Leader narcissism and follower job performance : the mediating role of leader-member exchange and the moderating role of assertiveness and altruism

(1)

LEADER NARCISSISM AND FOLLOWER JOB PERFORMANCE:

The mediating role of Leader-Member Exchange and the moderating

role of Assertiveness and Altruism

L.C. van den As (10000676)

University of Amsterdam

Faculty of Economics and Business

Master thesis MSc in Business Studies

Specialization: Leadership and Management

Supervisor: mw. dr. A.H.B. de Hoogh

Second Supervisor: mw. prof. dr. D.N. den Hartog

Amsterdam, August 2014

(2)

Abstract

This research focuses on the mediating role of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) in the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance. In addition, assertiveness and altruism of employees are investigated as moderators on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. Data were collected from 161 supervisors and 161 corresponding employees in different organisations. This study showed a positive relation between LMX and follower job performance. Furthermore, it was found that the personality characteristic altruism is positively related to LMX and follower job performance. Drawing on Costa and McCrae’s (1992) theory it was expected that the personality traits assertiveness and altruism moderated the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. However, no evidence was found for a moderating role of assertiveness and altruism on the relationship between leader narcissism and LMX. The main contribution of this study is an increased understanding of the relation between LMX and follower job performance.

Key words: Leader Narcissism; Leadership; Leader-Member Exchange; Follower Job Performance; Personality traits; Extroversion; Agreeableness; Altruism; Assertiveness.

(3)

Page | 3

1. Introduction

“The difference between God and Larry is that God does not believe he is Larry” (Maccoby, 2004).

This illustration of narcissism is about Larry Ellison, the co-founder and CEO of Oracle Operations. The quote perfectly reflects the self-love and dominance that narcissistic people tend to have.

People who score high on narcissism (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) have a bigger chance to emerge as leaders (Nevicka, De Hoogh, Van Vianen, Beersma, & McIlwain, 2011a) in a leaderless group (Brunell, Gentry, Campbell, Hoffman, Kuhnert, & DeMarree, 2008), especially in an uncertain environment (Nevicka, De Hoogh, Van Vianen, & Ten Velden, 2013). Kurt Cobain used to say: “I don’t care what you think, unless it is about me”, which illustrates his narcissism and clarifies the self-importance of narcissists. This example shows that narcissists think they are the centre of the universe and superior to others (Deluga, 1997). Narcissism is an interesting topic to study, due to speculations on the relation with work outcomes and the difficulty for narcissists in maintaining positive long-term relationships. Furthermore, the personality traits of followers may influence the social exchange relation with their leader (Asendorf & Wilpers, 1998). In other words, it is interesting to see how employees with certain personality traits interact with a narcissistic leader. Therefore, this study also focuses on the personality traits of the followers.

This research explicitly focuses on the leader personality characteristic narcissism. Narcissistic leaders are direct, dominant and selfish. Also an enormous sense of self-importance and lack of empathy are typical for narcissists (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Someone with narcissistic characteristics is likely to be chosen as a leader for multiple reasons. They display a prototypical image of an effective leader, are perceived as highly intelligent and have a sense of self-esteem (Stein, 2013). Leadership is essential in organizations, because leaders need to manage their employees to accomplish organizational goals and remain productive for organizational performance (Watt, 1997). For these reasons leader narcissism is an important variable in this study.

Leader narcissism may affect the employees led by the leader. The impact of leader narcissism on several variables has been researched extensively. For example narcissistic leaders can influence the behaviour or motivation of employees (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). However, little attention has

(5)

Page | 5 organizational goals and performance using employees as main link. Leaders have the power to affect employees and their level of performance to achieve goals and to increase the organizational performance. Narcissistic, abundant self-loving leaders, who often have dominant, selfish and arrogant personalities (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006), have to deal with different personal characteristics in a group of employees. Both the characteristics of the leader and the follower determine LMX (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). In order to improve follower job performance it is important that the leader maintains a relatively good relation with the follower, because the relationship the leader has with the employee affects the follower job performance. A high-quality LMX increases follower job performance (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993), so LMX positively relates to follower job performance. However, no specific research has been done on the mediating role of LMX in the relation of leader narcissism with employees’ job performance. Therefore, this research examines the mediating role of LMX in the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance.

Additionally, this study will focus on personality traits of employees as possible moderators of the relationships between leader narcissism, LMX and follower job performance. Research in the area of leader follower relation and personality traits has shown that personal characteristics of leader and follower influence the LMX (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). In general, the personality traits are defined using the Big Five personality model of Goldberg (1990). This provides a complete description of the personality of an individual, consisting of scores on conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism and openness. The relation between the Big Five personality traits and LMX is also investigated by Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles, and Walker (2007). Four out of five personality traits of the employee (except neuroticism) were found to affect LMX. In this study the personality traits of employees are investigated with a specific focus on two dimensions of the Big Five personality model, namely: extraversion and agreeableness. Within these dimensions I explicitly focus on assertiveness (extraversion) and altruism (agreeableness). Especially these two characteristics tend to influence social interactions (Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Ilies, 2009). Leaders with narcissistic characteristics, tend to seek confirmation for their self-esteem (Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell (2000). The self-esteem theory suggests that narcissistic leaders feel threatened by followers with certain personality traits, such as assertiveness. Low self-esteem of narcissists can cause aggression, which may negatively influence the dyadic relation between leader and follower (Baumeister et al., 2000). In contrast to assertiveness, agreeableness is characterized as cooperative, good natured and trustworthy (Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Trust is an important asset in relations, especially in high-quality LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997). Altruistic employees are more cooperative and agreeable, which stimulates LMX because the altruistic employee accepts the leader and is more helpful. This study aims to examine the moderating role of assertiveness and altruism and the mediating role of LMX in the relation between leader narcissism and job performance.

(6)

The goal for this research is to focus on the mediating role of LMX in the relation between leader narcissism and job performance. The role of the personality traits assertiveness and altruism as moderators on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX is investigated.

Research question:

What is the mediating role of LMX in the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance? And what is the moderating role of assertiveness and altruism on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX?

In order to work towards the conclusion, this thesis is structured as follows. The next chapter describes the current literature with respect to leader narcissism, LMX, follower job performance and the two personality traits extraversion and agreeableness. Subsequently, the third chapter describes the data collection procedure and the research method. Results based on the collected data are examined in chapter four. Then the theoretical and practical limitations, the most important implications and suggestions for future research of this study are discussed in chapter five. Finally, in chapter six, the conclusion of the results is defined.

(7)

Page | 7

2. Literature Review

This chapter discusses the most important findings in existing literature about leader narcissism, leader-member exchange, follower job performance, and the personality traits assertiveness and altruism. It presents the hypotheses of this research study. First, each variable is discussed separately. After that, relationships between them are described. Subsequently, the hypotheses are developed based on literature. Finally, the chapter finishes with a research model, which visualises the presented hypotheses.

2.1 Leader Narcissism

In the last few years organizational researchers have become increasingly interested in narcissistic leadership and related topics (e.g., Judge et al., 2006; Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009; Nevicka, Ten Velden, De Hoogh, & Van Vianen, 2011b; Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012; Grijalva & Harms, 2014). Not only the interest of researchers is rising, also the number of narcissistic leaders seems to be rising (e.g., Twenge & Foster, 2008; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). This may be the result of the current prevalence of certain characteristics and traits of individuals, who will subsequently develop as leaders (Twenge & Foster, 2008). For example in developed Western countries, people are increasingly more direct, dominant, and selfish (Twenge & Foster, 2008).

The Greek created the word ‘narcissism’, after a person called Narcissus played an influential role in a Greek myth. Narcissus stared into a pool of water and discovered a person he loves staring back at him. Eventually, it turned out to be himself (Campbell, 1999). In 1898 it was first introduced into psychological literature. Narcissism is introduced by Ellis (1898: 262) as: “a tendency for the sexual emotions to be lost and almost entirely absorbed in self-admiration”, Nacke (1899) reacted on this and referred to narcissism as sexual perversion, treating the own body as a sexual object. Obviously Sigmund Freud interfered in this research. He related narcissism to his psychoanalytic theory and concluded that an unhealthy inner relationship can be the cause of huge self-admiration (Freud, 1914; Freud, 1991 in Grijalva & Harms, 2014). This addition and expansion on narcissism is rooted in his famous superego model (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Freud’s research made sure narcissism was broadly acknowledged as an important topic. After the acknowledgement of the existence and importance of narcissism, a lot of psychological research followed, largely based on Freud’s conception of narcissism. On the one hand, narcissism is now associated with power, brilliance, beauty and ideal love. On the other hand, an enormous sense of self-importance or uniqueness, exhibitionism, the inability to tolerate criticism, and the lack of empathy are also considered to be important aspects of narcissism (Raskin & Terry, 1988).

(8)

Narcissism has a lot of different features and the main characteristics of narcissism are described here. Firstly, narcissists tend to be decisive and dominant (Brunell et al., 2008), they have characteristics as grandiosity, self-focus and self-importance (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Furthermore, they are sensitive to criticism and have a lack of empathy. Narcissists are intensely competitive, poor listeners and they dislike to be mentored (Maccoby, 2000). Another study (Stucke & Sporer, 2002) showed that narcissistic individuals react extremely emotional. Narcissists’ aggressive behaviour or other antisocial acts against others are the result of a negative emotional reaction. For example a feeling of failure can cause this effect on interpersonal behaviour (Stucke & Sporer, 2002). Rhodewalt and Morf (1998) found similar results in their study on narcissism and negative emotions. Finally, narcissists are also known because of their arrogance, self-love and grandiosity (Maccoby, 2004). When people have narcissistic leadership characteristics in combination with personality traits as extraversion, they are likely to gain power easier (Glad, 2002), which implies they have an increased chance to emerge as a leader.

The personal characteristics of leaders influence how others see them. Narcissism can be a popular and effective leadership characteristic, think of for example Steve Jobs (Maccoby, 2000; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Many describe him as displaying various narcissistic traits yet he was very successful as an entrepreneur (e.g., Maccoby, 2000; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Jobs had an incredible charisma, while he was criticized for his arrogance (Grijalva & Harms, 2014) and his cruel behaviours towards his employees (Isaacson, 2011). When taking a look at dictators, such as Hitler and Stalin, it is evident that they felt superior to others. Both are described as terrible and destructive leaders, had control over the political environment and were able to influence followers since they were so powerful (Glad, 2002). These are extreme examples of the negative effect that leader narcissism may entail. The variety of examples shows that narcissism has pros and cons, which gives substance to the concept of narcissistic leaders. Psychological characteristics, such as sensitivity for criticism, lack of empathy, intensely competitive, hypersensitive, poor listeners, disliking mentoring, arrogance, fragile self-esteem, feeling of inferiority and hostility (Maccoby, 2000; Maccoby 2004), are keywords to clarify the negative association that people tend to have with narcissism. However, narcissistic leaders not only have negative traits, they also have lots of positive characteristics to compete with the negative side. From a positive point of view narcissistic leaders are decisive and

(9)

Page | 9 Worthy, 2013). However, leading by narcissists also occurs in stable and long-term environments (Campbell, Hofman, Campbell & Marchisio, 2011). As Stein (2013) mentioned, narcissistic leaders are more helpful and effective in organizations in the short- or medium-term. In the long-term however, narcissistic behaviour becomes problematic (Grijalva & Harms, 2014). Campbell, Bush, Brunell, and Shelton (2005) confirm that the inability to learn from mistakes together with sensitivity to criticism leads to poor performance in the long-term.

2.2 LMX

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) is a concept that embraces the social exchange between a leader and a follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). It is a measure for the quality of the relationship between supervisors and their subordinates. Leaders are engaged in different kinds of relationships depending on their subordinates. The relationship or exchange that a leader has with its subordinates develops differently with every single subordinate (Liden et al., 1993). Different types of exchange relationships also depend on the attitudes and behaviours of employees (Van Breukelen, Schyns, & Le Blanc, 2006).

A positive perception of this relationship from the employee’s point of view: it depends on how they perceive the leader’s course of action and motives (Hollander, 1992). Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) found that job satisfaction, commitment, high performance, innovative behaviour and citizenship behaviour are legitimate indicators for leadership effectiveness. So when the leader is effective, the employees will be more satisfied, committed and ultimately deliver higher performance. The quality of the relation also depends on the personality of both leader and employee. The effectiveness of the leader and the quality of the relationship are important for the performance outcome of the employee (Hollander, 1992; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This indicates that LMX is an important factor in the relation between the leader and the employee’s output. The development of LMX depends on both the leader and follower expectations of each other (Liden et al., 1993). The same authors suggest that when a leader has positive expectations of a subordinate, this will stimulate the relation in ways of support and guidance. Those expectations influence the development of LMX, which stimulates the quality of LMX (Liden et al., 1993). Noteworthy, the leader’s need for a high quality relationship outweighs the employee’s opinion (Nahrgang et al., 2009). The effect of high-quality LMX on leaders is indicated by Deluga and Perry (1994), as it lowers stress and increases well-being. High-quality LMX between leader and follower reduces followers’ stress and turnover intentions. In addition to this, it also increases followers’ job satisfaction and job performance (Nahrgang et al., 2009). In order to achieve a high-quality LMX, the stimulation of the LMX development is important. The study of Liden et al. (1993) shows that the dyads during the first two weeks of existence develop unusually quick.

(10)

The main assumption of the LMX theory is that the relationship between leader and follower has significant influence on several organizational outcomes (Liden et al., 1993). The importance of LMX and the lack of studies that contain the combination of leader narcissism and LMX leads to an opportunity to focus on.

(11)

Page | 11 2.3 Leader Narcissism and LMX

Narcissists consider themselves as superior, even without others’ confirmation and they assume that their followers are inferior (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001). It seems that narcissists care more about themselves than about others, since they belief that they are superior to others (Judge et al., 2006). Considering that this is the perspective that narcissistic leaders have, it is important to have a closer look at the relationship between leader and follower. Additionally, Van Gils, Van Quaquebeke, and Van Knippenberg (2010) recommended future research on leader narcissism in combination with LMX at the dyadic level. Recently, Grijalva and Harms (2014) did research on narcissists’ counterproductivity and leadership effectiveness. Long-term relationships are difficult to maintain for narcissistic leaders, due to the personality characteristics of the narcissistic leader. When employees threaten the self-esteem of the leader, they may turn aggressive, which negatively impacts the LMX (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2000; Grijalva & Harms, 2014). Narcissistic leaders tend to have negative characteristics, which will be noticed by the employees in the long-term.

Complementary, Sweet’s (2012) dissertation does not indicate a positive relationship between narcissists and their followers, since narcissists do not stimulate relationships in forms of love, commitment or affection, even though they crave for the admiration of others (Sweet, 2012). The negative personality characteristics of the narcissistic leader will cause problems in the long-term (Grijalva & Harms, 2014). This is due to the inability to tolerate criticism (Raskin & Terry, 1988) and dislike to be mentored (Maccoby, 2000). Narcissists tend to be egoistic and have less empathy for others, which makes it hard for them to have a strong relationship with others. The social exchange relation between leader and follower will be influenced by the narcissistic characteristics of the leader, so a negative relation between leader narcissism and LMX is expected. Therefore, the hypothesis mentioned below proposes that leader narcissism results in lower-quality relationship.

(12)

2.4 Assertiveness and Altruism

Personality differs from person to person and is one of the most essential differences between people. The differences in personality traits are helpful to explain various conditions of leader follower relationships (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). As briefly discussed before, the personality traits are examined by use of the famous Big Five model or Five-Factor model (Goldberg, 1990). Researchers suggest that an individual’s personality can be explained by a complete description of those five dimensions. The five elements of the Big Five model are: (1) Extraversion, (2) Neuroticism, (3) Conscientiousness, (4) Agreeableness, and (5) Openness (Goldberg, 1990).

According to Asendorpf and Wilpers (1998) the personalities of a leader and a follower influence their social exchange relation (LMX). Since the personality of the leader in this research is already specified with narcissistic characteristics, the personality of the employee is the focus area. The effect of employees’ personality on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX is investigated.

I specifically focus on two aspects of the Big Five personality traits, namely: assertiveness (extraversion) and altruism (agreeableness). Personality traits affect the dyadic relationship (Grijalva & Harms, 2014). Costa and McCrae (1992) confirm the importance of the Big Five dimensions extraversion and agreeableness. Extraversion is a personality dimension, which is socially relevant (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Together with leader narcissism, it is expected that extraversion of employees affects LMX. In previous studies of Costa and McCrae (Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1987) extraversion is described as assertive, social and talkative. Scoring high on assertiveness, extravert persons are likely to challenge a narcissistic leader and present their own opinion (Baumeister et al., 2000). They are not expected to by default agree with the leader or be afraid to express themselves and as such do not confirm the self-esteem of their leader. Other characteristics of extraverted persons are that they are generally inclined to seek for interaction opportunities; they tend to like people and often are gregarious (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Extraverted people also tend to seek for social opportunities (Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984). Thus, it is expected that extraverted employees will seek interaction with their supervisor.

(13)

Page | 13 may enhance the quality of LMX. This contrasts with assertiveness, whereby a leader may feel threatened by assertive followers, because they do not enhance the leader’s self-esteem (Baumeister et al., 2000). Altruistic followers have a stronger intention to adapt to the personality of a leader, which will enhance the leader’s self-esteem. This affects the possible positive influence of altruism on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX.

(14)

2.5 Leader Narcissism, Assertiveness, Altruism and LMX.

Grijalva and Harms (2014) focused on followers’ characteristics and what the effects are for the quality of the narcissistic leader-follower exchange relationship. Personality traits are confirmed as definers for leader-follower relations. The two social personality dimensions (extraversion and agreeableness) are expected to influence the relation between leader narcissism and LMX.The social nature of assertive people stimulates the need for interaction and social opportunities (Nahrgang et al., 2009). Therefore it is expected that assertive employees will seek for opportunities and interaction in the social exchange relation with their supervisor. The reaction of assertive employees on the narcissistic characteristics of the leader, can be misinterpreted or cause irritation due to the inability of narcissists to tolerate criticism (Raskin & Terry, 1988). When confronted with an assertive follower, the leader’s self-esteem can be hampered. For example, when an assertive employee takes initiative to do something that was not asked by the leader, the leader may feel threatened due to a lack of control. The leader may feel threatened, because the assertive employee does not contribute to the leader’s self-esteem, opposed to what is expected by the narcissistic leader (Grijalva & Harms, 2014). This may result in weaker dyadic ties between leader and follower as a consequence of leader narcissism and employee’s assertiveness. Assertive employees in particular are expected to negatively influence the link between leader narcissism and LMX.

This also applies to the personality trait agreeableness. However, altruistic persons concern for others. Altruistic employees are loyal to others, and so it is expected that altruistic employees will adapt to the leader to have a good relation. Therefore, altruistic employees probably accept narcissistic characteristics of the leader. Besides, altruistic employees are expected to put more trust in relations, which support the LMX regardless the characteristics of the leader (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In contrast to the assertive employees, the altruistic employees will contribute to the leader’s self-esteem (Baumeister et al., 2000). Therefore, it is expected that altruistic employees have a positive effect on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX.

(15)

Page | 15 Thus, assertiveness moderates the relation between leader narcissism and LMX, and altruism also moderates the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. Accordingly, the following set of hypotheses is formed:

H1B: Assertiveness moderates the relation between leader narcissism and LMX, such that the

negative relationship between leader narcissism and LMX is stronger when follower assertiveness is higher.

H1C: Altruism moderates the relation between leader narcissism and LMX, such that the

negative relationship between leader narcissism and LMX is weaker when follower altruism is higher.

(16)

2.6 LMX and Follower Job Performance

The outcome of the research of Janssen and Van Yperen (2004) shows that employees with higher-quality exchange relationships with their supervisor tend to be more effective on the job. Effectiveness and efficiency in work outcome are important facets to focus on for improving organizational goals (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993). Therefore, individual productivity, participation and interaction increased due to the outcome of Mayo’s Hawthorne studies (Miller & Monge, 1986). Employees started working differently and improved themselves, so the work was done more efficient and effective. Follower job performance refers to to what extent employees perform their job. In other words, all employee’s actions and behaviors that contribute to organizational goals (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Therefore an effective measurement tool exists to measure follower job performance, and to increase the organizational productivity. Campbell et al., (1990) describes follower job performance as an individual variable, which is more on the behavioural side than job outcomes. However, more factors determine job performance than just employee’s behaviour. One of those factors is motivation. Several theories (Goal-setting theory; Kanfer’s task-specific motivation theory; Self-determination theory) show a positive relation between motivation of employees and job performance (Locke & Latham, 1990; Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004; Gagné & Deci, 2005). LMX can determine the motivation of employees. So if employees are motivated their job performance will be higher then when they are not motivated.

To achieve fulfillment of employees’ job tasks, interaction with colleagues and supervisors is needed (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). Nahrgang et al., (2009) summarized the outcomes of previous researches: a positive dyadic relation lowers stress and employees’ turnover intentions, increases job satisfaction and increases performance and citizenship behaviours. Subsequently, the same authors indicate that the leader’s motivation for high-quality relationship outweighs the opinion of the employee (Nahrgang et al., 2009). Nahrgang et al. (2009) complements earlier research by for example Deluga and Perry (1994) where they mentioned a decrease of stress and an increase of employee’s well-being as a result of high-quality LMX. Satisfied employees are necessary to achieve high follower job performance.

(17)

Page | 17 Keeping in mind that a positive or high-quality LMX is expected to increase the follower’s job performance, a positive social exchange relation is needed for employees to perform their job duties. Another study also refers to LMX and follower job performance. Liden et al. (1993) cited several articles because they proved the positive relationship between LMX and performance (e.g., Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Wayne & Ferris). It can be concluded by literature that a higher-quality LMX will stimulate the employee’s performance more, than when the dyadic relation is lower or even negative. In line with these research findings I expect that LMX positively influence follower job performance, and therefore the following hypothesis is created:

(18)

2.7 Leader Narcissism, Assertiveness, Altruism, LMX and Follower Job Performance

As all the relations are explained in previous sections, this is the overarching relation between all the variables in this research. The mediating role of LMX on the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance is investigated by the two moderators assertiveness and altruism.

It is expected that assertiveness and altruism moderate the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. The personality traits affect the relation between leader narcissism and LMX negatively when the assertiveness of employees is high or when the altruism of employees is low.

This research aims to understand the mediating role of LMX in the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance. As discussed above, the relations have become apparent and the final hypothesis, which includes all five variables, is formed:

H3A: LMX mediates the negative relationship between leader narcissism and follower job

performance.

H3B: LMX mediates the moderating effect of assertiveness on the relationship between leader

narcissism and follower job performance.

H3C: LMX mediates the moderating effect of altruism on the relationship between leader

(19)

Page | 19 2.8 Research Model

In previous sections six hypotheses were established. The first set of hypotheses is split up in three hypotheses due to the moderating variables assertiveness and altruism. The second hypothesis is presented due to the effect LMX has on the outcome of employees. However, the third set of hypotheses contains the personality traits assertiveness and altruism, as well as all other variables. This set refers to the main research question in this study. Corresponding to the hypotheses drawn, the conceptual model is created (fig. 1).

Figure 1: Research Model Leader Narcissism Assertiveness Follower Job Performance Leader-Member Exchange Altruism

(20)

3. Method

This chapter illustrates the empirical part of this study. First the characteristics of the data collection are described, and the measurement of the variables is presented. Subsequently the research procedure is statistically explained. Finally the research instruments are discussed. For the complete supervisor questionnaire (in Dutch) see appendix I, and for the employee questionnaire (in Dutch) see appendix II.

3.1. Sample

This research focused on the dyadic linkage between leader and follower. Due to the convenience sampling method, the population of interest consists of several types of organizations. Because of the time restriction, a non-probability sampling method is chosen, using individual and professional networks and relations. To obtain a larger response rate, data were collected by both an online and paper version (Dommeryer & Moriarty, 2000). Every dyad received an assigned code to be able to distinguish different dyads. The survey started on the 31st_{of March 2014, and the survey was closed at} the end of April 2014.

The sample consisted of Dutch (83.9%) and non-Dutch employees linked to Dutch (82.6%) and non-Dutch supervisors. Thereof, the employees are working on part-time or fulltime (65.2%) basis for their organization. The contact between supervisor and matching employees is on daily (59%), weekly (36.6%) or monthly (4.3%) basis. There is a variance of 9.61 in the time that the leader already supervises the employee (Mleading = 2.9, SDleading = 3.1, leading-range: 0.8-20).

In this research it is important that the supervisor and associated employee both fill out the questionnaire, in order to create dyads to test all variables. From the 232 dyads that were invited to participate in this questionnaire, 161 dyads fully completed the questionnaire (response rate = 69%). According to the study of Gunter, Nicholas, Huntington, and Williams (2002), it was expected that the response rate would be 67% for the online version and 75% for the paper version. The questionnaire was available in both Dutch (83.2%) and English, depending on the preference of the participant. The

(21)

Page | 21 online (High school = .9%, College = 7.8%, Bachelor = 40.0%, Master = 47.0%, Other = 4.3%) version and the paper-and-pencil (High school = 2.2%, College = 8.7%, Bachelor = 47.8%, Master = 39.1%, Other = 2.2%) completed questionnaire.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that there is an even split in sexes (female 49%, male 51%). However, a clear difference in sexes exists between the supervisors (female = 36.0%) and the employees (female = 62.1%). As expected, the age of supervisors (Mage = 40.8, SDage = 10.4, age-range: 22-62 years) is higher than employees’ (Mage = 30.9, SDage = 10.2, age-age-range: 20-61 years). The sample contains individuals from a width range of educational backgrounds. A relatively small group only completed high school (supervisor = 1.2%; employee = 5.6%). The majority (supervisor = 86.9%; employee = 77.1%) completed an education at the university level, which contains both Bachelors’ and Masters’ degrees. Most often the participants completed their Master studies (supervisor = 44.7%; employee = 39.8%) as opposed to the Bachelor (supervisor = 42.2%; employee = 37.3%). On average the tenure of the supervisor (9.4 years) is double the length of the tenure of the employees’ (4.2 years) and a broad range of length in tenure exists for both employee (Mtenure = 4.2,

SDtenure = 4.8, tenure-range: 0.17-30) and supervisor (Mtenure = 9.4, SDtenure = 7.9, tenure-range:

0.25-38).

All the statistics were derived from SPSS after applying Hotdeck and recoding the reverse coded items. Scale reliability, descriptive statistics, skewness, kurtosis and normality tests were computed. Normality can be checked with linearity, skewness and kurtosis and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The scales were not normally distributed, therefore normality could not be assumed. The histogram showed the residuals associated with the dependent variable. The results show a clear bell shape, however it is not totally normal distributed. It shows some disturbances, this may be caused by the relatively small sample size (N = 161). Both regression analysis and Process test (macro of Preacher & Hayes, 2008) were undertaken to test the hypothesized moderation and mediation effects between the variables. An analysis for heteroscedasticity of the residuals is conducted, no indications of heteroscedasticity were found.

(22)

3.2 Measurement of Variables Translation Procedure

All items used in the questionnaire of this study were originally in English. Since the majority of the respondents were expected to be Dutch, the items were translated into Dutch to be able to create Dutch questionnaires. In order not to exclude non-Dutch respondents, a second version was constructed in English. To ensure that the content of the items in the Dutch versions is the same, it was double checked by all participating researchers, to exclude wrong formulations. Especially since the Dutch and English version were used interchangeably.

Leader Narcissism

Leader narcissism is based on Raskin and Terry’s (1988) Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) scale, which is the most common measure of narcissism and a reliable and valid measure (Raskin & Terry, 1988). The 40-items were answered on a true or false rating scale (0 = true or 1 = false). In this research is chosen for consistency in the questionnaire and therefore the Likert-7 scale is preferred. Following previous researches, such as Kubarych, Deary, and Austin (2004); and Corry, Merritt, Mrug, and Pamp (2008), who advocate to replace the current dichotomous version of NPI. Corry et al., (2008) indicate that the use of a Likert scale can be beneficial for analysing the NPI factor. Barelds and Dijkstra (2010) already applied the Likert scale for their Dutch NPI questionnaire.

In the Likert-7 scale, the score of 7 represents a narcissistic response and score 1 represents a non-narcissistic response. The Cronbach’s α of leader narcissism is .934. Narcissism was ranked between 0 (not narcissistic) and 40 (very narcissistic).As an example of NPI: “I think I am a special person” and “I like to take responsibility for making decisions”.

Leader-Member Exchange

The mediating role of LMX in the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance is the focus of this study. Liden et al. (1993) developed an 8-item measure of LMX. An example is: “I do my work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job description”. The 8-items

(23)

Page | 23 Follower Job Performance

Follower job performance is based on the ‘leader perception of employee in-role behaviour’ from Williams and Anderson (1991). Job performance is measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). For this item a Cronbach’s α of .854 is conducted. Two of the seven items were reverse coded, to ensure that low scores indicate a relatively high level of job performance. An example is: “The employee adequately completes assigned duties”.

Assertiveness

To measure assertiveness the scale of Goldberg (1999) with Cronbach’s α of .84 was used. Assertiveness is a dimension of the Big Five personality trait extraversion. Assertiveness is measured with a 10-item scale using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). An example item is “I take control of things”. The Cronbach’s α conducted in this research is .851.

Altruism

To measure altruism the scale of Goldberg (1999) was used. For the 10-items a Cronbach’s α of .77 was reported by Goldberg (1999). As example of the items is “I am concerned about others”. Respondents rated the items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This research investigated a Cronbach’s α of .828.

Dummy Variables

Gender, age, education, nationality, work status, job tenure and industry are items used as dummy variables in the current study. The control variables did not significantly alter the variables or relationships in this study, so they are removed from subsequent analyses to conserve statistical power.

(24)

3.3 Statistical Procedure

Before testing the seven hypotheses the raw data were analysed. To analyse the data the SPSS Predictive Analytics-software is used. First the missing data were analysed and replaced. After that, several items were recoded due to the negatively keyed items. Then the reliability was computed to create Cronbach’s alphas for the five variables. The final step before hypotheses testing was computing the scale means and standard deviations to create a correlation matrix.

Missing data could occur for a variety of reasons: respondents forgetting to answer an item, incorrectly answering an item, or data entry errors could be the problem. In the dataset were 18 missing values in four variables, only the personality trait altruism contained no missing values. The missing data points were detected by doing a frequency test.

Handling missing data can be done in several ways, in SPSS the ‘Replace Missing Values’ is an option often used for replacing data. In this case Hotdeck is used as solution for replacing missing values (Myers, 2011). So all the missing values for leader narcissism, LMX, follower job performance and assertiveness were replaced by use of Hotdeck. An exception for this is the missing data of the control variables, such as age, education and industry. This part of the data was checked with the paper versions or with the respondents itself.

Specifically, leader narcissism had 11 missing values, LMX had 1 item with a missing value, follower job performance had 3 missing values and assertiveness had 3 missing values. The variables correlated most with leader entitlement, organizational commitment, leader perception of employee OCB (challenging), and Big Five traits. Those four variables were used as deck variables to replace the missing values in the variables used in this research. Some of the items of Leader Entitlement, Organizational Commitment, and Big Five traits were let out of the deck variables, because they correlated not enough to create the new values.

(25)

Page | 25

4. Results

In this chapter the results of this research are presented. The correlation matrix is discussed. Subsequently, the results of the regression analyses are outlined. The relationships between leader narcissism and LMX, and between LMX and follower job performance are presented in advance to the moderating effects of the personality traits assertiveness and altruism of the employees. Additionally, the mediating effect of LMX on the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance is defined.

4.1 Data Analysis

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the five variables of this study are reported in table 1. Next to the descriptive statistics, the scale reliabilities are also presented in this table. A first observation derived from the table is that LMX correlates positively with follower job performance. This positive relation between LMX and follower job performance was expected. The personality traits of the employees were expected to moderate the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. Interestingly, altruism correlates positively with both LMX and follower job performance.

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Narcissism 4.26 0.73 (.934) 2. LMX 5.42 0.88 −.05 (.894) 3. Job Performance 5.78 0.75 −.02 .26** (.854) 4. Assertiveness 4.83 0.78 −.04 .14 .09 (.851) 5. Altruism 5.56 0.67 −.08 .20* .23** .08 (.828) *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Figures in parentheses are Cronbach’s alphas. N = 161 dyads

Several tests presume normality, whereas this data set is not totally normal distributed. This could be a possible limitation in interpreting the results. However, data never follows an ideal normal distribution exactly. Therefore, different methods are consulted to test normality. The histogram (see appendix III) with follower job performance as dependent variable shows the ”Bell” shape of a normal distribution, which indicates a valuable normal distribution. The data did not contain any outliers. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test shows that the NPI scale of leader narcissism was significant (p > .05), so normality is assumed. The other scales were not significant, therefore normality could not be assumed for those scales. Further into detail, it is visible that the distribution is little asymmetrical, because most frequent scores are grouped towards the right, which implicates a negatively skewed

(26)

distribution. Besides, more scores than usual are centred in the tail, whereas the distribution is pointy. This indicates a positive kurtosis, a leptokurtic distribution.

Despite the not ideal normal distribution, the histogram is bell-shaped and the KS test assumes normality for leader narcissism. A regression analysis is obtained to estimate the relationships among the variables. By means of the linear regression test it could be concluded from the scatterplot that the data are non-linear and there is no heteroscedasticity in the data plot (see appendix IV).

(27)

Page | 27 4.2 Hypothesis Testing

To test the hypothesized moderation and mediation effects, a Process test of Preacher and Hayes, and a hierarchical regression analysis are conducted. The hypotheses proposed that the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance would be mediated by LMX. The SPSS Process macro of Preacher and Hayes (2008) was used for the dependent variable follower job performance to examine LMX as a mediating variable. The results of the Process test are shown in appendices V-VIII.

Leader Narcissism, LMX, Assertiveness and Altruism

A Process test of Preacher and Hayes (2008) was conducted to test the relation of leader narcissism and LMX. There was a significant difference in the scores for leader narcissism (M = 4.26, SD = 0.73, α = .934) and LMX (M = 5.42, SD = 0.88, α = .894). There is no negative relation found between leader narcissism and LMX (β = -.0604, p > .05). These results do not suggest that leader narcissism has an negative effect on LMX. These findings thus provide no support for the hypothesis, and therefore H1A is rejected.

Hypotheses H1B and H1C are similar to hypothesis H1A, but it is assumed that the personality traits of the employees moderate the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. For hypotheses H1B is focused on the dimension assertiveness (M = 4.83, SD = 0.78, α = .851) of the personality trait extraversion. The outcome of the Process test shows the moderating effect of employee assertiveness on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. There is no moderation of assertiveness (β = -.0482, p > .05) found on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX (see appendix VI). Thus, assertiveness of employees does not moderate the relation between leader narcissism and LMX; therefore the H1B could be rejected.

Hypotheses 1C is focused on the dimension altruism (M = 5.56, SD = 0.67, α = .828) of the personality trait agreeableness. The outcome of the Process test shows the moderating effect of employee altruism on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. There is no moderation of altruism (β = .0058, p

H1A: Leader narcissism is negatively related to LMX.

H1B: Assertiveness moderates the relation between leader narcissism and LMX, such

that the negative relationship between leader narcissism and LMX is stronger when follower assertiveness is higher.

(28)

> .05) found on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX (see appendix VII). Thus, altruism of employees does not moderate the relation between leader narcissism and LMX, therefore the H1C could be rejected.

Additionally, the 9th_{model of Preacher and Hayes (2008) is used to check the moderation for} assertiveness and altruism together. The outcome showed no moderation for both assertiveness (β = -.0231, p > .05) and altruism (β = .0223, p > .05) on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX.

Extra tests are conducted due to the fact that during the analysis I expected a positive relation between altruism and LMX, and altruism and follower job performance. Interestingly, the dimension altruism (β = .258, p < .05) is positively related to LMX (see appendix IX). This relation was not hypothesized but we do find a significant outcome. Furthermore, another significant outcome, which was not hypothesized, is found within altruism and follower job performance. A positive relation between altruism and follower job performance was expected during this analysis. The dimension altruism (β = .252, p < .01) is positively related to follower job performance (see appendix IX). It can be concluded that the more altruistic employees are, the higher the quality of LMX will be. Also the more altruistic employees are, the higher the follower job performance will be. This research evidenced the positive relation between altruism and LMX, and altruism and follower job performance.

H1C: Altruism moderates the relation between leader narcissism and LMX, such that

the negative relationship between leader narcissism and LMX is weaker when follower altruism is higher.

(29)

Page | 29 LMX and Follower Job Performance

A Process test (see appendix V-VIII) was conducted to test the relation of LMX and follower job performance. There seems to be notable difference in the scores for LMX (M = 5.42, SD = 0.88, α = .894) and follower job performance (M = 5.78, SD = 0.75, α = .854). The relationship between LMX and follower job performance is positively related (β = .2247) and this relationship is significant (p < .05), because zero is not included in the LLCI (.0944) and ULCI (.3549) values. These results suggest that LMX positively relates to follower job performance. These findings thus provide support for the hypothesis, so H2 is confirmed.

Leader Narcissism, LMX, Follower Job Performance, Assertiveness and Altruism

A Process test was conducted to test the mediating role of LMX in the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance. There was a significant difference in the scores for leader narcissism (M = 4.26, SD = 0.73, α = .934), LMX (M = 5.42, SD = 0.88, α = .894) and follower job performance (M = 5.78, SD = 0.75, α = .854).The direct effect (β = -.0085, p > .05), the indirect effect (a1b1: β = -.0136, p > .05) and the total effect (a1b1 + c1 = β = -.0221, p > .05) shows that there is no evidence found for mediation. There is no mediation of LMX on the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance found in this study (see appendix IV).

Hypotheses H3B and H3C are similar to hypothesis H3A, but it is assumed that LMX mediates the moderating effect of assertiveness or altruism on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance. For hypotheses H3B is focused on the dimension assertiveness (M = 4.83, SD = 0.78, α = .851) of the personality trait extraversion. The outcome of the Process test (see appendix VIII) shows the moderating interaction of employee assertiveness on the LMX mediated relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance. There is no evidence found that LMX mediates the moderating effect of assertiveness. Thus, LMX does not mediate the moderating effect of assertiveness of employees between leader narcissism and follower job performance, therefore the H3B could be rejected.

H2: LMX is positively related to follower job performance.

H3A: LMX mediates the negative relationship between leader narcissism and

(30)

Hypotheses 1C is focused on the dimension altruism (M = 5.56, SD = 0.67, α = .828) of the personality trait agreeableness. The outcome of the Process test shows the interaction of employee altruism on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. There is no evidence found that LMX mediates the moderating effect of altruism. Thus, LMX does not mediate the moderating effect of altruism of employees between leader narcissism and follower job performance, therefore the H3C could be rejected.

H3C: LMX mediates the moderating effect of altruism on the relationship between

leader narcissism and follower job performance.

H3B: LMX mediates the moderating effect of assertiveness on the relationship

(31)

Page | 31

5. Discussion

This study examined leader narcissism and follower job performance. More specifically, the mediating role of LMX and the moderating role of assertiveness and altruism were assessed. The purpose was to investigate whether LMX mediates the moderating effect of assertiveness and altruism on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance.

With respect to the expectations regarding the link between leader narcissism and follower job performance and the mediating effect of LMX, there is no mediation of LMX found in this particular relationship. However, in the relation between LMX and follower job performance, it was found that LMX positively relates to follower job performance. This means that the higher the quality of the LMX, the higher the job performance of the employee will be.

In this chapter, the main results are discussed, together with the theoretical and practical implications of these findings. The added value of the results to the existing literature is outlined. Furthermore, the limitations regarding the results of this study are discussed. Finally, interesting research gaps for the future are explained.

5.1 Theoretical and Practical Implication

Leader narcissism is an interesting topic in the current literature, due to its association with leadership outcomes. Narcissistic leaders tend to have difficulties maintaining positive long-term relations. Managing positive relations with employees over time is complicated for narcissistic leaders. Initially the leaders are seen as confident by their employees, however in the long-term they are described as arrogant (Grijalva & Harms, 2014). Therefore, I proposed that the quality of LMX could mediate the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance. Leaders can influence their employees and indirectly also the followers’ job performance. Nevertheless, existing studies examine neither the impact of leader narcissism on LMX nor the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance.

Additionally, the personality traits of the employees are researched. I focussed on two specific characteristic traits of the Big Five model. Dienesch and Liden (1986) showed that personal characteristics influence LMX. Bernerth et al. (2007) found that four out of five personality traits impact the perception of LMX. In this research I particularly focused on assertiveness and altruism as moderators of the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. It turned out that the personality traits assertiveness and altruism do not moderate the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. Nonetheless, the effect of LMX on follower job performance was statistically significant and supports the findings in existing literature.

(32)

This study expected to find a negative relation between leader narcissism and LMX. Investigating the relation between leader narcissism and LMX at the dyadic level was recommended as future research by Van Gils et al. (2010). Due to the personal characteristics of narcissists, it is difficult to maintain long-term relationships as a narcissistic leader. Therefore it was interesting to examine the effect on LMX. A negative relation between leader narcissism and LMX was expected, but there is no relation found. This might be because narcissists do not attach value to the creation of a relationship. Even if a relationship exists, a narcissistic leader may on the long-term not take the time and effort to prosperously develop it. Another reason for the absence of a negative relation between leader narcissism and LMX might be that a narcissist rather keeps a distance to its employees to prevent receiving criticism or even being mentored by someone lower in the hierarchy of the organization.

Recent work of Grijalva and Harms (2014) focused on employees’ characteristics and what the effects are for narcissistic LMX relationships. In this study I focussed on LMX mediating the moderating effect of assertiveness and altruism on the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance. As the assertive employee is expected not to enhance the leader’s self-esteem, it is likely that the leader feels threatened. In case of an assertive employee, a stronger negative relation between leader narcissism and LMX is expected (e.g. Nahrgang et al., 2009; Grijalva & Harms, 2014). In case of an altruistic employee, it is expected that the same relationship is influenced positively. This study did not find any support for the moderation of either assertiveness or altruism on the relationship between leader narcissism and LMX. In case of assertiveness, this might be explained by the observation that a narcissistic leader is likely to score high on assertiveness as well (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). LMX can be less negative than expected, because leader and employee share this trait and recognise parts of their own behaviour in the other. That people tend to collaborate easier when they share personality traits (Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998) supports this explanation. When testing top leaders’ personal characteristics and organizational personality profiles, Giberson, Resick and Dickson (2005) concluded that organizations do not need many rules, regulations and formal decision-making processes if their leaders and followers hold similar personality traits. Furthermore, in this case, the narcissistic leader might recognize the behaviour of the employee and acknowledge that the employee shows similar behaviour. While both the leader and

(33)

Page | 33 altruistic employees on LMX and follower job performance. This finding is consistent with previous research of Kamdar and Van Dyne (2007), who found a positive relation between agreeableness and LMX. In contrast, no significance for assertive employees was found. The positive relation between agreeableness and LMX could be explained by the fact that altruistic employees have agreeable personalities. The result is that altruistic employees enhance the leader’s self-esteem. This increases the goodwill within relations.

Higher-quality relationship with the supervisor leads towards higher job effectiveness, and it contributes to organizational goals (e.g., Jansen & Van Yperen, 2004; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Furthermore, high-quality LMX stimulates the decrease in stress and employees’ turnover intentions. Also increased job satisfaction, job performance and organizational citizenship behaviour (Nahrgang et al., 2009) are effects of a high-quality LMX. In this study a statistically significant positive relationship between LMX and follower job performance is found, which contributes to the literature. The outcomes of this study indicate that LMX positively relates to follower job performance, which means that the higher the quality of the dyadic relation, the higher the follower job performance.

Thus, the findings of this research are not as a whole consistent with previous theoretical work. The main theoretical contribution of this study is an increased understanding of the relation between LMX and follower job performance.

(34)

5.2 Limitations and Future Research

This study has a number of important limitations, which at the same time constitute interesting directions for future research. Future research may lead to stronger outcomes when the limitations of this study are taken into account. The results of this study can be relevant for future research in the direction of leader narcissism, LMX, follower job performance and the personality traits assertiveness and altruism.

Firstly, due to the dyadic research, it could be that both supervisor and employee gave social desirable answers. This is expected for the paper-and-pencil version (28.6%) in particular. In this case, most of the dyads are approached via either the supervisor (24.1%) or the employee (67.2%) (to clarify: the leader receives both questionnaires from the researcher and hands one out to the employee or vice versa). In rare cases the questionnaires were handed out separately to employee and supervisor (8.6%). It is expected that participants hesitated to answer honestly about their dyadic relation, due to the possibility that the questionnaire was viewed by the dyadic counterparty. It must be taken into account that possibly participants were mild and avoided negative answers, which could mean that employees ranked LMX higher than their actual opinion about the relation with their supervisor.

Secondly, the study was carried out on a convenience sample. Responding supervisors were on average 40.8 years old; employees 30.9. In addition to this, 49% of the participants were female. Furthermore, the sample was exceptionally highly educated. Respectively 86.9% and 77.1% of supervisors and employees finished at least university. For further research it would be good to find respondents who are less educated to create a better reflection of the real population.

The third limitation can be attributed to cross-sectionality. It is not possible to test causal relationships in cross-sectional research. In this study a small sample is tested in a certain situation; results might differ in another situation with another time frame. Therefore this study is not able to establish causality. For future research it would be interesting to replace the cross-sectional study for a longitudinal one. Across time the longitudinal study is useful in order to provide insights based on patterns over time.

(35)

Page | 35 dataset smaller. For this study it was necessary to have complete surveys from matching dyads, because all variables were valuable to this study. The sample size can be seen as a cause for the absence of a normally distributed dataset. For interpreting the results it is necessary to take into account that not all scales are normally distributed. Several tests presume normality, whereas this data is not normal distributed and that is a limitation for interpreting the results.

Fifth, as Asendorpf and Wilpers (1998) mentioned, the personality characteristics influence LMX, but in this particular research is focused on assertiveness and altruism instead of all five dimensions. This might influence the results founded in this study and for future research I would recommend to do a similar study with all five personality traits.

Further research on this topic could be a helpful guidance for managers in practice. When real impact is proven leaders as well as followers can adapt their behaviour within the organization to create an optimal dyadic relation adapted to the personality traits of the employee and the narcissistic characteristics of the supervisor. For companies in general it could be helpful to know how the relation between leader narcissism and LMX can be stimulated to optimize the organizational goals and performance.

(36)

6. Conclusion

Employees are valuable and intangible assets to companies. Therefore, it is important to determine the impact of different leadership characteristics. Specifically, this research assessed what the effect of a narcissistic leader on followers is and how followers deliver the best job performance while led by a narcissistic leader. This study explicitly focused on two personality traits of employees: extraversion (assertiveness) and agreeableness (altruism). The reason for this research was to get a better understanding of the interaction between LMX and follower job performance and the roles that follower assertiveness and follower altruism play. Researched was whether LMX mediates the moderating effect of assertiveness and altruism on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance.

The outcomes of this study indicate that LMX relates positively to follower job performance. However, there is no mediating effect of LMX found on the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance.

The moderating role of assertiveness and altruism of employees was investigated and the data did not confirm the expectations of a moderating effect on the relation between leader narcissism and LMX. Also no evidence confirmed the hypotheses that assertiveness and altruism moderate the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance. However, a regression analysis showed that employees with the personality characteristic altruism do affect both LMX and follower job performance. This suggests that altruistic employees are better in dealing with narcissistic leaders, which stimulates the dyadic relation and results in a higher-quality LMX.

In short, in this study was found that LMX relates positively to follower job performance. There was no mediating effect of LMX found on the relation between leader narcissism and follower job performance. Assertiveness and altruism were found not to moderate the relationship between leader narcissism and LMX. Thus, in this study there is no evidence found that supports the expectation that LMX mediates the moderating effect of assertiveness or altruism of employees on the relationship between leader narcissism and follower job performance.

Leader narcissism and follower job performance : the mediating role of leader-member exchange and the moderating role of assertiveness and altruism