Journal of Managerial Psychology: Article Information

Journal of Managerial Psychology
A question of false self-esteem: Organization-based self-esteem and narcissism in

organizational contexts
Donald G. Gardner Jon L. Pierce
Downloaded by Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza At 03:26 29 March 2016 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Donald G. Gardner Jon L. Pierce, (2011),"A question of false self-esteem", Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 26 Iss 8 pp. 682 - 699
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941111181770
Downloaded on: 29 March 2016, At: 03:26 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3444 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2012),"Job and work attitudes, engagement and employee performance: Where does psychological
well-being fit in?", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 33 Iss 3 pp. 224-232 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731211216443
(2008),"Generational differences in personality and motivation: Do they exist and what are the
implications for the workplace?", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 Iss 8 pp. 878-890 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904376
(2013),"Focus of attention at work and organization-based self-esteem", Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 28 Iss 2 pp. 110-132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941311300243
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:526495 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
26,8
A question of false self-esteem

Organization-based self-esteem and
narcissism in organizational contexts
682
Received October 2010
Revised February 2011
February 2011
Accepted February 2011
Donald G. Gardner
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs,
Colorado, USA, and
Jon L. Pierce
University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota, USA
Abstract
Purpose This paper seeks to explore the relationships between organization-based self-esteem and
narcissism, and their correlates. It aims to distinguish the two constructs, as well as to examine the
degree to which organization-based self-esteem is contaminated by false self-esteem (namely,
narcissism).
Design/methodology/approach Participants completed questionnaires containing measures of
organization-based self-esteem, narcissism, and a variety of motivational, attitudinal, and behavioral
consequences. Co-workers rated the participants extra-role and in-role performance behaviors.
Findings Organization-based self-esteem and narcissism appear to be quite distinct constructs.
The organization-based self-esteem scale is unbiased by variance associated with narcissism.
Organization-based self-esteem is associated with a variety of positive outcomes. In particular,
organization-based self-esteem correlates negatively with hostility, while narcissism correlates
positively with hostility.
Practical implications The hypothesized negative attitudes and behaviors of narcissists were not
found. However, organizations need to be cautious when delivering negative feedback to employees
high in narcissism. Supervisors need to provide concrete evidence about deficiencies in narcissists
performance when providing feedback.
Originality/value This is the first study to examine the relationships between organization-based
self-esteem and narcissism in an organizational context.
Keywords Organization-based self-esteem, Narcissism, Employee attitudes and behaviors,
Negative feedback, Hostility, Self esteem, Motivation (psychology), Employees
Paper type Research paper
Journal of Managerial Psychology

Vol. 26 No. 8, 2011
pp. 682-699
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683941111181770
Professionals working in many sectors of society (e.g. education, drug and alcohol
rehabilitation, prisoner reform, human resource management and organizational
psychology) have expressed great interest in self-esteem. This interest has focused on
the origins of self-esteem, as well as its individual, interpersonal, community and
organizational effects. A pre-requisite to a scientifically-based understanding of
self-esteem and its consequences is a repertoire of unbiased measures of self-esteem.
Contamination of measures of self-esteem would complicate attempts to assess levels
of self-esteem, rendering questionable the validity of any cause and effect observations.
The authors contributed equally to the conceptualization, design, presentation of results, and
discussion of this study.
This in turn would frustrate attempts to track changes in self-esteem, as well as impede
efforts to manage and/or effect healthy changes in this self-conceptualization. This
study explores one major potential contaminant of self-esteem measures, narcissism,
and one specific type of self-esteem, organization-based self-esteem. We accomplish
this by developing and testing nomological networks that describe each of the
constructs, which includes the organizational and management correlates of each.
We start with a brief overview of organization-based self-esteem research. This is
followed by a similar overview of research on narcissism, a stable personality trait that
consists of grandiosity and a heightened sense of entitlement (Campbell et al., in press).
We use narcissism as a way of informing our thinking about the nature of false
organization-based self-esteem. This discussion will include a set of research
hypotheses that highlight the different correlates of narcissism and organization-based
self-esteem research. We conclude with a presentation and discussion of data from a
field study which was designed to examine the hypothesized role played by narcissism
in expressions of organization-based self-esteem, as well as the organization-related
correlates of narcissism and organization-based self-esteem.
Organization-based self-esteem
Building upon the notion that self-esteem is a multifaceted and hierarchical
phenomenon (e.g. Horberg and Chen, 2010; Korman, 1970), and a general belief (see
Coopersmith, 1967; Kirkpatrick et al., 2002) that self-esteem may develop around any
number of self-related domains (e.g. social-, physical- and spiritual-self), Pierce et al.
(1989, (p. 625) introduced a construct they termed organization-based self-esteem
(OBSE). They defined OBSE as the degree to which an individual believes him/herself
to be capable, significant, and worthy as an organizational member. Employees with
high levels of OBSE have come to a deep-seated (absolute, unquestioning) belief that
I count around here, and I am an important part of this place (items from the OBSE
scale; Pierce et al., 1989), reflecting a self-judgment of ones organizational worthiness
(Coopersmith, 1967).
Early in ones organizational tenure, such as when an individual first joins an
organization, OBSE is an outer-level conceptualization of the self. As such it is
malleable in nature an unstable and shifting sense of self and somewhat state-like.
Over time and with the accumulation of organizational experiences this view of the self
transitions to an inner-level conceptualization (see Campbell, 1990). It becomes
more-and-more trait-like such that it eventually becomes a relatively stable belief about
ones worthiness within his or her work and organizational roles. Only a sustained,
different set of organizational experiences would be expected to change the level of an
employees OBSE.
Theoretical antecedents of OBSE
Two reviews of the OBSE literature (Bowling et al., 2010; Pierce and Gardner, 2004)
provide support for current theorizing (see Pierce et al., 1989) on the origins of OBSE.
Both reviews reveal that fertile grounds for the development of high OBSE over time
include three general sets of organizational conditions:
(1) signals of support and importance (e.g. pay level) from significant
organizational others (e.g. managers);
A question of
false self-esteem
683
JMP
26,8
684
(2) work-related successes (e.g. positive performance appraisals) and conditions

that facilitate success (e.g. role clarity); and
(3) work-related structures to which the individual is exposed which signal trust in
the employee (e.g. organic system designs).
Recently Pierce and Gardner (2009) expanded this theoretical model by including the
core self-evaluation construct ( Judge et al., 1997; Parker, 1985a, b) within the OBSE
nomological network. High OBSE employees are also predisposed to view their
organizational experiences through a positive lens, reflecting what Hogan and Kaiser
(2005) call the bright side of personality.
Theoretical consequences of OBSE
Bowling et al.s (2010) and Pierce and Gardners (2004) reviews of the OBSE literature
provide support for a number of reliable relationships between measures of OBSE and a
variety of organization-related variables. Among some of the variables that appear to be
positively related to OBSE are the following: intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction,
affective organizational commitment, ethical behavioral intentions, extra-role behaviors,
in-role performance, feedback seeking, and intent to stay with the organization.
Narcissism and self-esteem
Drawing upon Locke et al. (1996), Judge et al. (1997, p. 181) noted that [t]he problem
with reliance on self-report scales is that because self-esteem is a profound
psychological need, people who do not possess it may attempt to fake it, through false
self-reporting...other measurement methods may need to be developed which assess
genuine self-esteem and distinguish it from pseudo self-esteem - that is, self-esteem
inflated by defensive maneuvers. Other self-esteem scholars have also suggested that
there are two types of people who score high on measures of global (overall) self-esteem
(e.g. Barry et al., 2007; Baumeister et al., 1996). In some instances these high scorers
possess a healthy (genuine) sense of self-regard, and in other instances there are people
who have a defensive, inflated and/or unrealistic view of themselves.
Concluding their review of the literature on organization-based self-esteem, Pierce
and Gardner, 2004, p. 614) noted that highly skewed distributions [were] typically
found in the measurement of OBSE (i.e. high averages). This observation led them to
question whether some expressions of high OBSE are false expressions which in turn
raised questions as to whether some high scoring OBSE employees have genuine or
false self-esteem. Is it possible that some employees self-esteem is inflated and/or
tainted by self-perceptions of grandiosity and entitlement - two of the major attributes
which characterize the narcissistic personality (Ouimet, 2010)? We propose that if
narcissism characterizes some of those individuals who report having high levels of
global self-esteem, OBSE may be biased in the same way. In this study we examine the
relationships between narcissism and OBSE, with an eye towards differentiating the
two traits as distinct constructs, as well as examining their distinguishable
relationships with several organizationally-relevant variables.
Narcissism
Conceptually, narcissism has been defined as grandiosity with preoccupation over
ones status compared to, and in the eyes of, others (Barry et al., 2007, p. 934). Gregg
and Sedikides (2010, p. 142) describe the narcissist as a person who is characteristically
egocentric, prone to illusions of superiority and specialness, and liable to be
interpersonally abrasive or aggressive. Other characterizations of the narcissistic
personality include a sense of entitlement, lack of empathy, an excessive need for
admiration, and arrogant (haughty) attitudes and behaviors (American Psychiatric
Association, 1980; Ouimet, 2010).
We note here that in this study we examine narcissism from a social-personality
perspective, that is, a trait that is normally distributed in the population and for which
there is no definitive cutoff for designating some people as being narcissists. This is
in contrast to psychiatric-clinical approaches that focus on Narcissistic Personality
Disorder (NPD), a relatively rare psychopathology that causes substantial distress and
impairment in the victims life (Campbell et al., in press). Here we focus on the more
common occurrences of narcissism within the normal population rather than the rare
and qualitatively different NPD, the former of which is the type of narcissism that most
organizations are likely to encounter (Campbell et al., in press).
Theoretical antecedents of narcissism
There is widespread agreement that narcissism as an adult personality trait is strongly
influenced by parenting practices and childhood experiences. Kernberg (1975), for
example, argues that parental rejection or abandonment is the genesis of narcissism.
Millon (1981) views narcissism as the outgrowth of parental over evaluation of their
children. These children are showered with attention, treated as though they are special,
and led to believe he or she is lovable and perfect, while such illusions quite simply
cannot be realized through life in the real world (Emmons, 1987, p. 11). Conflicted, the
child begins to outwardly project a sense of superiority and brilliance, while his/her
negative self-images and self-doubts are buried within (Kernberg, 1975; Tracy et al.,
2009). Over time and as a result of defensiveness and denial, an inflated and artificial
view of the self morphs into what is called the narcissistic personality (Tracy et al., 2009).
Theoretical consequences of narcissism
Boastfulness, hostility, and arrogance are common behaviors of the narcissist, and are
the aspects that are most observable by others. The dynamic self-regulatory model of
narcissism (Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001) offers insight into these manifestations of
narcissism. Narcissists project an extremely positive view of their self, but their view of
the self is also extremely sensitive. As a consequence of it not being grounded in an
objective reality that provides the reinforcement to make it genuine and stable in
nature, it is a personality trait that needs frequent shoring-up from the attention,
admiration and accolades from others. Internally, however, narcissists are uncertain
about the authenticity of their superiority, which is sometimes attributed to fragile
self-esteem (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2010). This results in a self-concept that is grandiose,
yet vulnerable at the same time. The vulnerable nature of the narcissistic self-concept
drives the narcissist to continuously seek feedback from their social environment that
affirms their tenuous feelings of self-worth. Many of the processes that narcissists use
to bolster their unstable self-esteem (insensitive, self-absorbed) also alienate the people
in their social and work environments (e.g. Zeigler-Hill et al., 2010). When narcissists
fail to receive the admiration they crave from others, they react with hostility and
aggression (verbal and/or physical).
A question of
false self-esteem
685
JMP
26,8
686
It is worth noting at this point that individuals with genuine self-esteem, including
genuine OBSE, are not likely to react in the same ways to social disapproval as does
the narcissist (Maples et al., 2010). Empirically it has been demonstrated that genuine
self-esteem leads to healthy social relationships, while narcissism leads to aggression
and other anti-social behaviors (Tracy et al., 2009). The narcissists reference point is
primarily social and external (other people), and their personality is frequently
portrayed as maladaptive when seeking admiration from others (Barry et al., 2007;
Emmons, 1984). On the other hand, the high self-esteem persons reference point is
internal (i.e. thoughts and feelings about the self), and views social feedback as being
potentially diagnostic and/or self-affirming.
Barry et al. (2007) and Campbell et al. (in press) note that the narcissistic personality
has been described as having both maladaptive (e.g. arrogance) and adaptive
(e.g. leadership/authority) features. From the maladaptive perspective, the narcissist is
obsessed with garnering the admiration from others. This results in the narcissist often
being described as self-absorbed, entitled, willing to exploit others, and self-serving.
Raskin and Terry (1988) portray the adaptive side of the narcissistic personality as
being assertive, independent, and self-confident. Because the narcissist possesses both
adaptive and maladaptive qualities, they are often perceived positively in
organizations, at least in the short term. Over longer periods of time the
maladaptive traits manifest themselves, and the narcissist becomes viewed in a
much more negative manner (e.g. Campbell and Campbell, 2009).
These varying descriptions have been categorized into specific facets of the higher
order trait narcissism construct (as opposed to the psychopathological Narcissistic
Personality Disorder). Different researchers have described these facets in varying
terms (e.g. Brown et al., 2009; Emmons, 1987). One of the most widely-employed
taxonomy of narcissism facets is that proposed by Raskin and Terry (1988), which also
corresponds to the subscales of their widely-used, 40-item Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (NPI). Those dimensions are:
.
Authority (exaggerated self-view of leadership qualities).
.
Self-sufficiency (generalized self-efficacy).
.
Superiority (an exaggerated self-view of competencies).
.
Exhibitionism (the tendency to draw attention to oneself).
.
Exploitativeness (the motivation to manipulate others for personal gratification).
.
Vanity (I like to look at myself in the mirror).
.
Entitlement (the belief that the person is owed the respect and admiration of
others).
Narcissism and organization-based self-esteem
The narcissism OBSE relationship
Most studies have found positive correlations between narcissism and self-esteem
(e.g. Emmons, 1984; Raskin and Terry, 1988). When one restricts reviews of these
correlations to the most widely-used self-esteem measure (i.e. the Rosenberg
Self-esteem Scale; Rosenberg, 1965) and the most widely-used measure of narcissism
(i.e. the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, NPI; Raskin and Terry, 1988) the average
correlation is 0.26 (Brown and Zeigler-Hill, 2004). This positive relationship between
narcissism and self-esteem is not surprising, as one would expect that a respondent
who is narcissistic would welcome the opportunity to boast about themselves and
their qualities while responding to items on a self-esteem measure (e.g. I feel that I
have a number of good qualities, an item from the Rosenberg scale).
The relationships of narcissism with self-report measures of global self-esteem
should manifest themselves similarly on a measure of OBSE. That is, an exaggerated
self-view of ones worthiness in general should be mirrored in exaggerated self-beliefs
about ones worthiness in the work and organizational context. This leads us to our
first hypothesis:
H1. There is a statistically significant positive correlation between measures of

narcissism and organization-based self-esteem.
While we hypothesize a positive relationship between OBSE and narcissism, we do not
consider OBSE (or global self-esteem) and narcissism to be one and the same construct
(see, Baumeister et al., 1996; Bosson et al., 2008). The magnitude of the hypothesized
correlation should be small enough to suggest independence of the constructs.
Organizational correlates of narcissism and OBSE
Addressing the potential consequences of OBSE, Pierce et al. (1989) noted that cognitive
consistency theory assumes that people are motivated to achieve outcomes that are
consistent with their self-concept (Korman, 1971, p. 595). They went on to argue that
employees with high OBSE (i.e. those who see themselves as organizationally capable,
valuable and meaningful) will be intrinsically motivated to engage in behaviors
consistent with that image, and find satisfaction in carrying out roles that are valued by
the organization. This line of reasoning has led scholars (e.g. Lee, 2003; Wei and
Albright, 1998) to hypothesize a positive relationship between OBSE, and such outcomes
as job satisfaction, job involvement, intrinsic work motivation, in-role performance and
extra-role behaviors. Reviews of the OBSE literature (Bowling et al., 2010; Pierce and
Gardner, 2004) reveals support for these hypothesized relationships. Thus, consistent
with the OBSE literature we offer the following hypotheses:
H2. There is a positive relationship between OBSE and job satisfaction (H2a), job
involvement (H2b), intrinsic work motivation (H2c), in-role performance
(H2d), and the extra-role behaviors of voice and helping (H2e).
A review of studies published in the Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel
Psychology reveals a general absence of research focused on relationships between the
narcissistic personality and other organization-related variables (Judge et al., 2006; also
see Campbell et al., in press). In conjunction with our efforts to examine the potential
bias of false OBSE, we initiate efforts to fill this void through an examination of the
relationship between narcissism and each of the attitudinal, motivational and
behavioral variables identified in H2a-H2e.
In light of this relative absence of prior scholarship focused on the narcissistic
personality within the organizational context we acknowledge the tenuous nature of
the following hypotheses. This work will, however, reveal if the two constructs (OBSE
and narcissism) have differential relationships with other theoretically-related
measures, thereby contributing to our understanding of, and the degree to which,
OBSE is contaminated by narcissism.
A question of
false self-esteem
687
JMP
26,8
688
The narcissist has a continuous need to feel admired and respected, and it is
unlikely that this need will be completely fulfilled in the typical organizational setting.
Work assignments, wages earned, various forms of organizational support, and
co-worker acceptance, all of which affect job satisfaction, are unlikely to bestow the
level of recognition desired by the narcissist. Kernberg (1975, p. 17) noted that
narcissistic individuals have feelings of inferiority and are unable to enjoy themselves:
They experience little empathy for the feelings of others, they obtain very little
enjoyment from life other than from the tributes they receive from others or from their
own grandiose fantasies, and they feel restless and bored when external glitter wears
off and no new sources feed their self-regard. As a consequence, we reason that they
are unlikely to experience high levels of satisfaction within their organizational roles.
Diamond and Allcorn (1984; in Soyer et al., 2001) stated that narcissistic employees
quickly lose interest in projects, ask others to help them with the details of their work
(because their talents could be better used elsewhere), and work diligently to earn the
respect and admiration of peers while at the same time viewing their peers with
contempt. Because narcissists reinforce their fragile self-views through social
approval, and are less likely to achieve this from successful performance of the
non-social aspects of their jobs, we would not expect their self-concept to be defined by
their jobs. The narcissist is highly motivated by the attention and admiration that they
derive from others, and not their assigned tasks per se. As a consequence, we propose
that they are unlikely to experience high levels of job involvement that state where
the self-concept is largely defined by the job and ones job performance (Lodhal and
Kejner, 1965). We also would not expect narcissists to be strongly motivated by
task-related activities (i.e. intrinsic motivation), where the source of satisfaction comes
from task performance, because their major motivational force stems from social
(interpersonal) interactions.
Narcissists will readily manipulate co-workers into thinking that they are more
competent than they really are. They also belittle co-workers to make themselves feel
superior. Their extreme views of self-sufficiency lead them to be uncooperative with
others. Simultaneously, this arrogance is likely to contribute to low performance
( Johnson et al., 2010), especially in any work setting where there is interdependence
among co-workers. As a consequence, narcissists are unlikely to be involved with or
concerned about anything in the organization that does not reinforce their self-views.
Thus, we would not expect them to be among the organizations better citizens,
engaged in those extra-role behaviors that are intended to benefit others but not
themselves (as Judge et al., 2006, observed).
The preceding observations about the narcissistic personality lead us to the
following hypotheses:
H3. There is a negative relationship between narcissism and job satisfaction
(H3a), job involvement (H3b), intrinsic work motivation (H3c), ratings of
in-role performance (H3d ), and the extra-role behaviors of voice and helping
(H3e).
Finally, we focus on individual reactions to negative feedback. Stone-Romero and
Stone (2002) provided an extensive review of research on reactions to feedback,
building upon the original feedback model proposed by Ilgen et al. (1977), but adding a
cross-cultural element to it (individualism-collectivism). They explain how idiocentric
self-esteem (individualism) differs from allocentric self-esteem (collectivism), and how

that might moderate the appraisal of and reactions to feedback. Importantly, Stone and
Stone-Romero propose that the idiocentric form of self-esteem that predominates in
Western cultures may result in high self-esteem individuals being dismissive of
negative feedback. The research they review makes a strong case for their proposition,
but we suggest that perhaps much of that research was biased by the fact that most
measures of global self-esteem are confounded with narcissism (see above). As noted
by John and Robins (1994, p. 217) most self-report measures of self-esteem are
susceptible to narcissistic self-enhancement, making it difficult to interpret correlations
between self-esteem and narcissism. This study is designed to tease apart the shared
variance of narcissism and self-esteem (namely, OBSE) with reactions to negative
feedback, and perhaps shed some light on this possibility.
Previous research has shown that one major way in which true narcissists
distinguish themselves from people with high levels of genuine self-esteem is in their
reactions to criticism, or negative feedback. When narcissists experience feedback that
is inconsistent with their exaggerated self-views, and/or feedback that reveals that
they will not be receiving the rewards and adulation that they believe that they
deserve, they can behave rather badly. There is abundant research that shows that
narcissists react with anger and hostility towards the source of the criticism, up to and
including physically attacking the detractor (e.g. Barry et al., 2006; Brown, 2004;
Martinez et al., 2008; Reidy et al., 2008; Rhodewalt and Morf, 1998). Narcissists even
become physiologically stressed (elevated cortisol reactivity) when faced with
unfavorable social evaluations (Edelstein et al., 2010). Dismissive of the negative
feedback, they are unlikely to change their effort levels in order to behave differently
because they doubt the veracity of the feedback in the first place.
The reaction of the narcissist stands in stark contrast to individuals high in
(genuine) self-esteem, including OBSE. In contrast to narcissists, high genuine
self-esteem individuals manifest lower cortisol reactions to unfavorable social feedback
than do those low in self-esteem (Ford and Collins, 2010). Individuals high in
self-esteem are motivated to maintain their high levels of self-esteem (called
self-verification motivation), or try to enhance their self-esteem (called
self-enhancement motivation). When faced with negative feedback, high genuine
self-esteem people will exert higher levels of effort to succeed, so as to reverse the
negative feedback and sustain their positive self-image (sometime called compensatory
self-enhancement; Stone-Romero and Stone, 2002). We would not expect high
self-esteem individuals to discredit the feedback, or attack the source of the negative
feedback. Low self-esteem individuals, who perceive negative feedback as consistent
with their low self-worth, do not change their effort levels, and thus verify their low
self-image. They too would not attack the source of criticism because they neither
doubt the veracity of the feedback, nor do they see much utility in changing their
attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors in reaction to the feedback.
Thus, we hypothesize:
H4a. There is a negative correlation between narcissism and effort expended after
reception of negative feedback.
H4b. There is a positive correlation between narcissism and hostility towards the
source of negative feedback.
A question of
false self-esteem
689
JMP
26,8
H5a. There is a positive correlation between OBSE and effort expended after
reception of negative feedback.
H5b. There is a negative correlation between OBSE and hostility towards the
source of negative feedback.
690
Method
Study design
Data for this investigation derive from a field study conducted in a US-based mining
and manufacturing organization. All employees were invited to participate in the data
collection process, which cut across three work days and each of the organizations
three work shifts. Two hundred thirty-six employees completed self- and peer-report
questionnaires while on paid job release time. Thirteen percent of the study
participants were female. Their average job and organizational tenure were nine and 11
years, respectively. Participants in this study occupied a variety of positions in the
organization including managers, engineers, quality control and safety inspectors,
supervisors, clerical staff, miners, and manufacturing employees.
Measures
Narcissism was assessed with 25 items from the Narcissism Personality Inventory
(Raskin and Terry, 1988), five for each subdimension measured (i.e. authority,
superiority, exhibitionism, exploitativeness, and entitlement). We did not use the
self-sufficiency subscale (I am more capable than other people) from the NPI because
of clear overlap with OBSE items and a desire to minimize methods variance. We did
not use the vanity subscale (I like to look at my body) in the interest of survey
efficiency, and because it is infrequently used to describe the narcissistic personality.
The NPI is the most widely-used measure of the narcissistic personality within
non-clinical populations (Campbell et al., in press; Soyer et al., 2001). The vast majority
of the narcissism studies reviewed above utilized the NPI and support its use as a
narcissism measure.
Organization-based self-esteem was assessed with the instrument developed and
validated by Pierce et al. (1989). Further validation evidence can be found in the Pierce
and Gardner (2004) review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. The
instrument asks respondents to think about their relationship with their organization
and to indicate the extent to which they believe in each of ten statements (e.g. I COUNT
around here; I MAKE A DIFFERENCE around here; I am an IMPORTANT part of this
place). Participants responded on seven-point Likert-type scales anchored strongly
disagree to strongly agree.
Job satisfaction was measured with a five-item scale adapted from Brayfield and
Rothe (1951). Sample items are I feel fairly well satisfied with my job and I find real
enjoyment in my work. Job involvement was measured with the three-item scale
developed by Lodhal and Kejner (1965). A sample item is I live, eat, and breathe my
job. Intrinsic motivation was measured with the four-item scale developed by
Hackman and Oldham (1980). A sample item is My opinion of myself goes up when I
do well on my job. Participants responded to all three measures on seven-point
Likert-type scales anchored strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Our review of research on narcissism did not reveal a previously-validated measure
that deals with dysfunctional reactions to negative feedback. As a consequence, we
developed two measures for use in the current study. Hostility to negative feedback
was measured with four items (e.g. I occasionally get mad at people who criticize my
performance) employing a traditional seven-point Likert-type agree-disagree format.
Higher scores indicate higher levels of hostility towards the source of the negative
feedback. A single item was employed to measure effort exerted after negative
feedback. A higher score indicates the exertion of more effort to succeed in response to
negative feedback. Both of these measures are presented in the Appendix, Figure A1.
Three dimensions of employee performance are examined, two indicators of extra- and
one in-role performance behavior. For these measures we utilized an anonymous peer
(co-worker) report. Each employee participating in this study was asked to identify one
person with whom they closely worked. This individual was asked to complete an
anonymous performance appraisal for one of their co-workers. Self-report and peer-report
questionnaires were coded so that they could (anonymously) be matched. Employing Van
Dyne and LePines (1998) instrument, we assessed voice (6-items) and helping (seven
items) extra-role behaviors, as well as their instrument for the assessment of in-role
behaviors (four items). Sample items include: This particular employee volunteers to do
things for this work group (helping), This particular employee communicates his/her
opinions about work issues to others in the group even if his/her opinion is different and
others in the group disagree with him/her (voice), and This particular employee meets
performance expectations (in-role performance). Seven-point Likert-type strongly
disagree/strongly agree response scales were used to gauge these behaviors.
Results
Table I includes the descriptive statistics for all of the study variables, their coefficient
alphas (on the diagonal), and their inter-correlations. The coefficient alphas for this sample
were acceptable for all of the measures (.0.70 with the exception of intrinsic motivation at
0.63). The correlations between measures allow for an initial examination of support for the
study hypotheses. In support of H1, there was a statistically significant correlation
between narcissism and OBSE (r 0:23, p , 0.01). H2a and H2b received support as
OBSE correlated with job satisfaction (r 0:48, p , 0.01) and job involvement (r 0:35,
p , 0.01). H2c, H2d, and H2e received support as OBSE correlated with intrinsic
motivation (r 0:43, p , 0.01), in-role performance (r 0:17; p , 0.01), and helping
behaviors (r 0:20, p , 0.01) and voice behaviors (r 0:20, p , 0.01) in the expected
direction.
Contrary to H3a, H3b and H3c there were statistically significant positive
correlations between narcissism and job satisfaction (r 0:28, p , 0.01), job
involvement (r 0:18, p , 0.01), and intrinsic motivation (r 0:14, p , 0.05). H3d
and H3e received no support, as narcissism failed to correlate significantly with in-role
performance or extra-role behaviors (helping or voice).
H4 received mixed support. There was no statistically significant relationship
between narcissism and effort after negative feedback (H4a). H4b was supported as
there was a positive correlation with hostility towards negative feedback sources
(r 0:18, p , 0.01). H5 also received mixed support. In support of H5a OBSE
correlated positively with effort (r 0:28, p , 0.01), but H5b was not supported, as
OBSE did not correlate significantly with hostility (r 2 0.06). Altogether, these
observations suggest support for hypothesized relationships involving OBSE, and
very little for the hypotheses involving narcissism.
A question of
false self-esteem
691
1.36
5.20
4.57
3.18
5.34
2.68
3.67
5.82
5.82
6.04
1. Narcissism
2. OBSEa
3. Satisfaction
4. Involvement
5. Intrinsic Motiv.
6. Effort
7. Hostility
8. Helping
9. Voice
10. In-role Perf.
0.17
1.21
1.34
1.37
1.01
0.58
1.37
1.02
1.11
1.09
SD
2
c
(0.93)
0.48 * *
0.35 * *
0.43 * *
0.28 * *
20.06
0.20 * *
0.20 * *
0.17 * *
1
(0.79)b
0.23 * *
0.28 * *
0.18 * *
0.14 *
0.01
0.18 * *
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.45 * *
(0.85)
0.47 * *
0.41 * *
0.28 * *
20.10
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.32 * *
0.45 * *
(0.72)
0.33 * *
0.17 * *
0.01
0.12 *
0.08
0.06
0.41 * *
0.39 * *
0.31 * *
(0.63)
0.31 * *
0.02
0.18 * *
0.21 * *
0.15 *
0.28 * *
0.29 * *
0.17 * *
0.31 * *
(n.a.)
20.28 * *
20.01
0.10
0.04
2 0.10
2 0.16 * *
2 0.03
2 0.01
2 0.29 * *
(0.84)
0.03
2 0.03
0.02
0.19 * *
0.09
0.11
0.17 * *
2 0.01
0.01
(0.93)
0.70 * *
0.73 * *
0.19 * *
0.09
0.08
0.21 * *
0.10
20.04
0.70 * *
(0.94)
0.70 * *
692
0.17 * *
0.07
0.05
0.14 *
0.04
0.02
0.73 * *
0.70 * *
(0.95)
10
Notes: aOBSE organization-based self-esteem; bCoefficient alphas appear on diagonal in parentheses, where appropriate; cCorrelations above the
diagonal are partial correlations controlling for narcissism. Correlations related to OBSE are in italic, uncorrected below the diagonal and controlling for
narcissism above the diagonal; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01 (one-tailed)
Mean
Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, coefficient
alphas, and
intercorrelations
Variables
JMP
26,8
To provide a more precise examination of the degree to which OBSE relationships

might be biased by its association with narcissism (false self-esteem), the product
moment OBSE correlations in Table I were calculated again after controlling for
variance associated with narcissism (partial correlations). These correlations appear
above the diagonal in Table I. Of particular interest are the correlations between OBSE
and the dependent variables, before and after controlling for narcissism (which appear
in italics in Table I). The changes in the magnitudes of the correlations after controlling
for narcissism were negligible (, 0.04 which appeared between the correlation between
OBSE and hostility). This provides continued support for H2a-H2e (involving OBSE,
and job satisfaction, job involvement, intrinsic motivation, and in-role, helping, and
voice performance), as well as H5a (involving OBSE and effort after the receipt of
negative feedback). These observations also provide support for the construct validity
of the OBSE measure, as it appears to be unbiased by narcissism.
Discussion
Three major observations emerge from the current study. First, we found that
narcissism and OBSE correlate positively, but that the magnitude of the correlation is
quite small. In addition, results from the partial correlation analyses demonstrate that
relationships between OBSE and the studies other variables are not affected by
variance associated with narcissism. Overall there is considerable evidence that our
measures of narcissism (the NPI) and OBSE are mostly independent of one another.
Thus, from a measurement perspective, it appears that the OBSE measure is not biased
by narcissism.
Second, despite the characterization of narcissists as being abrasive and difficult to
satisfy, this did not seem to be the case. Narcissism correlated positively with job
satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation. Narcissists do not seem to be
overly critical of their organizations, or their roles within them. It is feasible that
narcissists are effective at finding organizations and roles that enable them to satisfy
their self-aggrandizing needs. On the other hand, it may be that these positive
relationships with narcissism are spurious, and are actually reflecting relationships
with global self-esteem (Sedikides et al., 2004). Future research should examine these
same relationships after controlling for global self-esteem.
Narcissists were neither better nor worse job performers than non-narcissists, when
rated by co-workers. These ratings included measures of both extra-role (voice,
helping) and in-role behaviors. This is an especially interesting finding given that
narcissists are more likely to belittle and manipulate fellow workers than their
supervisors, who have legitimate power over them. It may be that narcissists are
sufficiently skilled at impression management that their co-workers do not know that
they are being manipulated (or derogated). The relationships between narcissism and
various dimensions of performance are complex, and may require examination of
theoretically-related moderators (e.g. task difficulty; Campbell et al., in press)
The single result with narcissism that might be considered dysfunctional was its
positive correlation with hostility towards and disbelief in negative feedback. This
would have ramifications for anyone (supervisors, co-workers, customers) who is
required to give critical feedback to narcissists. For those people, special attention
should be devoted to describing unacceptable work behaviors, or adherence to
standards (Ouimet, 2010), and not the implications for the narcissists self-beliefs
A question of
false self-esteem
693
JMP
26,8
694
(about abilities, skills, etc.). This recommendation is true for most recipients of negative
feedback, but in the narcissists case it might prevent hostility and disbelief, and the
long term effects that such hostility might produce.
Third, our work replicates results found in previous OBSE research. This was
accomplished as OBSE correlated, sometimes substantially, with satisfaction, intrinsic
motivation, voice and helping behaviors, in-role performance, and effort expended after
receiving negative feedback. Organizations can expect employees high in OBSE
unlikely to respond with hostility to negative performance feedback, unlike high
narcissistic employees.
Limitations
Like most research our investigation has its shortcomings. First and foremost, we
employed a cross-sectional survey design, which precludes definitive statements about
cause and effect relationships. Future research that utilizes experimental designs and
observer ratings of narcissism (to avoid response bias issues;, e.g. John and Robins,
1994) will greatly help in determining the relative causal effects of narcissism and
self-esteem on employee perceptions of and reactions to their organizational
environments.
Another weakness of the study may be the choice of the NPI for our measure of
narcissism. The NPI was chosen for a number of reasons, most importantly because it
is the most widely-used measure of narcissism in social psychology research (Campbell
et al., in press). This facilitates comparison of our results to previous research that has
used the NPI. However, recently there have been questions about the psychometric
quality of the NPI (e.g. Brown et al., 2009; Kubarych et al., 2004; Rosenthal and Hooley,
2010). In particular, the subscales of the NPI (e.g. exploitativeness, exhibitionism) have
demonstrated very low internal consistency reliability (e.g. delRosario and White,
2005). Indeed that was the case in our studies, and as a result we examined only the
total NPI score. We suggest that researchers in the future consider other measures of
narcissism in addition to the NPI (e.g. Rose, 2002; Soyer et al., 2001).
A third limitation is the fact that both the hypotheses and the research design are
based on a Western (USA) perspective. The degree to which our theorizing and results
might generalize to other cultures (e.g. Asian) remains an empirical question.
Perceptions of and reactions to negative feedback are possibly quite different in other
cultures (Stone-Romero and Stone, 2002), and narcissism as a whole is more prevalent
in Western cultures (Foster et al., 2003). As businesses expand globally and employee
populations become more culturally diverse it will be important to ascertain whether
narcissism operates in other cultures the ways it does in Western cultures.
Implications
It appears from our results that typical levels of narcissism are not enormously
problematic with non-managerial employees. The same cannot necessarily be said if
these same employees are placed into management positions. Ouimet (2010) provides a
meticulous description of narcissistic leadership in organizations, how readily
narcissists may get promoted into leadership positions, and most importantly, the
devastating effects narcissistic leaders can have on organizations (also see Campbell
et al., in press). Decision makers need to be cognizant of the fact that narcissists can be
quite charismatic in the short term, but can transition into quite the opposite once in
positions of legitimate power. Even worse is the situation where narcissistic leaders
predominate in an organization, shape its dominant culture, and ultimately lead the
organizations to its demise (Duchon and Burns, 2008). Our results should not imply
that narcissism does not have major implications for organizations.
In the same vein, Stone-Romero and Stone (2002) suggest that educational systems
have contributed to the increasing levels of unrealistically positive views of the self
(narcissism), at least in the USA. At the same time, it is well-established that
narcissism develops during childhood, partly as a function of parental practices
(Otway and Vignoles, 2006). It would seem that, at least in Western cultures, a careful
re-examination of the reward contingencies to which children are exposed might be in
order if the rising tide in narcissism is to be abated (Twenge and Campbell, 2009). If
ignored, the collectives that form the building blocks of societies (e.g. schools,
governments, employers) may become permeated by narcissistic leaders that clear the
pathways for societal decline (Stone-Romero and Stone, 2002).
In closing, we issue a call for additional scholarship focused on the narcissistic
personality within the work and organizational context. There is a need for further
examination of issues pertaining to false self-concepts. There have been attempts in the
organizational sciences to focus on individual-organization and individual-job fit. It
would be instructive for both theory and practice if scholars were to look at matters
pertaining to the fit between the narcissistic personality in mechanistic and organic
organizational structures, in approaches to job/work design, and in the use of
self-managed work groups.
References
American Psychiatric Association (1980), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:
DSM III, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC.
Barry, C.T., Chaplin, W.F. and Grafeman, S.J. (2006), Aggression following performance
feedback: the influences of narcissism, feedback valence, and comparative standard,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 41, pp. 177-87.
Barry, C.T., Grafeman, S.J., Adler, K.K. and Pickard, J.D. (2007), The relations among
narcissism, self-esteem, and delinquency in a sample of at-risk adolescents, Journal of
Adolescence, Vol. 30, pp. 933-42.
Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L. and Boden, J. (1996), Relation of threatened egotism to violence and
aggression: the dark side of self-esteem, Psychological Review, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 5-33.
Bosson, J.K., Lakey, C.E., Campbell, W.K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan, C.H. and Kernis, M.H. (2008),
Untangling the links between narcissism and self-esteem: a theoretical and empirical
review, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 2, pp. 1415-39.
Bowling, N.A., Eschleman, K.J., Wang, Q., Kirkendall, C. and Alarcon, G. (2010), A meta-analysis
of the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 601-26.
Brayfield, A.H. and Rothe, H.F. (1951), An index of job satisfaction, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 307-11.
Brown, R.P. (2004), Vengeance is mine: narcissism, vengeance, and the tendency to forgive,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 38, pp. 576-84.
Brown, R.P. and Zeigler-Hill, V. (2004), Narcissism and the non-equivalence of self-esteem
measures: a matter of dominance, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 38, pp. 582-92.
A question of
false self-esteem
695
JMP
26,8
696
Brown, R.P., Budzek, K. and Tamborski, M. (2009), On the meaning and measure of narcissism,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 35, pp. 951-64.
Campbell, J.D. (1990), Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 538-49.
Campbell, W.K. and 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, Vol. 8, pp. 214-32.
Campbell, W.K., Hoffman, B.J., Campbell, S.M. and Marchisio, G. (in press), Narcissism in
organizational contexts, Human Resource Management Review (forthcoming).
Coopersmith, S. (1967), The Antecedents of Self-esteem, Freeman, San Francisco, CA.

del Rosario, P.M. and White, R.M. (2005), The narcissistic personality inventory: test-retest stability
and internal consistency, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 39, pp. 1075-81.
Diamond, M.A. and Allcorn, S. (1984), Psychological barriers to personal responsibility,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 12, pp. 66-77.
Duchon, D. and Burns, M. (2008), Organizational narcissism, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 37,
pp. 354-64.
Edelstein, R.S., Yim, I.S. and Quas, J.A. (2010), Narcissism predicts heightened cortisol reactivity
to a psychosocial stressor in men, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 44, pp. 565-72.
Emmons, R.A. (1984), Factor analysis and construct validity of the narcissistic personality
inventory, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 291-300.
Emmons, R.A. (1987), Narcissism: theory and measurement, Journal of Personality and Social
Ford, M.B. and Collins, N.L. (2010), Self-esteem moderates neuroendocrine and psychological
responses to interpersonal rejection, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 98,
pp. 405-19.
Foster, J.D., Campbell, W.K. and Twenge, J.M. (2003), Individual differences in narcissism:
inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world, Journal of Research in
Personality, Vol. 37, pp. 469-86.
Gregg, A.P. and Sedikides, C. (2010), Narcissistic fragilty: rethinking its links to explicit and
implicit self-esteem, Self and Identity, Vol. 9, pp. 142-61.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hogan, R. and Kaiser, R. (2005), What we know about leadership, Review of General Psychology,
Vol. 9, pp. 169-80.
Horberg, E.J. and Chen, S. (2010), Significant others and contingencies of self-worth: activation
and consequences of relationship-specific contingencies of self-worth, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 98, pp. 77-91.
Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C. and Taylor, M. (1977), Consequences of feedback on behavior in
organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 349-71.
John, O.P. and Robins, R.W. (1994), Accuracy and bias in self-perception: individual differences
in self-enhancements and the role of narcissism, Journal of Personality and Social
Johnson, R.E., Silverman, S.B., Shyamsunder, A., Swee, H., Rodopman, O.B., Cho, E. and Bauer, J.
(2010), Acting superior but actually inferior? Correlates and consequences of workplace
aggression, Human Performance, Vol. 23, pp. 403-27.
Judge, T.A., LePine, J.A. and 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, Vol. 91, pp. 762-76.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A. and Durham, C.C. (1997), The dispositional causes of job satisfaction:
a core evaluations approach, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 151-88.
Kernberg, O. (1975), Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism, Jason Aronson,
New York, NY.
Kirkpatrick, L.A., Waugh, C.E., Valencia, A. and Webster, G.D. (2002), The functional domain
specificity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 756-67.
Korman, A.K. (1970), Toward an hypothesis of work behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 54, pp. 31-41.
Korman, A.K. (1971), Organizational achievement, aggression and creativity: some suggestions
toward an integrated theory, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 6,
pp. 593-613.
Kubarych, T.S., Deary, I.J. and Austin, E.J. (2004), The narcissistic personality inventory: factor
structure in a non-clinical sample, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36,
pp. 857-72.
Lee, J. (2003), An analysis of organization-based self-esteem as a mediator of the relationship
between its antecedents and consequences, The Korean Personnel Administration
Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 27-50.
Locke, E.A., McClear, K. and Knight, D. (1996), Self-esteem and work, International Review of
Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 1-32.
Lodhal, T.M. and Kejner, M. (1965), The definition and measurement of job involvement,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 24-33.
Maples, J.L., Miller, J.D., Wilson, L.F., Seibert, L.A., Few, L.R. and Zeichner, A. (2010),
Narcissistic personality disorder and self-esteem: an examination of differential relations
with self-report and laboratory-based aggression, Journal of Research in Personality,
Vol. 44, pp. 559-63.
Martinez, M.A., Zeichner, A., Reidy, D.E. and Miller, J.D. (2008), Narcissism and displaced
aggression: effects of positive, negative, and delayed feedback, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 44, pp. 140-9.
Millon, T. (1981), Disorders of Personality, Wiley, New York, NY.
Morf, C.C. and Rhodewalt, F. (2001), Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: a dynamic
self-regulatory processing model, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 177-96.
Otway, L.J. and Vignoles, V.L. (2006), Narcissism and childhood recollections: a quantitative test
of psychoanalytic predictions, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 32,
pp. 104-16.
Ouimet, G. (2010), Dynamics of narcissistic leadership in organizations: toward an integrated
research model, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 713-26.
Packer, E. (1985a), Understanding the subconscious, The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-10.
Packer, E. (1985b), Understanding the subconscious, The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 8-15.
Pierce, J.L. and Gardner, D.G. (2004), Self-esteem within the work and organizational context:
a review of the organization-based self-esteem literature, Journal of Management, Vol. 30
No. 5, pp. 591-622.
A question of
false self-esteem
697
JMP
26,8
698
Pierce, J.L. and Gardner, D.G. (2009), Effects of personality and job design on organization-based
self-esteem, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 392-409.
Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L. and Dunham, R.B. (1989), Organization-based
self-esteem: construct definition, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 622-48.
Raskin, R.N. and Terry, H. (1988), A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic
personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 890-902.
Reidy, D.E., Zeichner, A., Foster, J.D. and Martinez, M.A. (2008), Effects of narcissistic
entitlement and exploitativeness on human physical aggression, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 44, pp. 865-75.
Rhodewalt, F. and Morf, C.C. (1998), On self-aggrandizement and anger: a temporal analysis of
narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure, Journal of Personality and Social
Rose, P. (2002), The happy and unhappy faces of narcissism, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 33, pp. 379-91.
Rosenberg, M. (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self-image, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Rosenthal, S.A. and Hooley, J.M. (2010), Narcissism assessment in social-personality research:
does the association between narcissism and psychological health result from a confound
with self-esteem?, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 44, pp. 453-65.
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E.A., Gregg, A.P., Kumashiro, M. and Rusbult, C. (2004), Are normal
narcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters, Journal of Personality and Social
Soyer, R.B., Rovenpor, J.L., Kopelman, R.E., Mullins, L.S. and Watson, P.J. (2001), Further
assessment of the construct validity of four measures of narcissism: replication and
extension, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 135, pp. 245-58.
Stone-Romero, E.F. and Stone, D. (2002), Cross-cultural differences in responses to feedback:
implications for individual, group, and organizational effectiveness, Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 21, pp. 275-331.
Tracy, J.L., Chen, J.T. and Trzesniewski, K.H. (2009), Authentic and hubristic pride: the affective
core of self-esteem and narcissism, Self and Identity, Vol. 8, pp. 196-213.
Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, W.K. (2009), The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of
Entitlement, Free Press, New York, NY.
VanDyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of
construct and predictive validity, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 108-19.
Wei, G.T.Y. and Albright, R.R. (1998), Correlates of organization-based self-esteem: an empirical
study of US Coast Guard cadets, International Journal of Management, Vol. 15, pp. 218-25.
Zeigler-Hill, V., Myers, E.M. and Clark, C.B. (2010), Narcissism and self-esteem reactivity: the
role of negative achievement events, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 44, pp. 285-92.
Appendix
A question of
false self-esteem
699
Figure A1.
Reactions to negative
feedback survey items
About the authors

Donald G. Gardner (PhD Purdue University) is a Professor of Management at the University of
Colorado at Colorado Springs. He has also held visiting positions at the University of Wisconsin,
Helsinki School of Economics and Business, The Australian Graduate School of Management,
and James Cook University. He conducts research in the areas of employee motivation, attitudes,
and performance. Donald G. Gardner is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
dgardner@uccs.edu
Jon L. Pierce (PhD University of Wisconsin Madison) is a Professor of Organization and
Management in the Labovitz School of Business and Economics, at the University of Minnesota
Duluth. His current research interests are focused on organization-based self-esteem, and
individual- and group-level psychological ownership.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:

1. Jon L. Pierce, Donald G. Gardner, Courtney Crowley. 2016. Organization-based self-esteem and wellbeing: empirical examination of a spillover effect. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
25, 181-199. [CrossRef]
2. Ina Zwingmann, Sandra Wolf, Peter Richter. 2016. Every light has its shadow: a longitudinal study
of transformational leadership and leaders emotional exhaustion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
46:10.1111/jasp.2016.46.issue-1, 19-33. [CrossRef]
3. Kyler Rasmussen. 2015. Entitled vengeance: A meta-analysis relating narcissism to provoked aggression.
Aggressive Behavior n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
4. Michelle Cleary, Garry Walter, Jan Sayers, Violeta Lopez, Catherine Hungerford. 2015. Arrogance in
the Workplace: Implications for Mental Health Nurses. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 36, 266-271.
[CrossRef]
5. James J. Chriss. 2015. Nudging and Social Marketing. Society 52, 54-61. [CrossRef]
6. Martin Spraggon Department of Management, School of Business Administration, American University
of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates and Department of Strategy, ESE Business School, Universidad
de los Andes Santiago, Chile Virginia Bodolica Department of Management, School of Business
Administration, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates . 2014. Social ludic
activities: a polymorphous form of organizational play. Journal of Managerial Psychology 29:5, 524-540.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Donald G. GardnerDepartment of Management, College of Business Administration, University
of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA Jon L. PierceDepartment of
Management Studies, Labovitz School of Business and Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth,
Duluth, Minnesota, USA. 2013. Focus of attention at work and organizationbased selfesteem. Journal
of Managerial Psychology 28:2, 110-132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Shilpee A. DasguptaDepartment of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT, Kharagpur, India Damodar
SuarDepartment of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT, Kharagpur, India Seema SinghDepartment of
Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT, Kharagpur, India. 2012. Impact of managerial communication styles
on employees attitudes and behaviours. Employee Relations 35:2, 173-199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Journal of Managerial Psychology: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Managerial Psychology: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Managerial Psychology

A question of false self-esteem: Organization-based self-esteem and narcissism in

Downloaded by Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza At 03:26 29 March 2016 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

A question of false self-esteem

Downloaded by Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza At 03:26 29 March 2016 (PT)