See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342982892

Leader narcissism and subordinate change-oriented organizational citizenship

behavior: Overall justice as a moderator

Article  in  Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal · July 2020

DOI: 10.2224/sbp.9330

CITATION READS

1 248

4 authors, including:

Soojin Lee Gukdo Byun

Chonnam National University Southern Illinois University Carbondale
107 PUBLICATIONS   2,184 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   216 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Review of International Empirical Research on Followership (1988-2015) View project

Entrepreneurship View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gukdo Byun on 19 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Social Behavior and Personality, Volume 48, Issue 7, e9330
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9330
www.sbp-journal.com

Leader narcissism and subordinate change-oriented organizational

citizenship behavior: Overall justice as a moderator
Sun-Bok Ha1, Soojin Lee2, Gukdo Byun3, Ye Dai4
1
Military Art and Science Department, College of Law and Politics, Kyungnam University, Republic of Korea
2
College of Business Administration, Chonnam National University, Republic of Korea
3
School of Business, Chungbuk National University, Republic of Korea
4
College of Business, Southern Illinois University, United States

How to cite: Ha, S.-B., Lee, S., Byun, G., & Dai, Y. (2020). Leader narcissism and subordinate change-oriented organizational
citizenship behavior: Overall justice as a moderator. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 48(7), e9330

Keywords
We examined the effect of leader narcissism on the change-oriented leader narcissism;
organizational citizenship behavior of subordinates and the mediating leader–member
role of leader–member exchange (LMX) in this relationship. We further exchange; overall justice;
proposed that perceived overall justice would moderate the relationship change-oriented
between leader narcissism and LMX. We used data from 158 pairs of organizational citizenship
squadron leaders and subordinates in 4 battalions of the Korean Army. behavior
Hierarchical regression analysis results confirmed the proposed effects
and further revealed a stronger positive relationship between leader
narcissism and LMX when perceived overall justice was high versus
low. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Narcissist is a term used to describe individuals who have characteristics such as grandiosity, self-love, and
an inflated self-view (Campbell et al., 2006). Sigmund Freud was the first to introduce narcissism into his
work on psychoanalysis (Freud, 1914/1957). Contemporary researchers, however, have examined the
concept from two perspectives (Brunell et al., 2008), namely, clinical psychologists and psychiatrists
consider narcissism as a personality disorder, whereas management researchers, following personality
psychologists, treat it as a common measurable personality trait (Campbell et al., 2006).

Management researchers have had mixed results concerning the effect of narcissism on various aspects of
leadership and firm performance. For example, Resick et al. (2009) found that the narcissism of major
league baseball team owners had no effect on their team’s performance. In a meta-analysis, Grijalva et al.
(2015) found that the relationship between narcissism and leadership effectiveness was nonsignificant,
although they identified a positive association between narcissism and leadership emergence. Indeed, they
suggested that there may be offsetting positive and negative narcissism influences on leadership
effectiveness. In support of this view, Deluga (1997), using an historiometric procedure, found that the
narcissistic behavior of 39 U.S. presidents was positively associated with their rated performance. As the
relationship between leader narcissism and behavior and performance is often skewed to a particular
viewpoint in these studies, this suggests the results are complex and inconsistent.

However, these findings, particularly of the positive effects of narcissism, suggest that it may have been
premature to conclude that leader narcissism will exert only negative effects on subordinates’ desired
behavior. It is therefore necessary to further examine the overall effects of leader narcissism on desired
organizational outcomes and find the transmission mechanism.

CORRESPONDENCE Soojin Lee, College of Business Administration, Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu
Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea. Email: soojinlee@jnu.ac.kr or Gukdo Byun, School of Business, Chungbuk National University, 1
Chungdae-ro, Seowon-gu, Cheongju, Chungbuk 28644, Republic of Korea. Email: bgukdo@chungbuk.ac.kr

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

 Ha, Lee, Byun, Dai

Moreover, as most narcissistic leadership studies have been conducted in Western cultures, it remains
unclear whether narcissistic leadership exerts different effects on followers in a high power distance culture
where followers are more susceptible to influences from leaders. We thus addressed this issue with an army-
based sample in the Republic of Korea, which is a high power distance culture (Hofstede, 1980), and
examined the relationship between leader narcissism and subordinates’ change-oriented organizational
citizenship behavior.

Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (OCB-CH) refers to “constructive efforts by

individuals to identify and implement changes with respect to work methods, policies, and procedures to
improve the situation and performance” (Choi, 2007, p. 469). As fast-changing business environments
make employees’ OCB-CH crucial to the survival and success of their organization, an examination of the
potential antecedents of OCB-CH is an increasingly important task. We proposed that self-confidence and
authority in leader narcissism can be important antecedents of employees’ OCB-CH.

We also aimed to identify a mechanism through which leadership affects various aspects of an organization
(Hernandez et al., 2011). A leader’s behavior can create differential mediating effects, depending on how
individual employees, with different psychological processes, interpret the behavior (Javed et al., 2018). A
narcissistic leader is often an extrovert, sociable, and skilled at fostering recognition by others (Campbell &
Foster, 2007) to maintain or enhance their self-esteem. Rush et al. (1977) proposed in implicit leadership
theory that these inherent interpersonal skills shift subordinates’ attention from the unpleasantness of
leader narcissism toward the importance of their rapport with the leader. Social exchange theorists have
suggested that, as a result of this rapport, subordinates like their leader’s extrovert and sociable character,
and build reciprocity and mutual trust with the leader (Ritter & Lord, 2007). We thus suggested that change
for the better in leader–member exchange (LMX) may precede subordinates’ change in attitude toward
their job and a behavioral change. LMX, which is the degree to which a supervisor and direct subordinate
engage in a reciprocal social exchange, may mediate the relationship between leader narcissism and
employee OCB-CH.

Our final aim was to reconcile inconsistent results on the effectiveness of narcissistic leaders by proposing a
moderator in the relationship between leader narcissism and LMX. According to social exchange theory
(Blau, 1964) a person tends to reciprocate favors offered by others. Organizational members also tend to
return a favor or show respect to their organization when their leaders treat them fairly (Colquitt et al.,
2001). Perceived organizational justice may therefore influence members' perception of their leaders’
leadership and have a general positive effect on subordinates’ attitude toward their job and leaders (Colquitt
et al., 2001). However, it is possible that leader narcissism enhances employees’ perceived LMX only when
employees sense higher overall organizational justice; when perceived overall justice remains low, leader
narcissism would not then affect employees’ LMX.

In summary, we aimed to gain further understanding of leader narcissism in three ways: (a) by examining
the effect of leader narcissism on subordinates’ OCB-CH, (b) by examining a mediator for this relationship
by incorporating LMX, and (c) we investigated the moderating role of overall justice in the relationship
between leader narcissism and LMX (see Figure 1).

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 2

 Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Leader Narcissism and Subordinates’ Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship
Behavior
As a personality trait, narcissism has both positive and negative effects on many aspects of organizational
life (Campbell et al., 2011). Although previous researchers have focused on the negative role of narcissism,
some have explored the positive effects of leader narcissism on individual and organizational outcomes,
such as subordinates’ job engagement and job performance (Owens et al., 2015), and corporate social
responsibility (Petrenko et al., 2016). For example, Deluga (1997) found that attributes of leader narcissism,
such as self-confidence, boldness of vision, and a strong desire for leadership and success, produced
productive or positive outcomes.

Several researchers have pointed out that narcissistic leaders who have a grand vision and display a certain
level of dominance can generate positive outcomes in certain situations (Campbell et al., 2011; Harrison &
Clough, 2006). For example, Liao et al. (2019) found that leader narcissism is positively related to employee
proactive behavior when LMX quality and leader identification are incongruent. Similarly, although a
narcissist leader’s pursuit of power is a personal act to boost their self-esteem, some researchers (Campbell
& Foster, 2007) have claimed that such a leader can be viewed as self-confident, charming, and charismatic.
Moreover, a leader’s charismatic behavior has been found to increase subordinates’ trust in, and satisfaction
with, the leader, which, in turn, increased the subordinates’ OCB-CH (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Therefore,
leader narcissism can positively affect subordinates’ OCB-CH.

Narcissistic (vs. nonnarcissistic) leaders often have a higher need to be recognized, unlike ordinary average
individuals, who are inclined to avoid unnecessary risks and associated anxiety, especially in the Republic of
Korea (Ko et al., 2015). These leaders thus often attempt to gain others’ recognition by, for example, taking
unnecessary risks and seeking sensational success, in pursuit of their goals (Campbell et al., 2011). Whatever
the case, as all leaders need to mobilize resources and gain the support of subordinates to achieve success,
leaders need to present them with a future vision far superior to the status quo, and initiate organizational
change and innovation. Narcissistic leaders are thus motivated to cultivate subordinates’ OCB-CH, such as
voice and taking charge. This helps improve and even revolutionize ways of doing things in the workplace.
Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Leader narcissism will be positively related to subordinates’ change-oriented organizational
citizenship behavior.

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 3

 Ha, Lee, Byun, Dai

Mediating Effect of Leader–Member Exchange

Regarding LMX mediating the relationship between leader narcissism and subordinates’ OCB-CH, the
power asymmetry between a leader and subordinates makes the leader's behavior a particularly strong
predictor of the quality of LMX (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).

Despite negativity being associated with narcissism in the workplace, some narcissistic characteristics are
conducive to the formation of good LMX. First, as narcissistic leaders derive satisfaction by recognition and
attention from colleagues and subordinates (DuBrin, 2012), one way to do this is to achieve high
performance outcomes (Downs, 1997) by guiding and mobilizing subordinates. This will motivate
narcissistic leaders to subdue their potential negative evaluation of subordinates and the work environment
(Campbell et al., 2011), and counterproductive reactions, such as disappointment, anger, and distrust.
Instead, these leaders will be motivated to include more subordinates as in-group members by showing
them due respect and granting them more trust (Robbins & Judge, 2011). These actions help foster a good
LMX relationship.

Further, among narcissistic traits, extraversion is an important aspect that increases the likelihood of a
highly narcissistic individual being selected and accepted as a leader. Results of a meta-analysis by Grijalva
et al. (2015) showed a high positive correlation between narcissism and extraversion, which suggested a
high likelihood for narcissists to be leaders in organizations. In addition, narcissists are also confident,
outgoing, and cheerful, at least at the outset of interpersonal relationships (Brunell et al., 2008). According
to implicit leadership theory (Rush et al., 1977), as subordinates are likely to believe that narcissistic leaders’
extraversion is matched with leadership effectiveness, the subordinates will view extrovert and narcissistic
(vs. nonnarcissistic) leaders as more effective. Both a favorable evaluation of narcissistic leaders and their
strong motivation to maintain a good relationship with their subordinates, help promote a good LMX
relationship.

High trust, interaction, support, and formal and informal compensation characterize a good LMX
relationship (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). In line with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), Wayne et al. (2002)
suggested that subordinates in a good LMX relationship tend to display more OCB-CH to reciprocate the
extra resources obtained from the relationship. Further, higher LMX encourages subordinates to conduct
innovative behavior that is not officially part of their job in the organization, but which is beneficial to
organizational performance (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). Therefore, we proposed the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Leader–member exchange will mediate the relationship between leader narcissism and
subordinates’ change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior.

Moderating Effect of Overall Justice

Employees’ perception of overall justice represents their global evaluation of fairness in an entity (Ambrose
& Schminke, 2009). Previous researchers’ focus in organizational justice has been on distributive,
procedural, and interpersonal justice that affect members’ behavior and outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001).
However, Ambrose and Schminke (2009) showed that employees’ perceived overall justice exerted the most
immediate effects on their behavior and outcomes.

According to social exchange theory, the leader–subordinate relationship is maintained through positive
reciprocity if they both perceive mutual benefits (Blau, 1964). High perceived organizational justice not only
increases subordinates’ commitment to the organization, but also affects their perception of organizational
leaders and their job satisfaction (Colquitt et al., 2001). Specifically, high (vs. low) perceived overall justice
allows subordinates to evaluate their leaders’ performance more favorably.

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 4

 Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

In addition, subordinates are more likely to accept their leader’s behavior toward, and performance
evaluation of, them, if overall justice in an organization is perceived to be high. Narcissistic leaders tend to
receive more positive performance evaluations by trained specialists (Brunell et al., 2008). Similarly,
subordinates are likely to view their leaders more favorably and to try to maintain a positive relationship
with them if they feel that they are being treated fairly. Further, when overall justice is perceived to be fair,
this will mitigate, or will be believed to mitigate, potential negative consequences brought about by
narcissistic leaders, reducing leader-subordinate conflict, and further contributing to an improved LMX.
Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Subordinates’ perceived overall justice will moderate the relationship between leader
narcissism and leader–member exchange, such that the relationship will be positive and stronger when
perceived overall justice is high (vs. low).

Method
Participants
To test the hypotheses, we conducted a survey with members of the Republic of Korea army, comprising
squadron leaders of the smallest units in four battalions, and the members of each squadron. A security
review was carried out and ethical approval was obtained before the survey took place. Participation was
entirely voluntary, and we informed participants that the study would not be used for any purpose other
than for research. To ensure anonymity, we distributed the survey forms, including a cover letter describing
the purpose of the study, namely, so that we can understand the relationship between leader narcissism and
subordinates’ behavior, to 170 pairs of squadron leaders and members in a sealed envelope with a
researcher-assigned identification number. We received 158 pairs of usable responses (93% response rate).

Measures
The survey items, originally in English, were translated into Korean by two bilingual English–Korean
researchers using the translation/back-translation method (Brislin, 1980). The squadron leaders’ narcissism
was rated by themselves (leaders), and perceived LMX, overall justice, and OCB-CH were rated by the
squadron members (subordinates). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Leader narcissism. Leaders assessed their narcissism using the 16-item NPI-16 scale (Ames et al., 2006).
Sample items are “I like to be the center of attention,” and “I think I am a special person.”

Leader–member exchange. We measured leader–member exchange with an 11-item scale from Liden and
Maslyn (1998). Sample items are “I like my supervisor very much as a person,” and “My supervisor is the
kind of person one would like to have as a friend.”

Overall justice. We measured overall justice using the six-item scale from Ambrose and Schminke (2009).
Sample items are “Overall, I’m treated fairly by my organization,” and “Usually, the way things work in this
organization are not fair” (reverse scored).

Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. We measured change-oriented organizational

citizenship behavior with Choi’s (2007) four-item scale. Sample items are “I frequently come up with new
ideas or new work methods to perform my task,” and “I often suggest work improvement ideas to others.”

Control variables. Subordinates’ age, education level, rank, and troop type were included in regression
analysis to control for alternative explanations.

Results

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 5

 Ha, Lee, Byun, Dai

Descriptive statistics and correlations are set out in Table 1. The internal consistency of all measures was
satisfactory.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables

Note. N = 158. LMX = leader–member exchange, OCB-CH = change-oriented organizational citizenship

behavior.
Education coded as 1 = Lower than high school graduation; 2 = High school graduation; 3 = In college; 4 =
Junior college graduation; 5 = College graduates and above. Rank coded as 1 = Private second class; 2 =
Private first class; 3 = Corporal; 4 = Sergeant; 5 = Staff sergeant and above. Troop type coded as 1 = Infantry;
2 = Artillery; 3 = Military engineer; 4 = Military communications. Reliabilities are in parentheses on the
diagonal.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, two-tailed.

We conducted hierarchical regression analysis to test our hypotheses. As shown in Model 4 in Table 2,
leader narcissism was positively related to employees’ OCB-CH. Hypothesis 1 was thus supported.

To test our hypothesis regarding the mediating role of LMX, we adopted Baron and Kenny’s (1986)
approach. We further used the Sobel test and bootstrapping to assess the significance of the indirect effect
by following Hayes and Preacher’s (2010) procedure. Leader narcissism was positively related to employees’
OCB-CH (Model 4 in Table 2) and LMX (Model 2 in Table 2), thereby meeting the first two requirements of
the mediation test. To test the third criterion, we regressed OCB-CH on LMX, and controlled for leader
narcissism. As reported in Model 6 in Table 2, the beta coefficient for LMX was significant. As the effect of
leader’s narcissism was no longer significant, the full mediating effect of LMX was confirmed. The Sobel test
and bootstrapping results are shown in Table 2. A two-tailed significance test demonstrated that the indirect
effect was significant. The bootstrap results confirmed the Sobel test result. We estimated the 95% bias-
corrected confidence interval (CI) with 10,000 bootstrapped samples to test for the indirect effect. In this
study, the results for CI exclude zero. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

The results of Model 4 in Table 3 indicate that the coefficient for the interaction term was significantly
positive. Further, as shown in Figure 2, leader narcissism was positively related to LMX only when
subordinates’ overall justice was high (simple slope t = 2.57, p < .05). When it was low, leader narcissism
was not significantly related to LMX (simple slope t = .44, ns). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 6

 Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

Table 2. Simple Mediation Test Results for Leader–Member Exchange

Note. N = 158. LMX = leader–member exchange, OCB-CH = change-oriented organizational citizenship

behavior, CI = confidence interval.
Entries are standardized regression coefficients. Bootstrap sample size = 10,000.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, two-tailed.

Figure 2. Moderating effect of overall justice (OJ). LMX = leader–member exchange.

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 7

 Ha, Lee, Byun, Dai

Table 3. Hierarchical Regression Results for Moderating Effect of Overall Justice

Note. N = 158. LMX = leader–member exchange. Entries are standardized regression coefficients.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, two-tailed.

Discussion
Our findings contribute to the literature on narcissism in three ways. First, we have drawn attention to the
positive effects of leader narcissism on desirable organizational outcomes. Leader narcissism has previously
been associated with negative outcomes, as narcissistic leaders lack compassion and are excessively
sensitive to criticism from others (Campbell et al., 2011). However, as researchers have begun to find that
narcissistic (vs. nonnarcissistic) leaders are more passionate, visionary, and innovative (Maccoby, 2000), it
is evident that a bright and a dark side of narcissism may coexist (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005), depending on
context, such as time or organizational conditions (Campbell & Campbell, 2009). We joined this stream of
research by proposing a positive effect of leader narcissism on desirable organizational outcomes.

Second, our finding that LMX fully mediated the relationship between leader narcissism and subordinates’
OCB-CH is consistent with Campbell and Foster’s (2007) finding that narcissists know how to use
interpersonal skills appropriately and to rely on others to enhance their self-esteem. Further, although they
may lack warmth and intimacy in relationships, narcissists are often outgoing and entertaining (Oltmanns
et al., 2004), socially skilled (Brunell et al., 2008), and highly energetic and confident (Watson & Biderman,
1994). Therefore, the characteristics of a narcissistic leader make subordinates feel that they have a good
relationship with their leader.

Third, we extend existing research in our finding of the moderating effect of overall justice on the
relationship between leader narcissism and LMX. Previous researchers focused on the moderating role
played by a leader’s individual-level characteristics (Owens et al., 2015) and peer relationship (Campbell et
al., 2011) in influencing the relationship between leader and organizational outcomes. However, leaders and
subordinates in an organization are both subject to the influence of organizational factors. We identified an
organizational-level situational factor that affects the relationship between the leader and organizational
outcomes. That is, leader narcissism had a positive effect on LMX only when overall justice was perceived by
subordinates to be high. This suggests that the organizations’ top executives and managers can take a more

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 8

 Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

active role in fostering the organizational context, such as overall justice, to facilitate the mechanism
through which leader narcissism influences LMX and subordinates’ OCB-CH.

Despite the theoretical and practical implications we have outlined, there are limitations in this study. First,
participants were soldiers serving in the Republic of Korea Army. We advise caution in generalizing the
results to firms, because the characteristics and capability of army leaders may be different from those of
leaders in other organizations (Paunonen et al., 2006). Future researchers can re-examine these
relationships with participants employed in industries.

Second, we used cross-sectional data. However, over time, leader narcissism may exert either positive or
negative effects on subordinates’ OCB-CH. For example, narcissists may hold a positive attitude toward
others when their relationship begins, but may develop a negative attitude as their interest in, and
commitment to, the relationship decrease (Oltmanns et al., 2004). Thus, a longitudinal study is needed for
the development of a more complete understanding of the relationships we examined in this study.

References
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice
research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 491–500.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013203

Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of
Research in Personality, 40, 440–450.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J.
W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008).
Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
1663–1676.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208324101

Campbell, W. K., Brunell, A. B., & Finkel, E. J. (2006). Narcissism, interpersonal self-regulation, and
romantic relationships: An agency model approach. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and
relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 57–83). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.

Campbell, W. K., & Campbell, S. M. (2009). On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the peculiar benefits
and costs of narcissism: A contextual reinforcement model and examination of leadership. Self and Identity,
8, 214–232.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860802505129

Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended agency model, and
ongoing controversies. In C. Sedikides & S. J. Spencer (Eds.), Frontiers of social psychology: The self (pp.
115–138). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

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

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 9

 Ha, Lee, Byun, Dai

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.007

Choi, J. N. (2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work environment

characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 467–484.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.433

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
425–445.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership, narcissism, and
rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 49–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90030-8

Downs, A. (1997). Beyond the looking glass: Overcoming the seductive culture of corporate narcissism.
New York, NY: Amacom.

DuBrin, A. J. (2012). New horizons in management. Narcissism in the workplace: Research, opinion and
practice. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Freud, S. (1957). On narcissism: An introduction. In J. Strachey & A. Freud (Eds. & Trans.), The standard
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XIV (1914–1916): On the history of
the psycho-analytic movement, Papers on metapsychology and other works (pp. 67–102). London, UK:
Hogarth Press.

Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership:
A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68, 1–47.
https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12072

Harrison, J. K., & Clough, M. W. (2006). Characteristics of “state of the art” leaders: Productive narcissism
versus emotional intelligence and Level 5 capabilities. The Social Science Journal, 43, 287–292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2006.02.007

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models
when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 627–660.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.498290

Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms of
leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 22,
1165–1185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.009

Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9,
169–180.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169

Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member
exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47,
368–384.
https://doi.org/10.5465/20159587

Javed, B., Rawwas, M. Y. A., Khandai, S., Shahid, K., & Tayyeb, H. H. (2018). Ethical leadership, trust in
leader and creativity: The mediated mechanism and an interacting effect. Journal of Management &
Organization, 24, 388–405.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.56

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 10

 Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

Ko, D., Seo, Y., & Jung, S.-U. (2015). Examining the effect of cultural congruence, processing fluency, and
uncertainty avoidance in online purchase decisions in the U.S. and Korea. Marketing Letters, 26, 377–390.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9351-4

Liao, S., Zhou, X., Guo, Z., & Li, Z. (2019). How does leader narcissism influence employee voice: The
attribution of leader impression management and leader-member exchange. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 1819–1832.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101819

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical

assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400105

Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business
Review, 78, 68–77. https://bit.ly/2yDtwXh

Oltmanns, T. F., Friedman, J. N. W., Fiedler, E. R., & Turkheimer, E. (2004). Perceptions of people with
personality disorders based on thin slices of behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 216–229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00066-7

Owens, B. P., Wallace, A. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2015). Leader narcissism and follower outcomes: The
counterbalancing effect of leader humility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1203–1213.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038698

Paunonen, S. V., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Verkasalo, M., Leikas, S., & Nissinen, V. (2006). Narcissism and emergent
leadership in military cadets. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 475–486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.06.003

Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism?
CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 262–279.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2348

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors
and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7

Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-side of
CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic
influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1365–1381.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016238

Ritter, B. A., & Lord, R. G. (2007). The impact of previous leaders on the evaluation of new leaders: An
alternative to prototype matching. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1683–1695.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1683

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Rush, M. C., Thomas, J. C., & Lord, R. G. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat to the
internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20,
93–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90046-0

Watson, P. J., & Biderman, M. D. (1994). Narcissistic traits scale: Validity evidence and sex differences in
narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 501–504.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90076-0

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 11

 Ha, Lee, Byun, Dai

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in
perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
590–598.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.590

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. 12

View publication stats