissism is high, it weakens this relationship, and vice versa

H5: Leader narcissism is related to follower job performance via conditional indirect effects, such that the interaction between leader narcissism and follower narcissism is related to follower job stress, which in turn is related to follower job performance

(29)

29

6. Discussion

The overall aim of this study was to examine the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance. In order to examine different possible aspects of the relationship between these two variables, follower job stress was proposed as a mediator and follower narcissism was proposed as a moderator. More specifically, the purpose was to investigate whether follower narcissism moderates the mediating effect of follower job stress on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance. Contrary to the

expectations, neither a mediation nor a moderation was found within this research. Furthermore, follower job stress was found not to be related leader narcissism in any way. However, in line with the expectation follower job performance was strongly related to follower job stress. Within this chapter, the findings are discussed, followed by the implications of these findings with respect to both theory and practice. Next, the limitations of this study will be discussed. Finally a comprehensive conclusion and a number of suggestions for future research will be given.

6.1 Theoretical and practical implications

Narcissism in general and narcissistic leadership in particular has been studied from several angles in the past and is considered an increasingly interesting topic, due to its presence throughout the history of our society and the paradoxical outcomes that revolve around this concept. Although several narcissistic leaders have proven to be high performers, and therefore, successful (Maccoby, 2000), narcissistic leadership has many negative aspects, of which a

sufficient amount of examples has been given within this study. As it is counterintuitive to think that narcissistic leadership could be beneficial, the examples of successful narcissists such as Steve Jobs still surprise many of us. Therefore, they may be considered as the rare exceptions that prove the rule, being that narcissistic leadership is in fact highly undesirable and has many

negative outcomes on both the organisational and the individual level (Resick et al., 2009). Although several studies have examined followers’ well being (Schyns & Schilling, 2012) as an outcome of narcissistic leadership, follower job performance is hard to find as an outcome. Therefore, to examine both the direct and the indirect impacts of the negative aspects of narcissistic leadership, I proposed that it increases follower job stress and, consequently, decreases follower job performance.

To start with the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress, contrary to the expectation, no significant results were found with respect to this relationship. More specifically, this means that followers of narcissistic leaders did not experience more stress in

(30)

30

comparison to followers of non-narcissistic leaders. This surprising outcome may have several theoretical grounds. On one hand, narcissistic leaders can both create stress for their followers, due to their deviant behaviour towards them (Judge et al., 2006). On the other hand, however, narcissistic leaders are found to be more desirable when times are uncertain, which indicates that followers may need them in order to reduce stress (Nevicka et al., 2013). As narcissistic leaders are often able to provide a great sense of certainty due to their unshakable self-confidence and charm, this may outbalance the negative effects their leadership has on their followers. In other words, the bright side of narcissistic leadership may be more powerful than its negative side effects.

Indeed, the bright side of narcissistic leadership can be extremely appealing, as narcissistic leaders are able to communicate their vision (Judge et al., 2006) and energise their audience, which they need in order to flourish (Nevicka et al., 2011), in a remarkable way due to their outstanding social skills (Sosik et al., 2014). Examples of leaders that are considered ‘good’ by many, as they seem to have used their narcissistic traits in a constructive way to promote pro-social change and to achieve positive pro-social, economic and political outcomes (Maccoby et al., 2000; Kets de Vries and Miller, 2006) are Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton (Sosik et al., 2014). Although their leadership style might sound less appealing to some, it seems that many people need a ‘real leader’. Post (1986) described the personality of a follower as ‘ideal-hungry’; someone, who needs another person to provide a sense of security by reducing uncertainty, especially in times of a crisis, when even the most stable individuals might feel overwhelmed. Not only does the overall stress levels increase in the ever quicker moving business world (Conti, Angelis, Cooper, Faragher and Gill, 2005), which may contribute to a permanent sense of uncertainty, the narcissistic leader can also contribute to the sense of uncertainty (Post, 1986) by creating of a sense of fear for the unknown. This way, narcissistic leaders create a platform for presenting themselves as guides who will help those that will follow them. As people are likely to be more forgiving of leaders they perceived as strong and charming (Post, 1986), the sense of security that comes with narcissistic leadership may be stronger than the stress its downsides may cause.

Next, the relationship between follower job stress and follower job performance was examined. In line with the aforementioned research (Motowidlo et al.; Edwards et al., 2007), there was a significant negative relationship between these variables. More specifically, it means that the higher their stress levels, the worse the job performance of employees. This outcome was expected, as previous research showed similar results with respect to job performance related outcomes, such as cognitive performance (Vuori et al., 2014) and task performance (Szalma &

(31)

31

Teo, 2012). Indeed, it seems that when stress levels are too high, they interfere with performance as both are in need of an individual’s attention simultaneously. Just as Gilboa et al. (2008), suggested, high stress levels reduce employee’s job performance.

The most interesting part of this study revolved around the proposed moderational effect of follower narcissism, as it was built on inferences made from very recent research on

relationships between narcissists. However, no results were found, which indicates that follower narcissism does not relate to leader narcissism and follower job stress. Possible reasons for the lack of a relationship between these variables are discussed below.

Recent research by Hart and Adams (2014) has shown that narcissist tend to like other narcissists more, due to the fact that they find traits that resemble their own personality within others. However, a study by Adams and Burton (2015) showed results that seem to refine and even contradict these findings; narcissists’ tolerance towards each other is not universal. On closer inspection, narcissists seem to only like each other on paper. In other words, although narcissists are shown to tolerate others’ abstract narcissistic traits, they do not tolerate concrete manifestations of these traits. Translated to the business world this might mean that the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) does not hold for narcissistic leaders and their followers; although narcissistic followers might say they like their narcissistic leaders’ personality traits that resemble themselves, in fact they do not like the behaviour that comes as a

consequence of those traits. Following this logic, the relationship between narcissistic followers and their narcissistic leaders should indeed not be any different or better than the relationship between non-narcissistic followers and their narcissistic leaders.

Moreover, narcissistic followers may suffer even more from narcissistic leadership compared to non-narcissistic followers, given the fact that their personalities tend to be highly unstable (Stucke & Sporer, 2002). Baumeister, Smart and Boden (1996) argued that assuming that people, whose views of themselves are very positive, are much more affected by highly negative feedback or other forms of bad treatment, than others. Thus, narcissists’ infamous self

admiration (Sedikides et al., 2004) might cause them to experience a larger threat to their ego. On one hand, this might cause them to become strongly motivated to re-establish their positive self view by punishing the source of the threat (Baumeister, 1997), which, in this case, would be the narcissistic leader. Indeed, Cheng et al. (2013) argued that narcissists are likely to show

aggression, hostility and anger when their ego is threatened. In the light of the current study, this means that the relationship between narcissistic leaders and narcissistic followers undergoes a great risk as narcissistic leaders’ behaviour towards their followers is often ego-threatening. On the other hand, the fact that narcissistic followers might experience a greater ego-threat than

(32)

non-32

narcissistic followers, assuming they are mistreated by their narcissistic leaders, may cause the former to experience even more job stress than the latter. This thought seems even more appealing, taking into account the positive correlation between follower narcissism and follower job stress that has been found within this study, which suggests that narcissistic followers tend to experience more job stress comparing to their non-narcissistic counterparts.

Another possible explanation of the lack of any results is the fact that according to some authors (Harris & Kacmar, 2010), the relationship between LMX and stress is curvilinear (reversed U-relationship). Although it seems natural to think that the better the relationship between a leader and a follower, the lower the stress levels of the latter, Harris and Kacmar (2010) suggest that this is not the case. According to the authors, whenever a relationship becomes too ‘good’, the negative aspects of a high quality LMX outweigh their positive

equivalents. In this case, followers are likely to have greater expectations, more obligations and more complex roles to fulfil beyond the formal job description, which makes them experience higher stress levels (Harris and Kacmar, 2010).

It is important to mention that the provided reasons for the lack of both a mediation of follower job stress on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance and a moderation of follower narcissism on the relation between leader narcissism, follower job stress and, consequently, follower job performance, are highly speculative as no relationship between leader narcissism and follower job stress has been found. Finding this relationship is crucial in order to examine the proposed related concepts; therefore, no inferences can be made so far. Nevertheless, the present study contributed to the existing literature (e.g. Motowidlo et al., 1986; Edwards et al., 2007) by providing evidence for a strong negative relationship between follower job stress and follower performance. In practice, this implies that the stress levels of subordinates are of utter importance for their performance and, consequently, for the

performance of an organisation in general. More specifically it means that in order for an organisation to function, its subordinates’ well being in general, and their stress levels in particular, need to be kept an eye on so that their performance is guaranteed.

Furthermore, the fact that a positive correlation between follower narcissism and follower job stress has been found, leads to the conclusion that follower narcissism is a concept worth examining, especially as many authors (e.g. Wallace & Baumeister, 2002; Brunell et al., 2008; Rosenthal & Pitinsky, 2006) have been focusing on leader narcissism exclusively. As it has been suggested that our society is becoming more narcissistic in general (Lasch, 1979; Watts et al., 2013) and as job stress has become an increasingly popular research topic (Manning et al., 1996; Sosik & Godschalk, 2000) due to the fact that business environments have become more

Leader narcissism versus follower narcissism : one step closer to finding the key to a contemporary paradox