SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2012, 40(6), 881-890

© Society for Personality Research

http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.6.881

THE RELATIONSHIP OF NARCISSISM WITH WORKAHOLISM,

WORK ENGAGEMENT, AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION

CECILIE SCHOU ANDREASSEN

University of Bergen and The Bergen Clinics Foundation, Norway
HOLGER URSIN
Uni Health, Bergen, Norway
HEGE R. ERIKSEN
University of Bergen and Uni Health, Bergen, Norway
STÅLE PALLESEN
University of Bergen

We examined scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988) in
relation to drive to work, enjoyment of and engagement in work, and professional position. A
sample of 235 Norwegian bank employees completed a cross-sectional survey. We found that
managers scored higher than subordinates on all measures. NPI scores correlated significantly
and positively with drive, enjoyment of and engagement in work. Multiple regression analyses
controlling for demographic and work variables showed that narcissism was significantly
related to enjoyment of work and work engagement but unrelated to drive. Although the
associations were rather weak, our findings support previous clinical observations of
narcissistic traits in workaholics as well as findings in empirical research on narcissistic traits
in managers.

Keywords: narcissism, workaholism, work engagement, professional position, manager.

Cecilie Schou Andreassen, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, and The Bergen Clinics
Foundation, Norway; Holger Ursin, Uni Health, Bergen, Norway; Hege R. Eriksen, Faculty of
Psychology, University of Bergen, and Uni Health, Bergen, Norway; Ståle Pallesen, Faculty of
Psychology, University of Bergen.
The authors thank the employees and the administration of the bank for their collaboration.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Cecilie Schou Andreassen, Faculty
of Psychology, University of Bergen, Christiesgate 12, N-5015, Bergen, Norway. Email: cecilie.
andreassen@psych.uib.no

881
882 NARCISSISM, WORKAHOLISM, AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION

Narcissism was first defined in psychological literature as the “tendency for the
sexual emotions to be lost and almost entirely absorbed in self-admiration” (Ellis,
1898, p. 280). Since that time, the term has become widely accepted as well as
given a variety of meanings (Kubarych, Deary, & Austin, 2004; Soyer, Rovenpor,
Kopelman, Mullins, & Watson, 2001). In present-day diagnostic systems,
pathological narcissism is identified by the diagnosis of narcissistic personality
disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Core symptoms comprise an
inflated sense of self-importance and entitlement, preoccupation with fantasies of
unlimited success and similar themes, a belief in being special/unique, requiring
admiration, a tendency toward interpersonal exploitation, lack of empathy, envy,
and arrogant behaviors/attitudes (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988) is, currently, by
the far the most commonly used self-report measure of narcissism.
Some degree of narcissism may be conceived of as being both healthy and a
prerequisite for self-enhancement strategies, self-confidence, and self-assertion
(Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000; Kansi, 2003). Many people use
their workplace as an environment in which to express their ambitions and
successes in life. Although healthy narcissism may be productive in the work
environment, pathological narcissism may be destructive (Penney & Spector,
2002). Behavior at work that is rooted in narcissism is hypothesized (Pullen
& Rhodes, 2008) to be expressed in ways that are masculine (e.g., being a star
performer) or feminine (e.g., being subservient to superiors). It has been suggested
that it may be narcissistic tendencies that cause some people to crave rewards and
recognition within the workplace (Killinger, 1991; Robinson, 1998). One way of
obtaining rewards and recognition from work is to put in an extra effort. Hence,
according to most definitions, narcissism may be related to workaholism, a core
aspect of which appears to be an elevated level of investment in work. If this is
so, it would be reasonable to expect that managers would have higher levels of
narcissism than would their subordinates (Raskin & Novacek, 1989).
Spence and Robbins (1992) constructed what is currently the most widely
used self-report measure of workaholism, the Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT).
In previous studies, the authors of the current research have found that two of
its subscales, enjoyment of work and drive, were linked to both positive and
negative health outcomes (Andreassen, Hetland, Molde, & Pallesen, 2001;
Andreassen, Hetland, & Pallesen, 2010; Andreassen, Ursin, & Eriksen, 2007). In
the only previous study in which the relationship between narcissism and certain
aspects of workaholism has been investigated (Clark, Lelchook, & Taylor, 2010),
a positive relationship was found between narcissism (assessed using the NPI)
and workaholism as measured using the Work Addiction Risk Test (Robinson,
1998).
 NARCISSISM, WORKAHOLISM, AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION 883
Another variable central to behavior at work is work engagement, which has
been defined as a direct opposite of burnout. It is characterized as a relatively
stable condition consisting of vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli,
Salanova, Gonzàlez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). We reasoned that there were
likely to be positive relationships among narcissism, workaholism, and work
engagement. Because there has been a limited amount of research about how
these constructs relate to each other (Clark et al., 2010), we decided to investigate
how narcissism was related to the workaholism dimensions of enjoyment of
work, drive, and work engagement, and the relationship between narcissism and
position in the professional hierarchy (manager or subordinate). On the basis of
previous research and theoretically founded assumptions, our hypotheses were
as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Narcissism will be positively related to drive, enjoyment of work,
and work engagement.
Hypothesis 2: Managers will score higher than subordinates in relation to
narcissism, drive, enjoyment of work, and work engagement.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We invited 500 managers and subordinates at a Norwegian bank to participate
in a survey addressing relationships among work motivation, personality, and
health in the spring of 2002. Emails and several meetings were used to inform
the bank employees about the survey before it was distributed. The survey
included background information on our study and was mailed to participants
along with a return envelope. If they wished to participate, employees were
instructed to return their sealed envelope to the trade union chairperson, who
would then forward it to the research team. All respondents were assured of
anonymity. We received completed surveys from 235 employees (57% female;
response rate 47%). Participants ranged in age from 21 to 63 years (M = 44.1, SD
= 9.7). The majority of participants were married or living with a partner (83%),
were educated beyond high school level (78%; 52% of whom were university
graduates), worked full time (82%), and had worked at the bank for 15 years or
longer (64%). About 75% of the sample were working for between 31 and 40
hours per week. In total, 57 (24%) were managers or had managerial responsi-
bilities and the average number of hours they worked each week was 41 (SD =
5.2).

Instruments
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI). Narcissism was measured using
40 items from a version of the NPI (Raskin & Terry, 1988) that was translated
884 NARCISSISM, WORKAHOLISM, AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION

into Norwegian and then back-translated for this study. Items (e.g., “I know I
am good because everybody keeps telling me so”) are answered with either yes
or no. General narcissism is estimated from the total composite scale score. The
reliability of the NPI was adequate in this study (Kuder-Richardson 20 = .83).
An individual obtaining a high score on the NPI is likely to show higher levels
of dominant, energetic, extraverted, exhibitionistic, aggressive, experience-
seeking, impulsive, self-centered, subjectively self-satisfied, self-indulgent, and
nonconforming traits as compared to the normal population.
Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT). Workaholism was measured using
WorkBAT (Spence & Robbins, 1992). The Norwegian translation is based
on a standard translation/back-translation procedure (Burke, Richardsen, &
Martinussen, 2002). Items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. WorkBAT is designed to measure
three dimensions of workaholism. Work involvement (eight items) relates to the
need to spend time efficiently both at work and outside work hours, the blurring
of boundaries between work and private life, and level of ability to relax (e.g., “I
like to use my time constructively, both on and off the job”). Drive (seven items)
is used to assess the level of obsession with drive to work and the frequency of
thoughts about work (e.g., “I seem to have an inner compulsion to work hard”).
Enjoyment of work (10 items) is used to assess the individual’s experience of
positive work-related emotions (e.g., “I do more work than is expected of me
strictly for the fun of it”). In our previous research we recorded empirical support
for the psychometric validity of the drive and enjoyment of work subscales
(see Andreassen et al., 2007), and we have also found that these dimensions
of WorkBAT have the most consistent relationships with other constructs
(Andreassen et al., 2010, 2011). Therefore, in this study we excluded the work
involvement subscale. The Cronbach’s alphas for the drive and the enjoyment of
work subscales in this study were .80 and .79, respectively.
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). Work engagement was
measured using the UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2002), which consists of 17 items
answered on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 = never in the last year to 6 = daily
(e.g., “At work I feel like I’m bursting with energy”). The scale is used to measure
three dimensions of work engagement: vigor (six items,  = .87), which reflects
energy, endurance, and will to put in an effort at work; dedication (five items,
 = .91) reflecting feelings of inspiration, pride, challenge, identification with
work, and a feeling that what one does is important; and absorption (six items,
 = .87) assessing the ability to concentrate deeply on, and immerse oneself in,
work tasks. A total composite score was also computed (17 items,  = .95). A
high score indicates a high level of work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
 NARCISSISM, WORKAHOLISM, AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION 885
Statistics
Data analyses were conducted using SPSS version 14.0 for Windows.
Descriptive statistics (internal consistencies, means, standard deviations,
percentage frequencies, and intercorrelations) for each variable/scale of interest
were calculated. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were used
to investigate the relationships between relevant subscales in the study. Using
analyses of covariance (ANCOVA), we compared managers and subordinates on
the different measures (adjusting for age, gender, education, and number of years
worked in the bank).
Finally, we conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses to investigate
whether or not narcissism could explain variance in workaholism as well as
within the three work engagement subscales. Individual demographic variables
(age, gender, education) and work situation variables (position, tenure) were
entered at step 1. The narcissism scores from the NPI were entered at step 2.
No violations of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and
homoscedasticity were found.

Results

Correlations
There were significant positive correlations between narcissism and all of
the other subscales used in the study (see Table 1). Overall, enjoyment of work
correlated positively and significantly with all other subscales, ranging from
.20 (drive) to .54 (absorption). Although significant, it should be noted that the
correlations were rather weak.

Table 1. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. NPI total –
2. Vigor .22** –
3. Dedication .23** .81** –
4. Absorption .22** .76** .81** –
5. Drive .14* .05 .07 .22** –
6. Enjoyment of work .41** .45** .51** .54** .20** –
7. Work hoursa .17* .13 .16* .14* .09 .26** –
M 14.11 29.01 24.83 26.73 20.65 22.29 37.09
SD 6.19 5.42 4.91 6.07 5.86 4.82 6.68
Range 1-31 4-36 2-30 4-36 7-35 9-35 7-60
 .83 .87 .91 .87 .80 .79 -
Items 40 6 5 6 7 7 1

Notes: N = 220-235. a Number of hours per week usually engaged in paid work, including overtime.
* p < .05, ** p < .01.
 886

Table 2. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Examining Effects of Narcissism on Workaholism Components and Sum Scores of Work
Engagement
Drive Enjoyment of Work Work Engagement
Variable B SE B  R² / ΔR² B SE B  R² / ΔR² B SE B  R² / ΔR²

Step 1 .02 .09*** .02

Age .03 .05 .04 -.01 .04 -.02 .04 .13 .03
Gendera -.10 .80 -.01 -.87 .65 -.09 -.29 2.11 -.01
Education .60 .49 .09 .06 .39 .01 1.29 1.29 .07
Positionb .62 .44 .10 1.17 .35 .23** 1.67 1.15 .10
Years in bank .01 .36 .00 -.60 .29 -.18* .71 .92 .07
Step 2 .01 .10*** .06***
Age .02 .05 .03 -.04 .04 -.08 -.00 .13 -.00
Gender .03 .81 .00 -.51 .62 -.05 .45 2.06 .02
Education .52 .49 .08 -.18 .37 -.03 .70 1.26 .04
Position .46 .45 .07 .71 .34 .14* .56 1.16 .03
Years in bank .13 .37 .03 -.26 .28 -.08 1.66 .93 .16
Narcissism .10 .07 .11 .29 .06 .37*** .69 .19 .28***

Notes: N = 226-228. a Gender (1 = male, 2 = female), b Position 1 = managers (with or without reporting personnel), 2 = subordinates (customer advisers,
financial and/or intern consultants). * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
NARCISSISM, WORKAHOLISM, AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION
 NARCISSISM, WORKAHOLISM, AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION 887
Group Differences
The ANCOVAs revealed that managers scored higher than did subordinates on
dedication, enjoyment of work, and narcissism.

Regression Analyses
Table 2 contains the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses.
Narcissism and workaholism. For drive, none of the variables added in the
model were significant at step 1 or step 2. Only 3% of the variance in drive was
explained in the analysis. For enjoyment of work, demographic and work-related
variables explained 9% of the variance at step 1. Position and narcissism were the
only variables significant at step 2, explaining 10% of the variance in enjoyment
of work. Managers and subordinates who scored higher on narcissism also had
higher scores on enjoyment of work.
Narcissism and work engagement. For work engagement, none of the
demographic variables at step 1 were significant (explaining a total of 2% of the
variance). At step 2, narcissism was the only significant variable, explaining 6%
of the variance. Narcissism was positively related to work engagement.

Discussion

In this study we presented a new perspective within workaholism research,

by exploring the relationship of self-reported narcissism to workaholism, work
engagement, and professional position. Our first hypothesis that these variables
would be positively and significantly correlated was confirmed. A series of
multiple regressions showed that self-reported narcissism explained between 1%
and 10% of the variance in drive, enjoyment of work, and work engagement.
Narcissism was found to be positively related to enjoyment of work and work
engagement, but unrelated to drive. In addition, in our study managers reported
higher levels of narcissism, drive, enjoyment of work, and work engagement than
did subordinates.
We found narcissism to be predominately associated with positive work-related
variables such as enjoyment of work and work engagement. For some individuals,
experiencing a sense of achievement and coping well at work may come to
bolster their sense of purpose. Hence, much of that individual’s self-image is
reliant on work- and career-related events (Killinger, 1991). We found it tempting
to speculate that because the workaholic spends most of his or her time either
at work or engaged in work-related activities, this environment fulfills the need
for affiliation and confirms the sense of self. The keen and dedicated workaholic
experiences both satisfaction and joy at work (Spence & Robbins, 1992). Work
enjoyment may, thus, depend on having the self confirmed through work. Hence,
the positive relationship we found among narcissism, enjoyment of work, and
work engagement is confirmation that this may be so.
888 NARCISSISM, WORKAHOLISM, AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION

Our findings also suggest that management positions and narcissism are closely
linked, which replicates findings from previous studies (Raskin & Novacek,
1989; Sankowsky, 1995). The concept of narcissism includes a drive to climb
the social ladder or rise within the hierarchy of an organization. In our study,
managers scored higher on drive, enjoyment of work, and work engagement than
did subordinates. This indicates that the managers were more absorbed by their
work both in a positive (enjoyment of work, engagement in work) and negative
(drive) manner.
Data are lacking in the field of workaholism research on why or how a person
becomes a workaholic. We believe that we have shed some light upon important
relationships between narcissism and workaholism. Narcissism is considered
by some to be a basic personality trait (Raskin & Terry, 1988; Wink, 1996). It
may be that basic personality traits like narcissism that develop early in life,
predispose a person toward workaholism in their adulthood (Andreassen et al.,
2010). In line with this reasoning, the workaholic behavioral pattern may be a
consequence or symptom of underlying narcissistic traits that have been nurtured.
Narcissism may influence important aspects of organizational life, such
as leadership and management, decision making, communication, and team
dynamics, as well as organizational climate and culture. In this study, narcissism
in the workplace seemed to influence work motivation and employee incentive
(e.g., workaholism, work engagement, and management position). Furthermore,
different types of workaholism, of themselves or along with situational factors,
may have an influence on amount of sick leave taken, work performance, work
environment, the work-life balance, and turnover of personnel (Andreassen
et al., 2007; Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997). Except for clinical observations
described in books and writings in the popular press, this study is one of the first
in which the relationship of narcissism with workaholism, work engagement, and
professional position has been investigated.
Although our findings, by and large, supported our hypotheses, there are a
few caveats and cautionary comments. Many of the associations found, although
significant, were weak. As the data were nearly 10 years old when we carried out
our analyses, the results may have limited temporal validity. Researchers have
not yet reached a consensus on how narrowly or broadly to define or measure
workaholism. Although the WorkBAT has been demonstrated to have some
questionable psychometric properties in our previous research (Andreassen et al.,
2007), at the time the data used in the current study were collected, the WorkBAT
was the most commonly used workaholism instrument and was, therefore, chosen
to measure workaholism in this present study. Other workaholism instruments
that have been developed have yet to be validated against each other. If studies
are conducted to validate other workaholism instruments, the findings could be
contradictory and this could complicate the drawing of final conclusions about
 NARCISSISM, WORKAHOLISM, AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION 889
the concept of workaholism. Consequently, further research is needed in order
to validate this concept and how it is operationalized (Andreassen et al., 2010).
Potential effects from common method variance may have influenced the
results in our study, causing inflated relationships between constructs. However,
we do not believe that this would alter any of our main conclusions, as there is no
overlap between items in the NPI and those found in the other measures. Third,
because of the relatively low response rate, it is not possible to draw conclusions
from this sample that can be generalized to other samples without reservations.
Most participants were females in low-ranking customer service positions in
the banking sector, with well-defined tasks at work and regular working hours.
These factors may limit the generalizability of our findings. It should also be
noted that only 24% of the respondents worked 40 hours per week or more (37.5
hours per week is the national average worked in typical samples with full-time
positions in Norway). Taking into account the average number of hours worked
by the respondents (M = 37.1, SD = 6.7), it could be argued that this present
sample did not include any workaholics and that our sample was inappropriate
for investigating workaholism. However, it has been pointed out that it is the
attitude toward work that defines workaholism, not the actual number of hours
worked (Machlowitz, 1980). Because little is known at present about how
narcissism is expressed in terms of behavior at the workplace, this is a topic that
should be investigated in future studies. Longitudinal studies would also be an
asset in order to investigate the possible cause-and-effect relationship between
workaholism and narcissism.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders:
DSM-IV. Washington, DC: Author.
Andreassen, C. S., Hetland, J., Molde, H., & Pallesen, S. (2011). ‘Workaholism’ and potential
outcomes in well-being and health in a cross-occupational sample. Stress and Health, 27,
209-214. http://doi.org/cf4
Andreassen, C. S., Hetland, J., & Pallesen, S. (2010). The relationship between ‘workaholism’, basic
needs satisfaction at work, and personality. European Journal of Personality, 24, 3-17. http://
doi.org/cf5
Andreassen, C. S., Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2007). The relationship between strong motivation to
work, ‘workaholism’, and health. Psychology and Health, 22, 615-629. http://doi.org/cf7
Burke, R. J., Richardsen, A. M., & Martinussen, M. (2002). Psychometric properties of Spence and
Robbins’ measures of workaholism components. Psychological Reports, 91, 1098-1104. http://
doi.org/cg8
Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A. (2000). Narcissism and comparative
self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 329-347. http://doi.org/cg9
Clark, M. A., Lelchook, A. M., & Taylor, M. L. (2010). Beyond the Big Five: How narcissism,
perfectionism, and dispositional affect relate to workaholism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48, 786-791. http://doi.org/chb
890 NARCISSISM, WORKAHOLISM, AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION

Ellis, H. (1898). Auto-eroticism: A psychological study. Alienist and Neurologist, 19, 260-299.
Kansi, J. (2003). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Applicability in a Swedish population
sample. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 441-448. http://doi.org/chc
Killinger, B. (1991). Workaholics: The respectable addicts. Buffalo, NY: Firefly.
Kubarych, T. S., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. J. (2004). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Factor
structure in a non-clinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 857-872. http://
doi.org/chd
Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger
egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 126-134.
http://doi.org/chf
Pullen, A., & Rhodes, C. (2008). “It’s all about me!”: Gendered narcissism and leaders’ identity work.
Leadership, 4, 5-25. http://doi.org/chg
Raskin, R. N., & Novacek, J. (1989). An MMPI description of the narcissistic personality. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 53, 66-80. http://doi.org/chh
Raskin, R. N., & 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, 54, 890-902. http://doi.org/chj
Robinson, B. E. (1998). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for workaholics, their partners and
children, and the clinicians who treat them. New York: New York University Press.
Sankowsky, D. (1995). The charismatic leader as narcissist: Understanding the abuse of power.
Organizational Dynamics, 23, 57-71. http://doi.org/chk
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzàlez-Roma, V., & Bakker A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92. http://doi.org/chm
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences
of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287-314. http://doi.org/chn
Soyer, R. B., Rovenpor, J. L., Kopelman, R. E., Mullins, L. S., & Watson, P. J. (2001). Further
assessment of the construct validity of four measures of narcissism: Replication and extension.
The Journal of Psychology, 135, 245-258. http://doi/org.chq
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary
results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160-178. http://doi.org/chp
Wink, P. (1996). Narcissism. In C. G. Costello (Ed.), Personality characteristics of the personality
disordered (pp. 146-172). New York: Wiley.
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal is the property of Society for Personality
Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.