The moderating role of followers’ characteristics in the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership

(1)

The moderating role of followers’

characteristics in the relationship between

leader narcissism and charismatic leadership

Author: Sanacha Meerman (10623892) Supervisor: Deanne den Hartog

Date: 6/7/2014 Word count: 11636

(2)

1. Introduction

Although leadership first arose in the times of hunting and gathering, the importance of leadership through the years did not diminish. Spisak, Nicholson and van Vugt (2011) suggest that when companies want to stay competitive and efficient, the need for a good strategic leader is very important. Companies we know as successful like Apple or Virgin are not only successful because of their products. A good company with a good product often needs a leader to make a good company into a success. Steve Jobs is a well-known leader nowadays and became very powerful and

successful as a leader. People see him as the one man who made apple the brand that it is today. Some people say that Steve was so popular because he was a charismatic leader, he inspired and motivated everyone around him. Others see him as a narcissistic man who always wanted things to go his way and when his subordinates doubted him or fought back he was very tough on them and punished them for contradicting him (Maccoby, 2000).

Narcissism is a relatively stable individual difference, consisting of grandiosity, self-love and inflated self-views (Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell & Marchisio, 2011). Leaders that are known as narcissistic have grandiose belief systems, leadership styles, and are generally motivated by their need for power and admiration, rather than empathetic concern for the constituents and institutions they lead (Rosenthal & Ptittinsky, 2006). In recent literature narcissism in organizational contexts is reviewed to a greater extent. Literature often shows a lot of contradiction when it comes to narcissism and leaders with narcissistic personality traits (Campbell & Campbell, 2009).

On the one hand narcissism is associated with positive personality traits, these are traits that are linked with positive self-esteem. Despite the positive traits there are some negative associations with narcissistic leaders as well, these are the traits linked with entitlement (Paunonen, Lönnqvist, Verkasalo, Leikas, & Nissinen, 2006). There are contradictions about the organizational outcomes that narcissistic leaders create. Campbell and Campbell (2009) call this contradiction a trade-off, most of the time the outcomes of this form of leadership are good for the narcissist self but

(5)

disadvantageous for the people close to the leader. In the long run the trade-off disappears and negative effects could emerge for the leaders as well, like loss of relationships, failure caused by inability to learn from mistakes, or the destruction of resources needed for long-term success (Campbell, Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005).

A leadership style that, in contradiction to narcissistic leaders’ bad outcomes, is known for positive outcomes like success, efficiency, better business unit performance and lower conflict is charismatic leadership (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Charismatic leadership is a relationship between leader and follower in which followers internalize the leader’s values and goals because the leaders are affecting their followers in a motivational and transformational way. Leaders who are perceived as charismatic are seen in a positive light and followers are willing to engage in behaviors in support of the leader and the leader’s vision (Galvin, Waldman & Balthazard, 2010). Therefore a way to create improved organizational performance may be to appoint a charismatic leader.

In literature the characteristics of both charismatic and narcissistic leaders have been associated with each other. For example narcissistic leaders use a personalized orientation towards their leadership and charismatic leaders also have a form of leadership which has a personalized orientation. Furthermore both leaders are described as confident and visionary people (House & Howell, 1992). There is a thin line between charismatic leadership and leader narcissism and there might even be some overlap. People perceive charismatic leaders as leaders who have the ability to be inspirational, exciting, determined, optimistic, challenging and stimulating (Bass & Avolio, as cited in Galvin et al., 2010). If you are perceived like this it may be hard to not have a certain degree of narcissism (Galvin et al., 2010). However most of the time charismatic leaders who are narcissistic as well are considered frightening because they are charming, manipulative and cruel at the same time (House & Howell, 1992). This all could indicate that there is a connection between leader narcissism and charisma, although it does not mean that charismatic leaders are always narcissists.

In the recent literature, research has been done on this topic as well. Galvin et al. (2010) helped to clarify how narcissism may be somewhat complex with regard to generating attributions

(6)

of charismatic leadership in that there are both positive and negative aspects to leader narcissism. In the end there is still a lot of complexity and contradiction concerning this topic and the goal of this research is to create more clarity about the relationship between narcissism and charismatic leadership and which variables lead to a relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership. Theoretically, this research can provide clarity on the research that is already there about leadership narcissism and charisma. This research is specifying why people see narcissism as

charismatic in certain situations. Practically, this research can explain how narcissism can be better managed in a way that it is providing improved outcomes for the employees and the organization (Galvin et al, 2010). In the this all leads to the main question of this research, is there a relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership and what is the role of the follower in this relationship?

(7)

2. Literature review

2.1 Leader Narcissism

The term narcissism was first derived from the Greek myth of Narcissus, Narcissus was a young man that fell in love with his own reflection. In 1898 Havelock Ellis (as cited in Russel, 1985) introduced the term ‘’narcissism’’ to describe a clinical condition of perverse self-love. Throughout the years many different explanations of narcissism passed in review. In the 1970’s the individual was becoming more important and so the idea of narcissism was no longer a clinical entity anymore. Narcissism became a cultural or social entity as well, society as a whole became increasingly

narcissistic (Emmons, 1987). What was meant with the term narcissistic society? In society there was an increasing prevalence of selfishness and egoism, which led to decreased willingness to pursue common social objectives (Kanfer, 1979). For this thesis the meaning of Campbell et al. (2011) is held. They describe narcissism the following way. First, the narcissistic self is characterized by positivity, “specialness” and uniqueness, vanity, a sense of entitlement and a desire for power and esteem. Second, narcissistic relationships contain low levels of empathy and emotional intimacy. In their place, there are (often numerous) shallow relationships that can range from exciting and engaging to manipulative and exploitative. Third, there are narcissistic strategies for maintaining inflated self-views. So they make a distinction between the narcissistic self, his/her relationships and strategies.

As described by Campbell et al. (2011) narcissists have a desire for power and esteem, these characteristics lead to the increasing emergence of narcissistic leaders. In a lot of different

leadership roles like well-known presidents or CEO’s, narcissists have appeared (Deluga, 1997). Brunell et al. (2008) look into the relationship between narcissism and leadership emergence and found that narcissism is a good predictor of leadership emergence, although narcissism also predicts ineffectiveness as a leader. So although narcissistic leaders tend to be ineffective leaders they do rise as leaders very often. One of the reasons why leader narcissism is not the most effective way of leading a group is due to the fact that narcissistic leaders mostly are driven as a leader by their own

(8)

egotistical needs for power and admiration. The visions plans and actions of these leaders are synonymous with their own psychological needs (De Vries & Miller, 1997). By doing this, the

narcissistic leader does not think of the needs of the organization and the people in the organization. Other negative qualities will be that they employ their skills in deception, manipulation, and

intimidation so they can secure leadership positions, even those for which they are underqualified (Glad, 2002). Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan (1994) show that narcissists are notoriously poor,

overinvolved, and abusive managers. Rosenthal & Pittinsky (2006) in their turn point out eight negative leadership traits of narcissistic leaders which are: Arrogance, feelings of inferiority, insatiable feelings for recognition and superiority, hyper sensitivity and anger, lack of empathy, amorality, irrationality, inflexibility and paranoia.

There is however an upside to leader narcissism as some researchers indicate. Gladwell (2002) claims that the supreme confidence and dominance of the leader are in some cases exactly what inspires a group of followers who select them. Post (1986) says that there are certain situations that call for a narcissistic leader and in this context a narcissistic leader is even a necessity. These situations are mostly situations that call for the kind of great vision and dramatic action narcissistic leaders are capable of. Maccoby (2000) argues that today's hectic and chaotic world necessitates leaders who have a more innovative, visionary and risk taking role instead of being solid and stable fundament that leaders used to be. These leaders, whom he dubs “productive narcissists,” do not try to understand the future, they shape it. Maccoby (2000) also finds two strengths of narcissistic leaders, they are visionaries and they can inspire great numbers of followers. The characteristics of inspiring people, being visionary and being confident, are not only characteristics of a narcissistic leader but are also known to be characteristics of a charismatic leader.

(9)

2.2 Charismatic leadership

One of the first to talk about charismatic leadership was Weber (as cited in Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Weber’s charisma was made by an exceptional leader, a situation and the vision or mission of the leader which presented a solution to a certain situation. Hereafter followers were attracted to this vision and because of repeated success the charismatic leadership skills were validated (Trice & Beyer, as cited in Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Since then, research has been done on the characteristics that are important for charismatic leadership. Den Hartog & Koopman (2001) divide these characteristics in physical and psychological characteristics. The physical characteristics are handsome appearance, piercing eyes and a distinct voice. Den Hartog and Koopman (2001) summarize the most important psychological characteristics of a charismatic leader mentioned in literature as high in energy, self-confident, dominant, strong need for power, strong conviction in their own beliefs, audaciousness, intelligent and eloquent. In the end, these characteristics are important for a charismatic leader to have, but charismatic leadership is not only about characteristics, it is about the relationship between the leader and his followers (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

Post (1986) describes charismatic leadership as a relationship between a leader and a group of followers in which the leader is perceived as a super human. The followers blindly believe the leaders statements, the followers take the leader’s directives for action and they give the leader unqualified emotional support. Bass and Burns (as cited in Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) explain that followers internalize the leader’s values and goals because the leaders are affecting their followers in a motivational and transformational way. Leaders increase the intrinsic value of goal accomplishment for the employees by linking them to valued aspects of the self-concept (Shamir, House & Arthur ,1993). In the end, charismatic leaders create motivated individuals that are very loyal to the leader and his visions and this could lead to improved organizational outcomes as well.

Conger and Kanungo (1988) observe various main effects of charismatic leadership on their followers, which contained heightened performance of the followers and higher motivation of the

(10)

followers, greater group cohesion and lower group conflict. Higher commitment to the

organizational goals, better leader and business unit performance, improved subordinate/work group performance and organizational citizenship behaviors are positive outcomes of a charismatic leadership style mentioned by Den Hartog & Koopman (2001).

As mentioned earlier, one of the reasons why charismatic leaders can create these positive outcomes is because they are very self-confident and have the ability to influence others. But these characteristics are characteristics of narcissistic leaders as well. A consequence is that followers often identify themselves with charismatic leaders that show a lot of narcissistic behavior and they do not even notice this most of the time (Post, 1986). Kohut (as cited in Deluga, 1997) also notices the similarities between the characteristics of the two leadership styles and makes a distinction between socialized and personalized charismatic leaders. Socialized charismatic leaders pursue collective interest whereas personalized charismatic leaders have a narcissistic dark side and feature a self-interest which could lead to damaging consequences. Most of the time these leaders are so convinced by their own abilities that they believe that follower’s contribution is not really useful (Deluga, 1997).

Finally there is some overlap between narcissistic and charismatic leaders in terms of characteristics and followers see this as well. But there are some huge differences between charismatic and narcissistic leaders in terms of their contribution to the organizations and their followers, their intentions and their effectiveness in general. In the next chapter the relationship between the two will be examined on a deeper level through the role of the followers in these situations.

(11)

3. Hypotheses

3.1 Charismatic Narcissists

Some research has already been done on the phenomena of charismatic narcissists. Kohut (as cited in Deluga, 1997) explains the nature of narcissism in the charismatic leader-follower relationship. He explains that narcissism occurs because people did not get enough approval from their parents when they were young and they have developed a very low level of self-esteem. This situation creates two types of people. These people evolve in the narcissistic leaders or the followers of narcissistic leaders (Deluga, 1997).

The narcissistic leader who derives from this situation is the so called mirror-hungry personality. These personalities are associated with charismatic leadership because these leaders are very convincing and have towering strength. They also possess the grandiosity of a narcissist and are continuously looking for admiration and confirmation from others. Because their lack of self-esteem, these leaders are continuously looking for relationships with followers in which their feeling of personal greatness is confirmed (Kohut, as cited in Deluga, 1997).

The second type that develops from a low level of self-esteem is the follower of a narcissistic leader, Kohut (as cited in Deluga, 1997) calls them the ideal-hungry personalities. The Ideal-hungry personalities are described as people who have lots of self-doubt and only get self-esteem by idealizing others, the mirror-hungry personalities. Especially in times of crisis the need for the self-object relationship is strong, admiring this charismatic leader gives the follower a sense of power, comfort and the leader is seen as a component of self. The certainty and self-confidence of the leader and the desire for self-esteem of the followers sets the stage for charismatic leader-follower relationships (Deluga, 1997).

The research of Kohut (as cited in Deluga, 1997) gives more insight into the relationship between narcissism and charismatic leadership and shows the importance of the follower in this relationship. Deluga (1997) explains that follower’s traits, like self-doubt, can create situations in which they look for a charismatic leader and narcissistic leaders are being followed eventually. This

(12)

study builds on this theory and looks at the role of the follower in the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership.

This leads to the first hypothesis. This hypothesis implies that there is a relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership. When leaders score high on narcissism there is a bigger chance that they are perceived by followers as charismatic than when they score low on narcissism.

H1: There is a positive relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership.

3.2 Neuroticism

The trait of neuroticism is on one side of the scale and emotional stability is on the other side. People who experience neuroticism are heavily distressed and sometimes develop a variety of psychological disorders (Zonderman, Stone & Costa, 1989). These individuals often have a feeling of depression, frustration, guilt and self-consciousness that is associated with low self-esteem, poor control, irrational thinking and poor control of impulses and cravings (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Emotionally stable individuals on the other side of the scale are seen as calm, relaxed and even-tempered ( McCrae & John, 1992).

The characteristics for individuals that score high on the neuroticism trait, like low self-esteem and emotional instability, are according to Kohut (as cited in Deluga, 1997) characteristics of followers who look for a charismatic leader because their weakness and instability makes them prone to admire narcissistic leaders. Individuals with low self-esteem often wish to be someone more desirable, which prompts them to identify with charismatic leaders (Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser, 2007). However these charismatic leaders can be destructive leaders and Padilla et al. (2007) found that narcissism is correlated with destructive leadership. These destructive leaders offer their insecure followers a form of a community or a group, that gives the followers a feeling of belonging, this is what they want because they feel alienated from mainstream society (Padilla et al., 2007).

(13)

This leads to the second hypothesis on the relationship between narcissism and charismatic leadership and the role of follower personality in this relationship. Leadership narcissism has a stronger relationship with the perceptions of charisma when followers score high on the neuroticism.

H2: The personality trait neuroticism moderates the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership such that the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership is stronger for individuals high on the personality trait neuroticism

3.3 Agreeableness

Agreeableness is a trait that is associated with characteristics like altruism, compliance, caring, agreeing easy and being trustful ( McCrae & John, 1992). People that score high on agreeableness do not score high on self-centeredness, hostility, jealousness and indifference for others (Digman, 1990).

Looking at a charismatic narcissistic leader, it is clear that they need people that want to identify with them, people that agree with their ideas they do not want people that differ from their ideas (Padilla et al., 2007). If followers have more self-doubt which ideal-hungry followers have, they tend to agree with ideas of others more easily. They especially agree with the ideas of charismatic narcissists because they have a strong opinion and are very visionary (Deluga, 1997). The mirror-hungry personality of the narcissistic leader is insecure and is looking for admiration and

confirmation (Kohut, as cited in Deluga, 1997), people who are more compliant will do this easier than people who are self-centered and jealous.

This leads to the third hypothesis on the relationship between narcissism and charismatic leadership and the role of follower personality in this relationship. Leader narcissism has a strong

(14)

relationship with the perceptions of charisma when followers score high on the personality trait agreeableness.

H3: The personality trait agreeableness moderates the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership such that the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership is stronger for individuals high on the personality trait agreeableness

3.4 Need for leadership

Hollander and Offermann (1990) confirm the idea that the follower plays an important role in understanding the relationship between the leader and follower. Furthermore De Vries (1999) suggests that a certain level of need for leadership is necessary for effective charismatic leadership. He found that organizational outcomes, when there was a charismatic leader, were more effective when the need for leadership was higher. This is why the next follower characteristic, the need for leadership, will be discussed to understand the relationship between charismatic leadership and leader narcissism.

De Vries, Roe and Taillieu (2002) explain need for leadership as the extent to which the followers want their leader to help them with their paths towards the goals of the organization, their team or group goals or their own goals. De Vries (1999) describes the need for leadership that concerns individual goals as a subjective need for leadership and the need for leadership that concerns group or organizational goals as a more objective need for leadership. De Vries (1997, p. 93) explains that need for leadership is a social-contextual motive. Social, because the motive is developed in group settings through socialization processes, in a group there is a strong or weak need for leadership, this will be different for every group. The need is contextual because people have different needs in different settings and throughout different moments in time (De Vries, 1999). De Vries (1999) makes a distinction between three aspects of the need for leadership. The

(15)

first aspect is whether the followers wish for intervention or not. The second aspect is the facilitation of paths , this concerns the necessity of the leader in fulfilling tasks or functions which are important to the follower. Third there is the level of the leaders influence in fulfilling goals on different

organizational and individual levels.

So need for leadership is a concept that is distinguished by De Vries (1999) into different aspects. The more insecure the subordinates feel in one of these aspects the bigger the need for leadership gets (De Vries, Roe & Taillieu 2002). Furthermore De Vries (1999) shows that the need for leadership is stronger with charismatic leaders than with non-charismatic leaders. He also suggests that followers with a high need for leadership subject themselves more easy to the acts of the leader. Therefore the argument can be made that followers with a high need of leadership may be more prone to strong narcissistic leaders and experience them as charismatic. This all leads to the fourth hypothesis, on the relationship between narcissism and charismatic leadership and the role of followers’ need for leadership in this relationship. Leadership narcissism has a strong relationship with the perceptions of charisma when followers score high on the need for leadership.

H4: The followers extent of need for leadership moderates the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership such that the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership is stronger for individuals high on the personality trait agreeableness

(16)

3.5 Conceptual model

4. Methodology

This study is done by using surveys. A survey has a wide reach and for the reliability of this research it is important to reach many people (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009, p. 144). The quantitative research gives the opportunity to collect data from a large population in an efficient and affordable way, this efficiency is necessary for this research because the time there is to collect the data is restricted (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 144). Furthermore in order to test the hypotheses, standardized statements and questions are needed so the answers of different participants can be compared in a reliable way. A good way of providing these statements and questions is through a survey (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 373).

This survey is self-administered. Self-administering gives anonymity for the respondents which will reduce the participant bias (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 156). Since almost all the questions are ranking or scaling questions, self-administering is a quick way of collecting data because people fill in the answers themselves. This self-administering is done by a leader and his/her employee. Two surveys were designed, one for the leader and one for the employee, in order to test the

Charismatic leadership Leader narcissism Employee agreeableness Employee neuroticism

Employee’s need for leadership

(17)

relationship between them. The leader and employee survey are linked with a code because the employees answer questions about themselves and their leaders and the other way around.

4.1 Sample description

The participants were approached by one of the 6 students in the group. The group members created one survey which covers all of the variables they are testing . Because the time to conduct the surveys was restricted and approximately 150 leader-employee dyads needed to be conducted, there was no focus on participants who are working in a specific industry. Approaching people in different industries also improved the generalizability of the results. The people who were the easiest to approach were contacted and this way of sampling is called convenience sampling (Saunders et al., 2009). Furthermore 100 leader-employee dyads were necessary to make sure the sample was normally distributed. In the end it was necessary to create an as large as possible sample size because the larger the sample size, the better the results can be generalized (Saunders et al., 2009, pp. 217-218).

The final sample that is used for the analysis contains 161 dyads. We sent out 232 dyads which gives a response rate of 69%. Furthermore it means that a total of 322 questionnaires is filled out so the goal of reaching 200 surveys or 100 dyads is completed.

4.2 Descriptive sample statistics

To get a good overview of the characteristics of the sample, a more detailed explanation of the sample is given. As mentioned in the method section there are 161 dyads complete dyads, this means 161 complete employee surveys and 161 complete supervisor surveys. In the supervisor group the average age is 40.8 (SD = 10.39), the average age for the employees is 30.9 (SD = 10.19). The average age of both groups is 35.8 (SD = 8.43).The minimum age for the employees is 20 and the maximum age is 61, for the supervisors is the minimum age 22 and the maximum age 62.

Furthermore the survey was completed by 164 men and 158 women, which means that 50,9% of the participants was male and 49,1% of the participants was female. These numbers are

(18)

different in the two participating groups, in the employee group 61 participants were male (37,9%) and 100 participants were female (62,1%) . These percentages differ for the supervisor group, in this group 103 participants are male (64%) and 58 participants are female (36%).

The educational level is categorized into high school, college, bachelor master and other. The statistics of the employees provided the following information: High school = 5,6%; College = 16,8%; Bachelor = 37,3%; Master = 39,8%; Other = 0,6%. For the supervisor group the educational level was divided as follows: High school = 1,2%; College = 8,1%; Bachelor = 42,2%; Master = 44,7%; Other = 3,8%.

The nationality of the sample is categorized by Dutch and non-Dutch, of the non-Dutch sample most participants are Chinese. The nationality is given per dyad so of the total of 161 dyads 133 dyads were filled in by people with a Dutch nationality (82,6%), so 28 dyads were filled in by participants with a non-Dutch nationality (17,4%).

Finally there also is a distinction between participants who made the survey online or on paper. 46 dyads were made on paper (28,6%) and 115 participants made the survey online (71,4%).

4.3 Procedure

The six students of the thesis group were all focused on getting data from 25 dyads per person. To make sure that as many participants as possible could fill in the survey, the survey was available in Dutch and English and was distributed with qualtrics online and a printed version.

The internet administered survey saves time because the data does not need to be entered in excel manually. This survey also saves costs because the surveys do not need to be printed. Furthermore the reach gets bigger when the survey is spread on the internet because there is no bound to geographical locations. However there was a chance that people ignored the online invitation more easily than when it is handed out face to face, the choice to fill it in is up to them. This choice is called self-selection and sometimes leads to a systematic bias (Wright, 2005). For those people that do not have access to the internet or are more comfortable with a printed survey, there

(19)

was the survey on paper. This is exactly the same as the online survey and was handed in by the student afterwards.

As mentioned before there was an English and Dutch version of the survey. Some of the questions needed to be translated, we used the translations that our supervisors provided us, they already have used these translations for earlier research. When there were no translations available, the students back-translated the questions very accurately themselves.

To increase the response rate of the survey there was a time indication on the first page. This way participants had an estimation of the time that it will take them to fill it in, Wright (2005) that this indication motivates employees to complete the survey. The style of the survey is made very simple and attractive, Saunders et al. ( 2009, p. 387) argues that these elements are important to increase the response rate. The survey started with an invitation letter which can be found in the appendix, the survey ended with a message that thanks the participants for participation.

4.4 Measures

4.4.1 Leader narcissism

In order to test leader narcissism a 40 item Narcissism Personality Inventory (NPI) scale of Raskin & Terry (1988) is used in the survey of the leader. There is a difference between the original response scale which is true or false and the one in the survey which is a seven-point Likert scale (1 =

‘completely disagree’ to 7 = ‘completely agree’). This choice is made to keep the response style of the survey consistent. Furthermore there are researchers that indicate that a Likert scale may be beneficial in analyzing the NPI factor structure (Corry, Merritt, Mrug & Pamp, 2008). An example item is: ‘I have a natural talent for influencing people’.

4.4.2 Moderators

The first moderator that is going to be tested is neuroticism of the employee. This is tested with the 25 items that measure the big five personality by Donnellan, Oswald, Baird & Lucas (2006). The

(20)

questions 4, 9, 14, 19 and 24 of the 25 questions will measure neuroticism. An example item will be: ‘I get upset easily’. The questions 2, 7, 12, 17 and 22 measure the big five factor agreeableness, this is the second moderator of the research. An example item is: ‘I am really interested in others’.

The last moderator in this research is the employees need for leadership. This variable will be measured with a 17 item scale of De Vries, Roe & Taillieu (2002). An example item is: ‘I need my supervisor to set goals’. All the moderating variables were originally responded with a five-point scale but for this survey the choice was made to use a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ‘completely disagree’ to 7 = ‘completely agree’) to keep consistency throughout the survey.

4.4.3 Charismatic leadership

To test the hypotheses about the variable charismatic leadership, an 11 item scale of De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman (2004) to measure transformational leadership is used. The first six items are used to measure charismatic leadership, this is filled out by the employee. The response on the items is done with a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ‘completely disagree’ to 7 = ‘completely agree’). An example item is: ‘He/She has a vision and imagination of the future’.

(21)

5. Results

5.1 Reliability and Correlations

Cronbach’s Alpha tests are used to report on the reliability of the scales (Field, 2009, p. 674). The Cronbach’s Alpha shows the reliability of the variable which means that all the items that were used to measure a variable, all correlate. Field (2009, p. 675) explains that a good Cronbach’s Alpha, which indicates a reliable variable, is above 0.7.

The reliability of the different values can also be found table one and are as follows. For leader narcissism a Cronbach’s Alpha of .937 was found, if the Alpha is above .9 and can be seen as highly reliable the same applies to the reliability of need for leadership which is .911. The Alpha of neuroticism was .815 which is above .8 and is called good reliability, the same applies to the reliability of charismatic leadership which has a Cronbach’s Alpha of .856. The reliability of agreeableness is the lowest with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .763 this can be seen as a reasonable realiability because the alpha is between .6 and .8.

The correlations between the different variables are displayed in table one as well. A correlation is a measure that shows a relationship between two variables. In this research only two correlations have a significant relationship. First of all the correlation between need for leadership and neuroticism (R=0.317). These two variables could be correlated because they are both explained by some uncertainty of the employee. The second correlation is between neuroticism and

charismatic leadership (R=-0.194). This relationship is negative which means that the more

emotionally instable or neurotic people are the less they follow a charismatic leader, this may have something to do with the fear that neurotic people have of high standards of charismatic leaders. This will be explained in the discussion more extensively. The rest of the relationships between the different variables are not significant.

(22)

5.2 Regression analysis

To test the model suggested in the third chapter, a moderated regression analysis was performed, all independent variables were centred around zero by subtracting their means. The results are

presented in table 2. The regression analysis was performed in three steps, the first model contained as independent variables the control variables, the second model looked at the relationship between the independent variables of the model and the dependent variable, the third model looked at the moderation effect of the different moderators as the interaction terms were entered as

independent variables. The R square change for the first step was .019 so 1.9% of the variance is explained by the control variables of pencil/paper and Dutch/non-Dutch. When the independent variables were added in the second step the R square change was .090 so 9% of the variance is explained by the independent variables. In the third step the interaction terms where added and this showed only 0.001 variance that is explained by the moderating effect of the interaction terms. So no extra variance is explained by the interaction terms. The p-value for the first model, with the control variables, was .228 and the F=1.492 df(2,158) and was not significant. The p-value for the second model was .007 and F=3.111 df(6,154), this second model with the independent variables of the conceptual model and the dependent variable charismatic leadership, was significant. The third

Table 1: Descriptives and Correlations between the variables (Cronbach's Alphas on diagonal).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1 Leader narcissism 4.26 0.728 (0.937) 2 Neuroticism 3.35 1.118 0.119 (0.815) 3 Agreeableness 5.38 0.750 -0.013 0.049 (0.763)

4 Need for leadership

4.60 0.961 0.142 0.317** 0.121 (0.911) 5 Charismatic leadership 5.38 0.919 -0.044 -0.194* 0.059 0.149 (0.856) Note. N = 322. * p < 0,05. ** p < 0,01. 21

(23)

model with the moderators added as well gave p= .037 and F=2.057 df(9,151) was significant as well although the difference between models two and three is not.

Tabel 2: Results of moderated regression analysis.

5.2.1 The relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership The first hypothesis on which the model is based, suggests that there is a relationship between leader narcissism and the charismatic leadership. Leader narcissism is measured in the supervisor survey and charismatic leadership is measured in the employee survey, so perceived charismatic leadership assessed by the employee is tested. The hypothesis stated that leaders are perceived as more charismatic when they score higher on narcissism.

First of all the correlation matrix showed that there is no significant relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership with a value of R=-0,044. After the correlation test a regression analysis was done to look at the relationships in the entire model. The second step of the regression analysis shows the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership b=-.020, p= .800, t=-.254, 95%CI [-.163;.126]. This means that there is no significant relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership

Charismatic Leadership

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Adj. R2 ΔR2 ΔF

Step 1 Language .118 .110 .129 .006 .019 1,492 Paper/Non-Paper .328 .367 .365 Step 2 Neuroticism .004** .005** .073 .090 3,866 Agreeableness .926 .947

Need for Leadership .002** .002**

Narcissism .800 .813

Step 3 .056 .001 .063

Narcissism × Neurotisism .787

Narcissism × Agreeableness .815

Narcissism × Need for leadership .790

Note. N = 322. * p < 0,05. ** p < 0,01. Adj. = adjusted

(24)

5.2.2 The moderating effect of neuroticism

In step three of the regression analysis the moderating effect of neuroticism is tested. The output of the analysis shows that there is no significant moderating effect of neuroticism. The moderation effect of neuroticism b= -.024, p= .787, t=-.270, 95%CI[-.154; .117]. Remarkable is that there is a significant negative association between employee neuroticism and charismatic leadership with b= -.238, p= .004, t= -2.899, 95%CI [-.368;-.070]. This explains the relationship between employee neuroticism and perceived charismatic leadership in a way that when employees score high on neuroticism, they perceive their leaders to be less charismatic. This negative significance is unexpected because based on the literature in the review the expectation was that the effect was positive. This unexpected relationship will be discussed more extensively in the discussion chapter.

5.2.3 The moderating effect of agreeableness

Another moderating effect that was tested was the moderating effect of agreeableness of the employee on the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership. This moderating effect b= -.019, p= .815, t=-.235, 95%CI [-.165;.130] was not significant either. The output of the relationship between agreeableness of the employee and charismatic leadership was with b=.007, p=.926, t=.093 CI[-.138;.151] not significant either.

5.2.4 The moderating effect of need for leadership

The fourth hypothesis suggests that the employees’ need for leadership moderates the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership. This hypothesis can be rejected as well since b= .026, p=.790, t=.266, 95%CI[-.151;198]. Although the moderating effect is not significant, a significant positive association between the need for leadership on charismatic leadership is found b=.272, p=.002, t=3.201, 95%CI [.096;.404]. This shows that when the employees’ need for

leadership is higher they score the perceived charismatic leadership of their leader higher as well. This corresponds to the literature discussed in the previous chapters.

(25)

6. Discussion

6.1 The relationships in the model

Now that the results are presented they will be discussed. The findings will be linked to existing literature to look for explanations for the outcomes of this research. The aim of this study was to look at the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership and how the characteristics of followers influenced this relationship. The different hypotheses explained this relationship more extensively and what the founded results suggest regarding the hypotheses will be discussed in this chapter.

6.1.1 Leader narcissism and charismatic leadership

The relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership is suggested because leaders who are narcissists and charismatic leaders have some characteristics and ways of leading that are quite similar for example their strong sense of self-confidence, the ability to influence others and viewing oneself as a special person (Deluga, 1997). House and Howell (1992) confirm this by saying that both leaders are visionary and confident people. Kohut (as cited in Deluga, 1997) describe an association between narcissistic personalities and charismatic leadership because narcissists and charismatic leaders are both seen as people with towering strength that are very convincing. He indicates that it is grandiosity that makes it difficult to make a distinction between a visionary inspirational leader and a narcissist. This is why the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership was tested. The theory suggested that if leaders tend to be more narcissistic they will be perceived by their followers as a more charismatic leader.

Unfortunately this study showed different results. There was no significant relationship between the leaders score on narcissism and charismatic leadership as rated by the followers. This may have to do with different aspects. First of all there may be a chance that not many highly narcissistic leaders were included in this research. There were 162 leaders that completed our survey and if only a small percentage scored high on the narcissism scale it is more difficult to have

(26)

significant results. Another explanation could be that there was not enough theoretical evidence in literature to build a study on. As explained in the literature associations between narcissistic leaders and charismatic leadership were made but it can be questioned if these associations from just a couple studies are enough to find a significant relationship in this particular research. Another reason could be that followers have recognized narcissism and gave leaders who scored high on narcissism low ratings on the charismatic leadership characteristics. Perhaps followers see charismatic leadership as more positive and they associate narcissism with negative traits. Post (1986) explains that mainly ideal-hungry followers ignore the negative aspects of narcissism and idealize it to charisma. So this could indicate that the followers in this study did not have an ideal hungry personality and have experienced the negative aspects of narcissism as negative. For future research it can be suggested that scoop will lay on the followers with the ideal hungry personality and how charismatic they perceive narcissists. Or the research can be done the other way around and could look at the relationship between less ideal hungry followers and how they recognize narcissism as personality trait of a leader.

6.1.2 The moderating effect of neuroticism

In this study the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership was researched by looking at the role of the followers and the followers’ characteristics. One of the followers’ characteristics that could explain the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership more extensively is neuroticism. Neuroticism is one end of the emotional stability scale , the emotional instable end. Neurotic people often are insecure, have poor control and feelings of depression and frustration (McCrae & Costa, 1987). These characteristics correspond with

characteristics of the followers of narcissistic leaders described by Kohut (as cited in Deluga, 1997) as followers who have an ideal hungry personality. The followers with an ideal hungry personality are insecure and look for leaders with ideals and visions to guide them. This is why they are very vulnerable for the influence of narcissistic charismatic leaders. So the second hypothesis that was

(27)

tested stated that the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership was stronger when followers scored high on neuroticism.

The mediating effect of followers’ neuroticism in the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership was tested and found insignificant. One of the causes could again be a small amount of people who score high on neuroticism and thus a restriction of range. Another explanation could be the negative outlook on life that neurotic people have. Negative people who score high on neuroticism experience the different characteristics of a narcissist as negative, this way they will not associate narcissism with something more positive like a charismatic leader.

Another remarkable outcome of this study is that in this model there is a significant negative relationship between employee neuroticism and charismatic leadership. This is contrary to part of the literature discussed earlier which suggested that followers who score high on neuroticism are looking for charismatic leaders to follow like Kohut (as cited in Deluga, 1997) explains. Conger (1999) suggests that the explained negative relationship may have to do with the high expectations and difficult standards that charismatic leaders set. Neurotic followers can experience these parts of the ambitious vision of the charismatic leader as stressful and they feel a lot of pressure from their leader (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009).

The negative emotions that neurotic people experience explained by McCrae & Costa (1987) , may lead to a negative way of looking at life by neurotic people. If they see life more negatively than people who are emotionally stable there could be a possibility that neurotic individuals see others more negatively as well, and thus find people less inspiring or motivating. This could also explain why there was no mediating effect of followers’ neuroticism in the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership.

6.1.3 The moderating effect of agreeableness

Agreeableness is a characteristics that is associated with aspects like compliance, being trustful, caring, not hostile and not jealous (Digman, 1990). Narcissistic charismatic leaders look for followers

(28)

who idealize them and identify with their visions. If followers are agreeable it is more likely that they trust people easily and have no jealous and hostile feelings towards their leaders. On the other hand,

mirror hungry leaders benefit from this sense of agreeableness and look for followers who possess this characteristic (Kohut, as cited in Deluga, 1997). This led to the third hypothesis that was tested, agreeableness moderates the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership.

Unfortunately the moderating effect of agreeableness was not significant. One of the reasons that was mentioned by the earlier hypotheses as well, could be that there not many people who scored high on agreeableness and therefore it was difficult for the moderator to have a significant effect. Another explanation can be found in the review that Klein and House (1998) did on the leader follower relationship, they presented that there is a possibility there is no significant difference between followers of charismatic and non-charismatic leaders. They find that when the results are too mixed no significant relationship can be found and there is no dominant characteristic that only followers of charismatic leaders possess. This theory therefore explains that the followers of charismatic leaders do not have any particular characteristics with respect to followers of non-charismatic leaders. This theory thus indicates that it is hard to measure non-charismatic leadership with respect to followers’ characteristics. This could be a reason why agreeableness, a follower

characteristic, did not have a significant mediating effect in the relationship between narcissism and charismatic leadership.

6.1.4 The moderating effect of need for leadership

Need for leadership could be necessary for effective charismatic leadership according to De Vries,

(1999). He distinguishes two types of need for leadership, namely the subjective and objective need for leadership. The subjective need concerns individual goals and the objective need concerns organizational goals. The degree of wanted influence and intervention determines the need for leadership (De Vries, 1999). If followers feel insecure about their goals and how to achieve them the need for leadership grows (De Vries, Roe & Taillieu 2002). Furthermore De Vries (1999) explains that

(29)

when need for leadership is high, followers become more susceptible to charismatic leaders. These insecurities and need for more vision and help, led to the last hypothesis that was tested in this research that need for leadership has a moderating effect on the relationship between leaders’ narcissism and charismatic leadership.

Unfortunately there is no significant effect of the moderator need for leadership in the model. One of the reasons again could be that there were a small amount of people who scored high on need for leadership and thus a restriction of range occurred. Another explanation can lay in the idea that people who have a need for leadership have the need for authority, so for narcissistic authority, charismatic authority or any other form of authority, but this does not mean that they will confuse narcissism with charisma. So they do have a need for authority but they have clear for their selves that there is a difference between the more negative narcissistic leadership and the more positive charismatic leadership.

However there is a significant positive relationship between need for leadership and charismatic leadership. This may be explained by the literature mentioned above by De Vries (1999). Followers involve themselves with strong visionary people in the time that they need guidance and

intervention. This could explain the significant relation.

6.2 Theoretical implications

This study invigorates the already existing research on the areas of charismatic leadership in relation with followers’ characteristics. First of all when neuroticism is discussed in relationship to charisma, there is a contradiction in the literature. As Kohut (as cited in Deluga 1997) explains, there is a likelihood that people with low self-esteem and insecurities, like emotional instable people, look for a leader who scores high on charisma. On the other hand Conger (1999) suggests that there may be a negative relationship between charisma and narcissism, according to Conger this has to do with do with the high standards and expectations that charismatic leaders set and neurotic followers who

(30)

experience these standards as disturbing and stressful. In this research the explanation of Conger is held since there was a negative relationship between charisma and neuroticism.

Furthermore as in previous research, this research showed a positive relationship between charismatic leadership and need for leadership. As De Vries (1999) predicted, when need for leadership is high, followers become more susceptible to charismatic leaders.

Another theoretical implication is that no relationship was found between charismatic leadership and leader narcissism. This is in contradiction with the research of Kohut (as cited in Deluga, 1997) that explained that charismatic narcissists exist and this could lead to a strong

association between the two. House and Howell (1992) also found associations between the two, for example their level of confidence and visionary ideas. Unfortunately this relationship is not

established in this research and this could be a basis for future research.

6.3 Managerial implications

This research can contribute to managers’ views and attitudes as well as for the employees. First of all insights are provided on the negative relationship between neuroticism and charismatic

leadership. For charismatic leaders in companies this can mean that they need to find themselves emotional stable employees because they may work better together than neurotic employees and charismatic leaders. Furthermore leaders or managers need to be aware of the idea that they may create more effective outcomes when they have employees who score high on need for leadership. In the end managers can conclude that the role of the follower is very important in the outcomes of their leadership and therefore they need to be aware of the characteristics of their employees of followers.

6.4 Limitations and future research

There are some limitations in this research that may have influenced the results of the research. First of all we conducted the survey from employees and their employers. Although the students

emphasized on the fact that the study was anonymous some employees could have doubted that 29

(31)

and were scared to be a hundred percent honest about their supervisors. It could be the case that employees did not feel secure enough to answer negative about their bosses and therefore the results could be biased.

Another limitation that was already mentioned earlier in this discussion could be the sample size. In principle the sample was large enough to give a reliable representation of the society, but when not many people score high on the variables that were researched it is difficult to find significant relationships.

Then there is another limitation because of the cross-sectionality of this research. Meaning that the data researched is cross-sectional. This means that there is no possibility of testing the direction of the relationship. This research looked at associations between variables but could not look at causal relationships between the variables. For future research the causality of the

relationship could be tested by doing a longitudinal or a experimental research.

Furthermore the survey was conducted from mostly Dutch and Chinese people. This can make the results get less significant because there is a possibility that both nationalities had very different scores and in the end it canceled each other out. Another disadvantage of conducting the survey from mainly Dutch and Chinese people is that the results can not be generalizable over different countries.

Besides the improving of the topics mentioned above, future research can look in to the relationship between charismatic leadership and narcissism of the leader. Many scholars suggest that there could be a relationship but this study did not find the same results.

(32)

7. Conclusion

The intentions of this research were to find out if there is a relationship between narcissism and charismatic leadership and what the role of followers’ characteristics were in this relationship. The research was done by examining existing literature about the variables. Furthermore a new research was done by distributing surveys, these surveys measured the different variables researched. The surveys were distributed to employees and their supervisors because both individuals are relevant for the research.

Afterwards an analysis was performed to measure the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership. In this analysis different moderating effects were tested as well. The moderating effects of neuroticism , agreeableness and need for leadership of the follower were tested. Unfortunately there was no significant relationship found between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership. The same applies to the moderating effects of followers’ neuroticism, agreeableness, and need for leadership in the relationship between leader narcissism and

charismatic leadership.

Although the hypotheses were tested and showed no significant results, some other significant relationships were found. There was a significant negative relationship between charismatic leadership and neuroticism. Another significant relationship that was found was the relationship between need for leadership and charismatic leadership.

These results suggest first of all that the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership could be tested again because literature explained that there could be a relationship between them, but this research did not show that. Furthermore the negative

relationship between neuroticism and charismatic leadership is interesting to do future research on. This is because some scholars foresee a positive relationship between the two while others and this research indicate a negative relationship. This could also have effects on managerial implications, charismatic managers should look for emotional stable employees instead of neurotic employees.

(33)

Other suggestions for future research could have to do with a bigger sample size, doing longitudinal or experimental research to get more insight in the direction of a relationship and look at more cultures for a greater generalizability. This leads to many interesting opportunities to explore in future research.

(34)

References

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.

Campbell, W. K., & Campbell, S. M. (2009). On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the peculiar benefits and costs of narcissism: A contextual reinforcement model and examination of leadership.

Self and Identity, 8(2-3), 214-232.

Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268-284.

Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. (2007). It's all about me: Narcissistic CEOs and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,52, 351−386.

Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider's perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145-179. Corry, N., Merritt, R. D., Mrug, S., & Pamp, B. (2008). The Factor Structure of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(6), 593–600.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1987). Neuroticism, somatic complaints, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite?. Journal of personality, 55(2), 299-316.

De Vries, M. F. K., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An object relations perspective.

Human Relations, 38(6), 583-601.

De Vries, R. E. D. (1999). On charisma and need for leadership. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 109-133.

De Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. (2002). Need for leadership as a moderator of the relationships between leadership and individual outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 121-137. Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership, narcissism, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), 49-65.

De Hoogh, A.H.B., Den Hartog, D.N., & Koopman, P. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de CLIO: een vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties. Gedrag en Organisatie, 17, 354-382.

(35)

De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 94(4), 1058.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Handbook of Industrial,

Work & Organizational Psychology: Volume 2: Organizational Psychology, 2, 166.

Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192-203. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual review of

psychology, 41(1), 417-440.

Ellis, H. (1898). Auto-eroticism: A psychological study. Alienist and Neurologist, 19, 260−299. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd_{ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.}

Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary communication qualities as mediators of the relationship between narcissism and attributions of leader charisma. Personnel

Psychology, 63(3), 509-537.

Glad, B. (2002). Why tyrants go too far: Malignant narcissism and absolute power. Political

Psychology, 23, 1−37.

Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276.

Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.),

Measures of leadership (pp. 343−354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493−504

Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition. American psychologist, 45(2), 179. Chicago

Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: relationship of the

narcissistic personality to self-and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762.

(36)

Kanfer, F. H. (1979). Personal control, social control, and altruism: Can society survive the age of individualism?. American Psychologist, 34(3), 231.

Maccoby, M. (2000, January–February). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons.

Harvard Business Review, 69−77.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 81.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications.

Journal of personality, 60(2), 175-215.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194.

Paunonen, S. V., Lönnqvist, J. -E., Verkasalo, M., Leikas, S., & Nissinen, V. (2006). Narcissism and emergent leadership in military cadets. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 475−486.

Post, J. M. (1986). Narcissism and the charismatic leader–follower relationship. Political Psychology, 7, 675−688.

Raskin, R. N., & Terry, H. (1988). A principle components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

54, 890-902.

Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiles, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365−1381.

Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617-633.

Russell, G. A. (1985). Narcissism and the narcissistic personality disorder: a comparison of the theories of Kernberg and Kohut. British journal of medical psychology, 58(2), 137-148.

Shamir, B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A selfconcept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 1–17.

Spisak, B. R., Nicholson, N., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Leadership in organizations: An evolutionary perspective. In G. Saad (Ed.), Evolutionary Psychology in business sciences,165-190. Heidelberg: Springer.

(37)

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Essex: Prentice Hall.

Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 113–164.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A.N. Henderson, & T. Parsons, Eds., & trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).

Zonderman, A. B., Stone, S. V., & Costa, P. T. (1989). Age and neuroticism as risk factors for the incidence of diagnoses of psychotic and neurotic disorders. McCrae, RR and John, PO (1992). An

Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.

Appendix

Cover letters

Cover letter employee english Dear Participant,

This questionnaire is part of the project ‘Leadership and Behaviour in Organizations’ which is conducted by a research team of the Amsterdam Business School of the University of Amsterdam. This research focuses on working conditions and the behaviour of people in the workplace

environment. Completing this survey will take approximately 10 minutes. CAREFULLY READ THE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE YOU CONTINUE

In this survey questions will be asked or statements are presented, that relate to your work situation. The intention is to choose the answer which best fits your daily work situation in which you perform.

For example, you can answer with: 1 Strongly disagree

2 Disagree

3 Somewhat disagree

(38)

4 Neither agree or disagree 5 Somewhat agree

6 Agree

7 Strongly agree

Example: ‘’ I feel ‘part of the family’ in this organization.’’

If you choose answer 7 in this case, it means that you strongly agree with this answer. Please keep in mind that

· There are no right or wrong answers;

· Only your own opinion is important, not others' opinions;

· It is important that you answer, even the difficult questions. Please do not skip any questions. N.B. You are using a code for the survey. This code is only used to link your survey with the survey of your supervisor. The answers of the survey are strictly confidential and anonymous and only used for research purposes! Only the research team gets to see the answers.

Thank you in advance for your participation,

Prof. Deanne den Hartog, Universiteit van Amsterdam Dr. Annebel de Hoogh, Universiteit van Amsterdam

Liset van den As Sanacha Meerman Ronald Schep Maaike Postema Liang Wang Chris van den Hout

Cover letter Supervisor English Dear Participant,

This questionnaire is part of the project ‘Leadership and Behaviour in Organizations’ which is conducted by a research team of the Amsterdam Business School of the University of Amsterdam. Completing this survey will take approximately 10 minutes.

Statements that relate to yourself and the work behaviour of your employees are presented below. It is the intention that you choose an answer that best fits you or your experiences with this

employee during work.

For example, you can answer with: 1 Strongly disagree

2 Disagree

3 Somewhat disagree 4 Neither agree or disagree 5 Somewhat agree

The moderating role of followers’ characteristics in the relationship between leader narcissism and charismatic leadership