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

A question of false self-esteemOrganization-based self-esteem andnarcissism in organizational contexts

Donald G. GardnerUniversity of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs,

Colorado, USA, and

Jon L. PierceUniversity of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota, USA

Abstract

Purpose – This paper seeks to explore the relationships between organization-based self-esteem andnarcissism, and their correlates. It aims to distinguish the two constructs, as well as to examine thedegree to which organization-based self-esteem is contaminated by “false self-esteem” (namely,narcissism).

Design/methodology/approach – Participants completed questionnaires containing measures oforganization-based self-esteem, narcissism, and a variety of motivational, attitudinal, and behavioralconsequences. 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 correlatespositively with hostility.

Practical implications – The hypothesized negative attitudes and behaviors of narcissists were notfound. However, organizations need to be cautious when delivering negative feedback to employeeshigh 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-basedself-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

Professionals working in many sectors of society (e.g. education, drug and alcoholrehabilitation, prisoner reform, human resource management and organizationalpsychology) have expressed great interest in self-esteem. This interest has focused onthe origins of self-esteem, as well as its individual, interpersonal, community andorganizational effects. A pre-requisite to a scientifically-based understanding ofself-esteem and its consequences is a repertoire of unbiased measures of self-esteem.Contamination of measures of self-esteem would complicate attempts to assess levelsof self-esteem, rendering questionable the validity of any cause and effect observations.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

The authors contributed equally to the conceptualization, design, presentation of results, anddiscussion of this study.

JMP26,8

682

Received October 2010Revised February 2011February 2011Accepted February 2011

Journal of Managerial PsychologyVol. 26 No. 8, 2011pp. 682-699q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0268-3946DOI 10.1108/02683941111181770

This in turn would frustrate attempts to track changes in self-esteem, as well as impedeefforts to manage and/or effect healthy changes in this self-conceptualization. Thisstudy explores one major potential contaminant of self-esteem measures, narcissism,and one specific type of self-esteem, organization-based self-esteem. We accomplishthis by developing and testing nomological networks that describe each of theconstructs, which includes the organizational and management correlates of each.

We start with a brief overview of organization-based self-esteem research. This isfollowed by a similar overview of research on narcissism, a stable personality trait thatconsists 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 falseorganization-based self-esteem. This discussion will include a set of researchhypotheses that highlight the different correlates of narcissism and organization-basedself-esteem research. We conclude with a presentation and discussion of data from afield study which was designed to examine the hypothesized role played by narcissismin expressions of organization-based self-esteem, as well as the organization-relatedcorrelates of narcissism and organization-based self-esteem.

Organization-based self-esteemBuilding upon the notion that self-esteem is a multifaceted and hierarchicalphenomenon (e.g. Horberg and Chen, 2010; Korman, 1970), and a general belief (seeCoopersmith, 1967; Kirkpatrick et al., 2002) that self-esteem may develop around anynumber 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/herselfto be capable, significant, and worthy as an organizational member”. Employees withhigh 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 OBSEscale; Pierce et al., 1989), reflecting a self-judgment of one’s organizational worthiness(Coopersmith, 1967).

Early in one’s organizational tenure, such as when an individual first joins anorganization, OBSE is an outer-level conceptualization of the self. As such it ismalleable 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 selftransitions to an inner-level conceptualization (see Campbell, 1990). It becomesmore-and-more trait-like such that it eventually becomes a relatively stable belief aboutone’s 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 anemployee’s OBSE.

Theoretical antecedents of OBSETwo 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 timeinclude three general sets of organizational conditions:

(1) signals of support and importance (e.g. pay level) from significantorganizational others (e.g. managers);

A question offalse self-esteem

683

(2) work-related successes (e.g. positive performance appraisals) and conditionsthat facilitate success (e.g. role clarity); and

(3) work-related structures to which the individual is exposed which signal trust inthe employee (e.g. organic system designs).

Recently Pierce and Gardner (2009) expanded this theoretical model by including thecore self-evaluation construct ( Judge et al., 1997; Parker, 1985a, b) within the OBSEnomological network. High OBSE employees are also predisposed to view theirorganizational experiences through a positive lens, reflecting what Hogan and Kaiser(2005) call the “bright side” of personality.

Theoretical consequences of OBSEBowling et al.’s (2010) and Pierce and Gardner’s (2004) reviews of the OBSE literatureprovide support for a number of reliable relationships between measures of OBSE and avariety of organization-related variables. Among some of the variables that appear to bepositively 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-esteemDrawing upon Locke et al. (1996), Judge et al. (1997, p. 181) noted that “[t]he problemwith reliance on self-report scales is that because self-esteem is a profoundpsychological need, people who do not possess it may attempt to fake it, through falseself-reporting...other measurement methods may need to be developed which assessgenuine self-esteem and distinguish it from pseudo self-esteem - that is, self-esteeminflated by defensive maneuvers”. Other self-esteem scholars have also suggested thatthere 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 scorerspossess a healthy (genuine) sense of self-regard, and in other instances there are peoplewho have a defensive, inflated and/or unrealistic view of themselves.

Concluding their review of the literature on organization-based self-esteem, Pierceand Gardner, 2004, p. 614) noted that “highly skewed distributions [were] typicallyfound in the measurement of OBSE (i.e. high averages)”. This observation led them toquestion whether some expressions of high OBSE are false expressions which in turnraised questions as to whether some high scoring OBSE employees have genuine orfalse self-esteem. Is it possible that some employees’ self-esteem is inflated and/ortainted by self-perceptions of grandiosity and entitlement - two of the major attributeswhich characterize the narcissistic personality (Ouimet, 2010)? We propose that ifnarcissism characterizes some of those individuals who report having high levels ofglobal self-esteem, OBSE may be biased in the same way. In this study we examine therelationships between narcissism and OBSE, with an eye towards differentiating thetwo traits as distinct constructs, as well as examining their distinguishablerelationships with several organizationally-relevant variables.

NarcissismConceptually, narcissism has been defined as “grandiosity with preoccupation overone’s status compared to, and in the eyes of, others” (Barry et al., 2007, p. 934). Gregg

JMP26,8

684

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 beinterpersonally abrasive or aggressive”. Other characterizations of the narcissisticpersonality include a sense of entitlement, lack of empathy, an excessive need foradmiration, and arrogant (haughty) attitudes and behaviors (American PsychiatricAssociation, 1980; Ouimet, 2010).

We note here that in this study we examine narcissism from a social-personalityperspective, that is, a trait that is normally distributed in the population and for whichthere is no definitive “cutoff” for designating some people as being narcissists. This isin contrast to psychiatric-clinical approaches that focus on Narcissistic PersonalityDisorder (NPD), a relatively rare psychopathology that causes substantial distress andimpairment in the victim’s life (Campbell et al., in press). Here we focus on the “morecommon occurrences of narcissism” within the normal population rather than the rareand qualitatively different NPD, the former of which is the type of narcissism that mostorganizations are likely to encounter (Campbell et al., in press).

Theoretical antecedents of narcissismThere is widespread agreement that narcissism as an adult personality trait is stronglyinfluenced by parenting practices and childhood experiences. Kernberg (1975), forexample, argues that “parental rejection or abandonment” is the genesis of narcissism.Millon (1981) views narcissism as the outgrowth of parental “over evaluation” of theirchildren. 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 simplycannot be realized through life in the real world” (Emmons, 1987, p. 11). Conflicted, thechild begins to outwardly project a sense of superiority and brilliance, while his/hernegative 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 artificialview of the self morphs into what is called the narcissistic personality (Tracy et al., 2009).

Theoretical consequences of narcissismBoastfulness, hostility, and arrogance are common behaviors of the narcissist, and arethe aspects that are most observable by others. The dynamic self-regulatory model ofnarcissism (Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001) offers insight into these manifestations ofnarcissism. Narcissists project an extremely positive view of their self, but their view ofthe self is also extremely sensitive. As a consequence of it not being grounded in anobjective reality that provides the reinforcement to make it genuine and stable innature, it is a personality trait that needs frequent “shoring-up” from the attention,admiration and accolades from others. Internally, however, narcissists are uncertainabout the authenticity of their superiority, which is sometimes attributed to “fragileself-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-conceptdrives the narcissist to continuously seek feedback from their social environment thataffirms their tenuous feelings of self-worth. Many of the processes that narcissists useto bolster their unstable self-esteem (insensitive, self-absorbed) also alienate the peoplein their social and work environments (e.g. Zeigler-Hill et al., 2010). When narcissistsfail to receive the admiration they crave from others, they react with hostility andaggression (verbal and/or physical).


685

It is worth noting at this point that individuals with genuine self-esteem, includinggenuine OBSE, are not likely to react in the same ways to social disapproval as doesthe narcissist (Maples et al., 2010). Empirically it has been demonstrated that genuineself-esteem leads to healthy social relationships, while narcissism leads to aggressionand other anti-social behaviors (Tracy et al., 2009). The narcissist’s reference point isprimarily social and external (other people), and their personality is frequentlyportrayed as maladaptive when seeking admiration from others (Barry et al., 2007;Emmons, 1984). On the other hand, the high self-esteem person’s reference point isinternal (i.e. thoughts and feelings about the self), and views social feedback as beingpotentially diagnostic and/or self-affirming.

Barry et al. (2007) and Campbell et al. (in press) note that the narcissistic personalityhas been described as having both maladaptive (e.g. arrogance) and adaptive(e.g. leadership/authority) features. From the maladaptive perspective, the narcissist isobsessed with garnering the admiration from others. This results in the narcissist oftenbeing described as self-absorbed, entitled, willing to exploit others, and self-serving.Raskin and Terry (1988) portray the adaptive side of the narcissistic personality asbeing assertive, independent, and self-confident. Because the narcissist possesses bothadaptive and maladaptive qualities, they are often perceived positively inorganizations, at least in the short term. Over longer periods of time themaladaptive traits manifest themselves, and the narcissist becomes viewed in amuch more negative manner (e.g. Campbell and Campbell, 2009).

These varying descriptions have been categorized into specific facets of the higherorder trait narcissism construct (as opposed to the psychopathological NarcissisticPersonality Disorder). Different researchers have described these facets in varyingterms (e.g. Brown et al., 2009; Emmons, 1987). One of the most widely-employedtaxonomy of narcissism facets is that proposed by Raskin and Terry (1988), which alsocorresponds to the subscales of their widely-used, 40-item Narcissistic PersonalityInventory (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 ofothers).

Narcissism and organization-based self-esteemThe narcissism – OBSE relationshipMost studies have found positive correlations between narcissism and self-esteem(e.g. Emmons, 1984; Raskin and Terry, 1988). When one restricts reviews of thesecorrelations to the most widely-used self-esteem measure (i.e. the RosenbergSelf-esteem Scale; Rosenberg, 1965) and the most widely-used measure of narcissism(i.e. the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, NPI; Raskin and Terry, 1988) the averagecorrelation is 0.26 (Brown and Zeigler-Hill, 2004). This positive relationship between

JMP26,8

686

narcissism and self-esteem is not surprising, as one would expect that a respondentwho is narcissistic would welcome the opportunity to “boast about” themselves andtheir qualities while responding to items on a self-esteem measure (e.g. “I feel that Ihave a number of good qualities”, an item from the Rosenberg scale).

The relationships of narcissism with self-report measures of global self-esteemshould manifest themselves similarly on a measure of OBSE. That is, an exaggeratedself-view of one’s worthiness in general should be mirrored in exaggerated self-beliefsabout one’s worthiness in the work and organizational context. This leads us to ourfirst hypothesis:

H1. There is a statistically significant positive correlation between measures ofnarcissism and organization-based self-esteem.

While we hypothesize a positive relationship between OBSE and narcissism, we do notconsider 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 hypothesizedcorrelation should be small enough to suggest independence of the constructs.

Organizational correlates of narcissism and OBSEAddressing the potential consequences of OBSE, Pierce et al. (1989) noted that “cognitiveconsistency theory assumes that people are motivated to achieve outcomes that areconsistent with their self-concept” (Korman, 1971, p. 595). They went on to argue thatemployees with high OBSE (i.e. those who see themselves as organizationally capable,valuable and meaningful) will be intrinsically motivated to engage in behaviorsconsistent with that image, and find satisfaction in carrying out roles that are valued bythe organization. This line of reasoning has led scholars (e.g. Lee, 2003; Wei andAlbright, 1998) to hypothesize a positive relationship between OBSE, and such outcomesas job satisfaction, job involvement, intrinsic work motivation, in-role performance andextra-role behaviors. Reviews of the OBSE literature (Bowling et al., 2010; Pierce andGardner, 2004) reveals support for these hypothesized relationships. Thus, consistentwith the OBSE literature we offer the following hypotheses:

H2. There is a positive relationship between OBSE and job satisfaction (H2a), jobinvolvement (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 PersonnelPsychology reveals a general absence of research focused on relationships between thenarcissistic personality and other organization-related variables ( Judge et al., 2006; alsosee Campbell et al., in press). In conjunction with our efforts to examine the potentialbias of false OBSE, we initiate efforts to fill this void through an examination of therelationship between narcissism and each of the attitudinal, motivational andbehavioral variables identified in H2a-H2e.

In light of this relative absence of prior scholarship focused on the narcissisticpersonality within the organizational context we acknowledge the tenuous nature ofthe following hypotheses. This work will, however, reveal if the two constructs (OBSEand narcissism) have differential relationships with other theoretically-relatedmeasures, thereby contributing to our understanding of, and the degree to which,OBSE is contaminated by narcissism.


687

The narcissist has a continuous need to feel admired and respected, and it isunlikely that this need will be completely fulfilled in the typical organizational setting.Work assignments, wages earned, various forms of organizational support, andco-worker acceptance, all of which affect job satisfaction, are unlikely to bestow thelevel of recognition desired by the narcissist. Kernberg (1975, p. 17) noted thatnarcissistic individuals have feelings of inferiority and are unable to enjoy themselves:“They experience little empathy for the feelings of others, they obtain very littleenjoyment from life other than from the tributes they receive from others or from theirown grandiose fantasies, and they feel restless and bored when external glitter wearsoff and no new sources feed their self-regard”. As a consequence, we reason that theyare unlikely to experience high levels of satisfaction within their organizational roles.Diamond and Allcorn (1984; in Soyer et al., 2001) stated that narcissistic employeesquickly 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 therespect and admiration of peers while at the same time viewing their peers withcontempt. Because narcissists reinforce their fragile self-views through socialapproval, and are less likely to achieve this from successful performance of thenon-social aspects of their jobs, we would not expect their self-concept to be defined bytheir jobs. The narcissist is highly motivated by the attention and admiration that theyderive from others, and not their assigned tasks per se. As a consequence, we proposethat they are unlikely to experience high levels of job involvement – that state wherethe self-concept is largely defined by the job and one’s job performance (Lodhal andKejner, 1965). We also would not expect narcissists to be strongly motivated bytask-related activities (i.e. intrinsic motivation), where the source of satisfaction comesfrom task performance, because their major motivational force stems from social(interpersonal) interactions.

Narcissists will readily manipulate co-workers into thinking that they are morecompetent than they really are. They also belittle co-workers to make themselves feelsuperior. Their extreme views of self-sufficiency lead them to be uncooperative withothers. Simultaneously, this arrogance is likely to contribute to low performance( Johnson et al., 2010), especially in any work setting where there is interdependenceamong co-workers. As a consequence, narcissists are unlikely to be involved with orconcerned about anything in the organization that does not reinforce their self-views.Thus, we would not expect them to be among the organization’s better citizens,engaged in those extra-role behaviors that are intended to benefit others but notthemselves (as Judge et al., 2006, observed).

The preceding observations about the narcissistic personality lead us to thefollowing hypotheses:

H3. There is a negative relationship between narcissism and job satisfaction(H3a), job involvement (H3b), intrinsic work motivation (H3c), ratings ofin-role performance (H3d ), and the extra-role behaviors of voice and helping(H3e).

Finally, we focus on individual reactions to negative feedback. Stone-Romero andStone (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 across-cultural element to it (individualism-collectivism). They explain how idiocentric

JMP26,8

688

self-esteem (individualism) differs from allocentric self-esteem (collectivism), and howthat might moderate the appraisal of and reactions to feedback. Importantly, Stone andStone-Romero propose that the idiocentric form of self-esteem that predominates inWestern cultures may result in high self-esteem individuals being dismissive ofnegative 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 mostmeasures of global self-esteem are confounded with narcissism (see above). As notedby John and Robins (1994, p. 217) “most self-report measures of self-esteem aresusceptible to narcissistic self-enhancement, making it difficult to interpret correlationsbetween self-esteem and narcissism”. This study is designed to tease apart the sharedvariance of narcissism and self-esteem (namely, OBSE) with reactions to negativefeedback, and perhaps shed some light on this possibility.

Previous research has shown that one major way in which true narcissistsdistinguish themselves from people with high levels of genuine self-esteem is in theirreactions to criticism, or negative feedback. When narcissists experience feedback thatis inconsistent with their exaggerated self-views, and/or feedback that reveals thatthey will not be receiving the rewards and adulation that they believe that theydeserve, they can behave rather badly. There is abundant research that shows thatnarcissists react with anger and hostility towards the source of the criticism, up to andincluding 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 evenbecome physiologically stressed (elevated cortisol reactivity) when faced withunfavorable social evaluations (Edelstein et al., 2010). Dismissive of the negativefeedback, they are unlikely to change their effort levels in order to behave differentlybecause 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 genuineself-esteem individuals manifest lower cortisol reactions to unfavorable social feedbackthan do those low in self-esteem (Ford and Collins, 2010). Individuals high inself-esteem are motivated to maintain their high levels of self-esteem (calledself-verification motivation), or try to enhance their self-esteem (calledself-enhancement motivation). When faced with negative feedback, high genuineself-esteem people will exert higher levels of effort to succeed, so as to reverse thenegative feedback and sustain their positive self-image (sometime called compensatoryself-enhancement; Stone-Romero and Stone, 2002). We would not expect highself-esteem individuals to discredit the feedback, or attack the source of the negativefeedback. Low self-esteem individuals, who perceive negative feedback as consistentwith their low self-worth, do not change their effort levels, and thus verify their lowself-image. They too would not attack the source of criticism because they neitherdoubt the veracity of the feedback, nor do they see much utility in changing theirattitudes, beliefs, or behaviors in reaction to the feedback.

Thus, we hypothesize:

H4a. There is a negative correlation between narcissism and effort expended afterreception of negative feedback.

H4b. There is a positive correlation between narcissism and hostility towards thesource of negative feedback.


689

H5a. There is a positive correlation between OBSE and effort expended afterreception of negative feedback.

H5b. There is a negative correlation between OBSE and hostility towards thesource of negative feedback.

MethodStudy designData for this investigation derive from a field study conducted in a US-based miningand manufacturing organization. All employees were invited to participate in the datacollection process, which cut across three work days and each of the organization’sthree work shifts. Two hundred thirty-six employees completed self- and peer-reportquestionnaires while on paid job release time. Thirteen percent of the studyparticipants were female. Their average job and organizational tenure were nine and 11years, respectively. Participants in this study occupied a variety of positions in theorganization including managers, engineers, quality control and safety inspectors,supervisors, clerical staff, miners, and manufacturing employees.

MeasuresNarcissism 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 theself-sufficiency subscale (“I am more capable than other people”) from the NPI becauseof clear overlap with OBSE items and a desire to minimize methods variance. We didnot use the vanity subscale (“I like to look at my body”) in the interest of surveyefficiency, and because it is infrequently used to describe the narcissistic personality.The NPI is the most widely-used measure of the narcissistic personality withinnon-clinical populations (Campbell et al., in press; Soyer et al., 2001). The vast majorityof the narcissism studies reviewed above utilized the NPI and support its use as anarcissism measure.

Organization-based self-esteem was assessed with the instrument developed andvalidated by Pierce et al. (1989). Further validation evidence can be found in the Pierceand Gardner (2004) review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Theinstrument asks respondents to think about their relationship with their organizationand to indicate the extent to which they believe in each of ten statements (e.g. I COUNTaround here; I MAKE A DIFFERENCE around here; I am an IMPORTANT part of thisplace). Participants responded on seven-point Likert-type scales anchored stronglydisagree to strongly agree.

Job satisfaction was measured with a five-item scale adapted from Brayfield andRothe (1951). Sample items are “I feel fairly well satisfied with my job” and “I find realenjoyment in my work.” Job involvement was measured with the three-item scaledeveloped by Lodhal and Kejner (1965). A sample item is “I live, eat, and breathe myjob.” Intrinsic motivation was measured with the four-item scale developed byHackman and Oldham (1980). A sample item is “My opinion of myself goes up when Ido well on my job.” Participants responded to all three measures on seven-pointLikert-type scales anchored strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Our review of research on narcissism did not reveal a previously-validated measurethat deals with “dysfunctional reactions to negative feedback.” As a consequence, we

JMP26,8

690

developed two measures for use in the current study. Hostility to negative feedbackwas measured with four items (e.g. I occasionally get mad at people who criticize myperformance) employing a traditional seven-point Likert-type agree-disagree format.Higher scores indicate higher levels of hostility towards the source of the negativefeedback. A single item was employed to measure effort exerted after negativefeedback. A higher score indicates the exertion of more effort to succeed in response tonegative feedback. Both of these measures are presented in the Appendix, Figure A1.

Three dimensions of employee performance are examined, two indicators of extra- andone 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 oneperson with whom they closely worked. This individual was asked to complete ananonymous performance appraisal for one of their co-workers. Self-report and peer-reportquestionnaires were coded so that they could (anonymously) be matched. Employing VanDyne and LePine’s (1998) instrument, we assessed voice (6-items) and helping (sevenitems) extra-role behaviors, as well as their instrument for the assessment of in-rolebehaviors (four items). Sample items include: “This particular employee volunteers to dothings for this work group” (helping), “This particular employee communicates his/heropinions about work issues to others in the group even if his/her opinion is different andothers in the group disagree with him/her” (voice), and “This particular employee meetsperformance expectations” (in-role performance). Seven-point Likert-type stronglydisagree/strongly agree response scales were used to gauge these behaviors.

ResultsTable I includes the descriptive statistics for all of the study variables, their coefficientalphas (on the diagonal), and their inter-correlations. The coefficient alphas for this samplewere acceptable for all of the measures (.0.70 with the exception of intrinsic motivation at0.63). The correlations between measures allow for an initial examination of support for thestudy hypotheses. In support of H1, there was a statistically significant correlationbetween narcissism and OBSE (r ¼ 0:23, p , 0.01). H2a and H2b received support asOBSE correlated with job satisfaction (r ¼ 0:48, p, 0.01) and job involvement (r ¼ 0:35,p , 0.01). H2c, H2d, and H2e received support as OBSE correlated with intrinsicmotivation (r ¼ 0:43, p , 0.01), in-role performance (r ¼ 0:17; p , 0.01), and helpingbehaviors (r ¼ 0:20, p , 0.01) and voice behaviors (r ¼ 0:20, p , 0.01) in the expecteddirection.

Contrary to H3a, H3b and H3c there were statistically significant positivecorrelations between narcissism and job satisfaction (r ¼ 0:28, p , 0.01), jobinvolvement (r ¼ 0:18, p , 0.01), and intrinsic motivation (r ¼ 0:14, p , 0.05). H3dand H3e received no support, as narcissism failed to correlate significantly with in-roleperformance or extra-role behaviors (helping or voice).

H4 received mixed support. There was no statistically significant relationshipbetween narcissism and effort after negative feedback (H4a). H4b was supported asthere was a positive correlation with hostility towards negative feedback sources(r ¼ 0:18, p , 0.01). H5 also received mixed support. In support of H5a OBSEcorrelated positively with effort (r ¼ 0:28, p , 0.01), but H5b was not supported, asOBSE did not correlate significantly with hostility (r ¼ 20.06). Altogether, theseobservations suggest support for hypothesized relationships involving OBSE, andvery little for the hypotheses involving narcissism.


691

Var

iab

les

Mea

nS

D1

23

45

67

89

10

1.N

arci

ssis

m1.

360.

17(0

.79)

b–

c–

––

––

––

–2.

OB

SE

a5.

201.

210.

23*

*(0

.93)

0.45

**

0.32

**

0.41

**

0.28

**

20.10

0.19

**

0.19

**

0.1

7*

*

3.S

atis

fact

ion

4.57

1.34

0.28

**

0.48

**

(0.8

5)0.

45*

*0.

39*

*0.

29*

*2

0.16

**

0.09

0.09

0.07

4.In

vol

vem

ent

3.18

1.37

0.18

**

0.35

**

0.47

**

(0.7

2)0.

31*

*0.

17*

*2

0.03

0.11

0.08

0.05

5.In

trin

sic

Mot

iv.

5.34

1.01

0.14

*0.43

**

0.41

**

0.33

**

(0.6

3)0.

31*

*2

0.01

0.17

**

0.21

**

0.14

*

6.E

ffor

t2.

680.

580.

010.28

**

0.28

**

0.17

**

0.31

**

(n.a

.)2

0.29

**

20.

010.

100.

047.

Hos

tili

ty3.

671.

370.

18*

*20.06

20.

100.

010.

022

0.28

**

(0.8

4)0.

012

0.04

0.02

8.H

elp

ing

5.82

1.02

0.09

0.20

**

0.11

0.12

*0.

18*

*2

0.01

0.03

(0.9

3)0.

70*

*0.

73*

*

9.V

oice

5.82

1.11

0.04

0.20

**

0.10

0.08

0.21

**

0.10

20.

030.

70*

*(0

.94)

0.70

**

10.

In-r

ole

Per

f.6.

041.

090.

050.17

**

0.08

0.06

0.15

*0.

040.

020.

73*

*0.

70*

*(0

.95)

Notes:

aO

BS

E¼

org

aniz

atio

n-b

ased

self

-est

eem

;bC

oeffi

cien

tal

ph

asap

pea

ron

dia

gon

alin

par

enth

eses

,w

her

eap

pro

pri

ate;

c Cor

rela

tion

sab

ove

the

dia

gon

alar

ep

arti

alco

rrel

atio

ns

con

trol

lin

gfo

rn

arci

ssis

m.C

orre

lati

ons

rela

ted

toO

BS

Ear

ein

ital

ic,u

nco

rrec

ted

bel

owth

ed

iag

onal

and

con

trol

lin

gfo

rn

arci

ssis

mab

ove

the

dia

gon

al;

* p,

0.05

;*

* p,

0.01

(on

e-ta

iled

)

Table I.Means, standarddeviations, coefficientalphas, andintercorrelations

JMP26,8

692

To provide a more precise examination of the degree to which OBSE relationshipsmight be biased by its association with narcissism (“false self-esteem”), the productmoment OBSE correlations in Table I were calculated again after controlling forvariance associated with narcissism (partial correlations). These correlations appearabove the diagonal in Table I. Of particular interest are the correlations between OBSEand the dependent variables, before and after controlling for narcissism (which appearin italics in Table I). The changes in the magnitudes of the correlations after controllingfor narcissism were negligible (,0.04 which appeared between the correlation betweenOBSE and hostility). This provides continued support for H2a-H2e (involving OBSE,and job satisfaction, job involvement, intrinsic motivation, and in-role, helping, andvoice performance), as well as H5a (involving OBSE and effort after the receipt ofnegative feedback). These observations also provide support for the construct validityof the OBSE measure, as it appears to be unbiased by narcissism.

DiscussionThree major observations emerge from the current study. First, we found thatnarcissism and OBSE correlate positively, but that the magnitude of the correlation isquite small. In addition, results from the partial correlation analyses demonstrate thatrelationships between OBSE and the studies’ other variables are not affected byvariance associated with narcissism. Overall there is considerable evidence that ourmeasures 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 biasedby narcissism.

Second, despite the characterization of narcissists as being abrasive and difficult tosatisfy, this did not seem to be the case. Narcissism correlated positively with jobsatisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation. Narcissists do not seem to beoverly critical of their organizations, or their roles within them. It is feasible thatnarcissists are effective at finding organizations and roles that enable them to satisfytheir self-aggrandizing needs. On the other hand, it may be that these positiverelationships with narcissism are spurious, and are actually reflecting relationshipswith global self-esteem (Sedikides et al., 2004). Future research should examine thesesame relationships after controlling for global self-esteem.

Narcissists were neither better nor worse job performers than non-narcissists, whenrated by co-workers. These ratings included measures of both extra-role (voice,helping) and in-role behaviors. This is an especially interesting finding given thatnarcissists are more likely to belittle and manipulate fellow workers than theirsupervisors, who have legitimate power over them. It may be that narcissists aresufficiently skilled at impression management that their co-workers do not know thatthey are being manipulated (or derogated). The relationships between narcissism andvarious dimensions of performance are complex, and may require examination oftheoretically-related moderators (e.g. task difficulty; Campbell et al., in press)

The single result with narcissism that might be considered dysfunctional was itspositive correlation with hostility towards and disbelief in negative feedback. Thiswould have ramifications for anyone (supervisors, co-workers, customers) who isrequired to give critical feedback to narcissists. For those people, special attentionshould be devoted to describing unacceptable work behaviors, or adherence tostandards (Ouimet, 2010), and not the implications for the narcissists’ self-beliefs


693

(about abilities, skills, etc.). This recommendation is true for most recipients of negativefeedback, but in the narcissists’ case it might prevent hostility and disbelief, and thelong term effects that such hostility might produce.

Third, our work replicates results found in previous OBSE research. This wasaccomplished as OBSE correlated, sometimes substantially, with satisfaction, intrinsicmotivation, voice and helping behaviors, in-role performance, and effort expended afterreceiving negative feedback. Organizations can expect employees high in OBSEunlikely to respond with hostility to negative performance feedback, unlike highnarcissistic employees.

LimitationsLike most research our investigation has its shortcomings. First and foremost, weemployed a cross-sectional survey design, which precludes definitive statements aboutcause and effect relationships. Future research that utilizes experimental designs andobserver 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 andself-esteem on employee perceptions of and reactions to their organizationalenvironments.

Another weakness of the study may be the choice of the NPI for our measure ofnarcissism. The NPI was chosen for a number of reasons, most importantly because itis the most widely-used measure of narcissism in social psychology research (Campbellet al., in press). This facilitates comparison of our results to previous research that hasused the NPI. However, recently there have been questions about the psychometricquality 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) havedemonstrated 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 thetotal NPI score. We suggest that researchers in the future consider other measures ofnarcissism 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 arebased on a Western (USA) perspective. The degree to which our theorizing and resultsmight generalize to other cultures (e.g. Asian) remains an empirical question.Perceptions of and reactions to negative feedback are possibly quite different in othercultures (Stone-Romero and Stone, 2002), and narcissism as a whole is more prevalentin Western cultures (Foster et al., 2003). As businesses expand globally and employeepopulations become more culturally diverse it will be important to ascertain whethernarcissism operates in other cultures the ways it does in Western cultures.

ImplicationsIt appears from our results that typical levels of narcissism are not enormouslyproblematic with non-managerial employees. The same cannot necessarily be said ifthese same employees are placed into management positions. Ouimet (2010) provides ameticulous description of narcissistic leadership in organizations, how readilynarcissists may get promoted into leadership positions, and most importantly, thedevastating effects narcissistic leaders can have on organizations (also see Campbellet al., in press). Decision makers need to be cognizant of the fact that narcissists can bequite charismatic in the short term, but can transition into quite the opposite once in

JMP26,8

694

positions of legitimate power. Even worse is the situation where narcissistic leaderspredominate in an organization, shape its dominant culture, and ultimately lead theorganizations to its demise (Duchon and Burns, 2008). Our results should not implythat narcissism does not have major implications for organizations.

In the same vein, Stone-Romero and Stone (2002) suggest that educational systemshave 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 thatnarcissism develops during childhood, partly as a function of parental practices(Otway and Vignoles, 2006). It would seem that, at least in Western cultures, a carefulre-examination of the reward contingencies to which children are exposed might be inorder if the rising tide in narcissism is to be abated (Twenge and Campbell, 2009). Ifignored, the collectives that form the building blocks of societies (e.g. schools,governments, employers) may become permeated by narcissistic leaders that clear thepathways for societal decline (Stone-Romero and Stone, 2002).

In closing, we issue a call for additional scholarship focused on the narcissisticpersonality within the work and organizational context. There is a need for furtherexamination of issues pertaining to false self-concepts. There have been attempts in theorganizational sciences to focus on individual-organization and individual-job fit. Itwould be instructive for both theory and practice if scholars were to look at matterspertaining to the fit between the narcissistic personality in mechanistic and organicorganizational structures, in approaches to job/work design, and in the use ofself-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 performancefeedback: 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 amongnarcissism, self-esteem, and delinquency in a sample of at-risk adolescents”, Journal ofAdolescence, Vol. 30, pp. 933-42.

Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L. and Boden, J. (1996), “Relation of threatened egotism to violence andaggression: 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 empiricalreview”, 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-analysisof the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem”, Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 601-26.

Brayfield, A.H. and Rothe, H.F. (1951), “An index of job satisfaction”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 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-esteemmeasures: a matter of dominance”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 38, pp. 582-92.


695

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 andSocial Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 538-49.

Campbell, W.K. and Campbell, S.M. (2009), “On the self-regulatory dynamics created by thepeculiar benefits and costs of narcissism: a contextual reinforcement model andexamination 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 inorganizational 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 stabilityand 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 reactivityto 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 personalityinventory”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 291-300.

Emmons, R.A. (1987), “Narcissism: theory and measurement”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 52, pp. 11-17.

Ford, M.B. and Collins, N.L. (2010), “Self-esteem moderates neuroendocrine and psychologicalresponses 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 inPersonality, Vol. 37, pp. 469-86.

Gregg, A.P. and Sedikides, C. (2010), “Narcissistic fragilty: rethinking its links to explicit andimplicit 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: activationand consequences of relationship-specific contingencies of self-worth”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 98, pp. 77-91.

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C. and Taylor, M. (1977), “Consequences of feedback on behavior inorganizations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 349-71.

John, O.P. and Robins, R.W. (1994), “Accuracy and bias in self-perception: individual differencesin self-enhancements and the role of narcissism”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 66, pp. 206-19.

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 workplaceaggression”, Human Performance, Vol. 23, pp. 403-27.

JMP26,8

696

Judge, T.A., LePine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2006), “Loving yourself abundantly: relationship of thenarcissistic 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 domainspecificity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression”, Journal ofPersonality 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 suggestionstoward 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: factorstructure 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 relationshipbetween its antecedents and consequences”, The Korean Personnel AdministrationJournal, Vol. 27, pp. 27-50.

Locke, E.A., McClear, K. and Knight, D. (1996), “Self-esteem and work”, International Review ofIndustrial/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 relationswith 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 displacedaggression: effects of positive, negative, and delayed feedback”, Personality and IndividualDifferences, 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 dynamicself-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 testof psychoanalytic predictions”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 32,pp. 104-16.

Ouimet, G. (2010), “Dynamics of narcissistic leadership in organizations: toward an integratedresearch 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. 30No. 5, pp. 591-622.


697

Pierce, J.L. and Gardner, D.G. (2009), “Effects of personality and job design on organization-basedself-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-basedself-esteem: construct definition, measurement, and validation”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 622-48.

Raskin, R.N. and Terry, H. (1988), “A principal-components analysis of the narcissisticpersonality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity”, Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 890-902.

Reidy, D.E., Zeichner, A., Foster, J.D. and Martinez, M.A. (2008), “Effects of narcissisticentitlement and exploitativeness on human physical aggression”, Personality andIndividual Differences, Vol. 44, pp. 865-75.

Rhodewalt, F. and Morf, C.C. (1998), “On self-aggrandizement and anger: a temporal analysis ofnarcissism and affective reactions to success and failure”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 74, pp. 672-85.

Rose, P. (2002), “The happy and unhappy faces of narcissism”, Personality and IndividualDifferences, 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 confoundwith 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 normalnarcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 87, pp. 400-16.

Soyer, R.B., Rovenpor, J.L., Kopelman, R.E., Mullins, L.S. and Watson, P.J. (2001), “Furtherassessment of the construct validity of four measures of narcissism: replication andextension”, 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 inPersonnel 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 affectivecore 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 ofEntitlement, Free Press, New York, NY.

VanDyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence ofconstruct 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 empiricalstudy 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: therole of negative achievement events”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 44, pp. 285-92.

JMP26,8

698

Appendix

About the authorsDonald G. Gardner (PhD Purdue University) is a Professor of Management at the University ofColorado 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:[email protected]

Jon L. Pierce (PhD University of Wisconsin Madison) is a Professor of Organization andManagement in the Labovitz School of Business and Economics, at the University of MinnesotaDuluth. His current research interests are focused on organization-based self-esteem, andindividual- and group-level psychological ownership.

Figure A1.Reactions to negative

feedback survey items


699

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

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