THE NATURE OF NARCISSISM

WITHIN ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP

by

Dean A. Wonneberg

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

April 2007

PREVIEW

UMI Number: 3253625

32536252007

Copyright 2007 byWonneberg, Dean A.

UMI MicroformCopyright

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

All rights reserved.

by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

PREVIEW

© Dean Wonneberg , 2007

PREVIEW

THE NATURE OF NARCISSISM

WITHIN ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP

by

Dean A. Wonneberg

has been approved

March 2007

APPROVED:

DAVID CHAPMAN, Psy.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

LORI LA CIVITA, Ph.D., Committee Member

BRUCE FISCHER, Ph.D., Committee Member

ACCEPTED AND SIGNED: _______________________________________ DAVID CHAPMAN, Psy.D. _______________________________________ Garvey House, Ph.D. Dean, School of Psychology

PREVIEW

Abstract

The present study considers the frequency and nature of narcissism within organizational

leadership. The study considers narcissism as a possible source of high rates of managerial

incompetence and derailment seen in the literature. Participants completed the Narcissistic

Personality Inventory-16 (NPI-16), the Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS), the Big Five Mini-

Markers, and the attachment style Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) which together comprise a

brief, valid, and reliable self-report assessment battery for organizational purposes. Among the

conclusions, it was found that narcissism increases by seniority of organizational role and is also

significantly correlated with the number of leadership roles held within one’s career. Narcissism

is positively correlated with Extraversion and Openness and negatively correlated with

Agreeableness. Narcissism was also positively correlated with self-deception. No other

significant relationships were found including any with the various attachment styles.

PREVIEW

iii

Dedication

To my friends and family who have stood by me during this lengthy project—mainly my

wife Heather who showed amazing patience and my children Matthew and Holly whose future

prompted this educational pursuit.

PREVIEW

iv

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the necessary direction offered by my dissertation

committee (Dr. Lori La Civita and Dr. Bruce Fischer) and especially to Dr. David Chapman who

has overseen my educational travels the past 7 years. I must also thank Dr Roger Tweed of

Kwantlen University College for his insight and guidance.

I would also like to thank the Credit Union staff I have worked with the past several years

including my peers at Coast Capital Savings, Surrey BC, Canada for their support and

understanding.

PREVIEW

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 2

Statement of the Problem 6

Purpose of the Study 7

Research Questions 8

Nature of the Study 8

Significance of the Study 8

Definition of Terms 9

Assumption and Limitations 12

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 14

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 15

Introduction 15

Narcissism 15

Big Five 28

Attachment 33

Deception 38

Conclusion 41

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 42

Restatement of the Purpose 42

PREVIEW

vi

Research Design 42

Target Population 43

Selection of Participants 43

Measures 44

Variables 45

Procedures 46

Null Hypotheses 46

Data Collection 47

Data Analysis 47

Expected Findings 49

CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 50

Introduction 50

Survey Overview 50

Statistical Assumptions 53

Correlations 55

Self-Deceptive Enhancement and Impression Management 61

Factorial Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) 63

Null Hypotheses and Actual Findings 65

Summary 69

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION 71

Introduction 71

Leadership 71

Demographics 73

PREVIEW

vii

Big Five Personality 74

Attachment Style 75

Deception 76

Summary 77

Limitations 78

Recommendations 79

Conclusion 82

REFERENCES 83

PREVIEW

viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Survey Demographic Items and Raw Data 51

Table 2. Survey Data (Big Five, Narcissism, Attachment, Deception) 52

Table 3. Dominant Attachment Style 53

Table 4. Significant Correlations (Demographics, Big Five) 55

Table 5. Significant Correlations (Narcissism, Attachment, Deception) 56

Table 6. Narcissism by Gender, Age and Marital Status 57

Table 7. Narcissism by Employment Role 58

Table 8. Narcissism by Number of Leadership Positions Held in Career 59

Table 9. Narcissism by Language 60

Table 10. Narcissism by High and Low Big Five Scores 61

Table 11. SDE by Gender, Age and Employment Role 62

Table 12. SDE Scores by High and Low Narcissism 63

Table 13. Narcissism by Combinations of High and Low IM, SDE 63

Table 14. Demographic Item Factorial ANOVAs—Tests of Between Subjects 64 Effects

Table 15. Big Five Item Factorial ANOVAs—Tests of Between Subjects Effects 65

Table 16. Attachment Item Factorial ANOVAs—Tests of Between Subjects 66 Effects

Table 17. Deception Item Factorial ANOVAs—Tests of Between Subjects Effects 66

PREVIEW

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) may be reason why

organizations see high levels of incompetence within their leadership ranks. Estimated base rates

for managerial incompetence in organizational settings range from 30% to 75% (DeVries &

Kaiser, 2003; R. Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). Managerial incompetence was first defined by Bentz

(1985, as cited in R. Hogan & Sinclair, 1997) where the subject manager is (a) unable to delegate

or prioritize, (b) reactive instead of proactive, (c) unable to maintain relationships with network,

(d) unable to build a team, (e) possesses poor judgment, (f) is a slow learner, and (g) has an

overriding personality defect.

Managerial derailment, which stands at approximately 50% (R. Hogan & Sinclair, 1997),

has also been found to revolve around characteristics that are narcissistic in nature. Leslie and

Van Velsor (1996) found derailment centered on poor interpersonal skills (being insensitive,

arrogant, cold, aloof, and overly ambitious), unable to get work done (betraying trust, not able to

follow through), unable to build a team, and unable to make the transition after promotion. They

defined the derailed as one

Having reached at least the general manager level, either leaves the organization non-voluntarily (through resignation, being fired, or retiring early) or is plateaued as a result of a perceived lack of fit between personal characteristics and skills and the demands of the job. (p. 1)

PREVIEW

2

The earliest derailment research was conducted by McCall and Lombardo (1983), who found

that common factors of derailment include (a) specific performance problems, (b) insensitivity to

others, (c) failure to delegate or build a team, and (d) overdependence on a single advocate or

member.

Similar descriptors are used by the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2000)

regarding NPD where individuals may be arrogant, lack empathy, are preoccupied with fantasies

of power, are interpersonally exploitative, and are envious of others. Thus, there may be a

linkage between narcissism and the significant rates of managerial incompetence and derailment

that currently plague organizations.

Background of the Study

There are a number of recent discussions on narcissism within an organizational setting.

For example, in group settings, narcissism predicts making a strong initial impression and being

nominated as leader, although later being rejected by the group due to arrogance and harshness

(Paulhus, 1998). This arrogance and harshness by narcissistic organizational leaders may also be

fundamental to the problem of noncompliance to executive coaching interventions—a problem

often cited in the literature (Argyris, 1991; Brotman, Liberi, & Wasylyshyn, 1998; Kilburg,

2001). Argyris commented

Because many professionals are almost always successful at what they do, they rarely experience failure. And because they have rarely failed, they have never learned how to learn from failure . . . . They become defensive, screen out criticism, and put the ‘blame’ on anyone and everyone but themselves. (p. 99)

One of the few thorough systemic studies on leadership was provided by Collins (2001),

who outlined progressive leadership in terms of humility and maturity—something which could

PREVIEW

3

be considered the antithesis of narcissism. He found that humble and stable leaders impacted

organizations in terms of significant, positive, stock valuations over the long-run.

Together with other personality disorders, NPD is central to the Hogan Development

Survey (HDS; R. Hogan & Hogan, 2001). The HDS cites recurring derailment themes from the

literature, some of which has been previously outlined. The HDS aligns these themes with DSM-

IV, Axis 2 (personality disorder) categories. Thus, NPD is considered the HDS theme bold;

Histrionic Personality Disorder is considered the HDS theme colorful, and so on. In all, eleven

derailment themes are connected with DSM descriptors; however, empirical research on the

matter appears to be lacking.

R. Hogan (1994) has long contended that dark side characteristics of leaders largely

remain undetected by psychological tests and assessments. Dark side or “irritating tendencies

that alienate subordinates and interfere with a person’s ability to form a team” (R. Hogan, p. 499)

remain hidden because

They coexist with high levels of self-esteem and good social skills . . . . Because managers with dark side tendencies often do well in procedures that evaluate the leadership potential of strangers, their counterproductive tendencies will be apparent only after they have been on the job for some time. (p. 499)

Vogel (2006) made a similar finding where narcissists are able to make a good impression at the

beginning of a personal relationship—a relationship that soon unravels. Foster and Campbell

indicated that regarding romantic relationships “narcissism is associated with infidelity, game

playing, and low commitment” (2005, p. 551). McCoy also confirmed a “successful narcissist

can put on a pleasant social face to attract new admirers” (2006, p. 172). However, “once an

admirer is drained dry and can (or will) no longer provide the admiration the Narcissist desires,

she is cast aside” (McCoy, p. 173).These observations have obvious connotations for the

PREVIEW

4

workplace. Narcissists may be talented at gaining the power they crave; however, in the long run,

their dysfunctional ways get the best of them and the organizations they serve.

Although personality is increasingly defined in terms of the Big Five or Five-Factor

Model (FFM) traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, and

Conscientiousness (APA, 2004) Narcissistic Personality Disorder is not well-studied and is

especially under-researched (Morrison, 1995). Regarding personality, McCrae (1994) speculated

and provides a theoretical model of NPD outlined as: high Neuroticism, high Extraversion, low

Openness, low Agreeableness, and low Conscientiousness. However, there are only a few Big

Five empirical studies on NPD.

Regarding the Big Five personality traits on the Industrial-Organizational front, there is

evidence that Conscientiousness is predictive of performance (APA, 2004; Barrick & Mount,

1991) where “most researchers seem satisfied to conclude that Conscientiousness is a generally

valid predictor of job performance” (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000, p. 869). There is also increasing

evidence that both Conscientiousness and Extraversion are predictive of performance (Barrick &

Mount, 1993; Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002; Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1994; Salgado,

1997) and some evidence of Extraversion having a more qualified relationship with performance

(e.g., sales positions, social situations; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp,

& McCloy, 1990; Thoresen, Bradley, Bliese, & Thoresen; 2004). However, there are those that

see Extraversion as too wide a construct with no apparent relationship with performance (J.

Hogan & Holland; 2003). Nevertheless, Big Five is seen as a theory fundamental to

understanding various personality issues including those in an organizational setting.

There are also very few descriptions of narcissism in terms of attachment save for

Smolewska and Dion, who found that covert narcissism “has predictive value for estimating

PREVIEW

5

individual differences in adult attachment, especially anxiety attachment and vice versa” (2005,

p. 65). Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) and Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Walls (1978) provided

the framework for attachment theory where infants were found to seek out close contact with a

significant caregiver especially in times of distress. Secure attachment to the attachment figure is

hypothesized as providing a secure base for the infant's exploration. Insecure infants were found

to be concerned with their mothers' availability, therefore extinguishing exploration or becoming

seemingly occupied with objects to avoid contact with the mother.

From this, Hazan and Shaver (1990) made important distinctions regarding attachment

theory for adults in the workplace. They insist there is a relationship between love and work—

that the two cannot be separated—and that work in adult life as parallel to the exploration seen in

infancy and childhood. Burge et al. (1997) maintained that secure attachment provides a base

that allows people to successfully negotiate the challenges of college and work. Pistole (1997)

ended her discussion by insisting attachment theory is ripe for further application. Thus, it can be

seen that attachment theory is an important consideration for the workplace and may be central

to the topic of narcissistic leadership.

The roots of narcissism are debated and the three major academics on this front are Kohut

(1971), Kernberg (1975), and Millon (1981). Kohut developed the idea of Freud’s narcissism

which begins in childhood. As the child develops, ideas are integrated into a mature personality

where grandiosity is repressed and the idealization of the parent becomes the basis for strong

values. However, if trauma occurs during this development the most narcissistic version of the

self remains.

Kernberg (1975) saw narcissism as purely pathological and defensive where aggression

and inferiority are the primary starting points. There is a continued need, by the child, to protect

PREVIEW

6

the good self from the bad self which leads to mechanisms of splitting and projection. This lack

of integration results in the pathological formation of a grandiose self where the child withdraws

and learns to rely solely on his or her self (Emmons, 1987; Heiserman & Cook, 1998).

Millon (1981) endorsed a social learning viewpoint to narcissism. He believed that a

narcissistic subject is created when parents hold inflated views of their children’s talents. The

child is treated as special with significant amounts of attention; however, this illusion cannot be

sustained and difficulties arise when the child becomes subject to the realities of the outside

world (Emmons, 1987; Alloy, Acocella, & Bottzin, 1996).

Considering these three viewpoints, the use of attachment theory in the current study may

provide valuable clues to the etiology of narcissism within leadership.

Statement of the Problem

From the previous discussion, it is clear that there are a number of problems that need

addressing when considering the topic of narcissism within the workplace. First, narcissism

continues to be under researched as indicated years ago by Morrison (1995). Second, narcissism

may be intertwined with more commonly discussed issues such as managerial derailment and

managerial incompetence. Questions persist as to the root and prevalence of managerial

dysfunction. Third, although Big Five and attachment theories have become main-stream they

have not been applied to the topic of narcissistic leadership.

Fourth, all of this is related to the greater stated problem for Industrial-Organizational (I-

O) psychologists to assess for ethical leadership. This was outlined by Winum in his APA

Division 13 Presidential Address:

PREVIEW

7

In our selection and development work, we need to explore the characterological dimension of leaders, not just job and technical competencies. We should incorporate ethical considerations in assessing and developing organizational culture. Shortcomings in these areas within organizations can lead to devastating costs when unaddressed. (2005, p. 177)

Winum’s comments are relevant, as according to DSM-IV criteria, narcissists could possibly

engage in unethical activity depending on the specific situation (e.g., interpersonally exploitative,

lacking empathy, being envious of others, and showing arrogant, haughty behaviors).

Fifth, there is the general need for brief but valid and reliable I-O assessments. Currently,

organizations are unwilling or unable to assess for incompetence although tools may be available

(DeVries, 1993). Part of this may be misconceptions over the reliability and validity of

personality assessments (R. Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996).

These five problems are central to the current study proposal—a proposal that will be

offered accordingly.

Purpose of the Study

The current study utilized a nonexperimental quantitative design together with a

convenience sample. It considered the prevalence of narcissism with leaders in an organizational

setting and empirically examined descriptions of narcissism in terms of Big Five personality and

attachment style. The study utilized a brief but valid and reliable assessment battery to meet the

time constraints and efficiency demands of organizations today.

PREVIEW

8

Research Questions

Research solely considered the topic of narcissism within leadership. There were two

main issues which were the frequency or prevalence of narcissism and the nature of narcissism

that could be described in terms of other models:

One, what are the prevalence rates of narcissism? For example, Torgersen, Kringlen, and

Cramer (2001) put prevalence of NPD at .8% (SD = .2%) of the population. How common is

narcissism in organizational life?

Two, what is the nature of narcissism seen with leaders? McCrae (1994) saw narcissists

as having high Neuroticism, high Extraversion, low Openness, low Agreeableness, and low

Conscientiousness. Past Big Five, can narcissism be described in terms of attachment theory?

How exactly does it relate to attachment style and to deception?

Nature of the Study

The study considered behavior that is regular and predictable within a large sample size,

where statistical relationships were identified and findings will be generalized to the greater

population, thus, a quantitative study was appropriate (Creswell, 2003). The number of factors

considered also made a quantitative effort more appropriate. Further, the study utilized known,

quantitative, assessments that are valid and reliable. Overall, it was well justified to execute the

study with a quantitative design.

Significance of the Study

The current study was important as organizations are experiencing high levels of

managerial incompetence and derailment. Specific dysfunction within organizational life is not

PREVIEW

9

well understood (R. Hogan & Kaiser, 2005) while narcissism is especially under-researched

(Morrison, 1995), thus, this study provides understanding to organizations and I-O psychologists

as to the high incompetence and derailment rates observed. It may also increase understanding as

to how personality, attachment, and organizational role (among other factors) relate to

narcissistic leadership.

The research study considered ethnic cultures as represented by subjects who fluently

speak another languages than English. This research met the recent requests of psychological

journals to pursue understanding of ethnically diverse subjects (e.g., Strauss, 2004).

The study is also relevant to human resource and I-O assessors. The subject valid,

reliable, and brief (15 minutes) assessment battery might prove valuable. Moreover, the subject

assessment battery that considers difficult, dark side traits—including deception and emotional

stability within leadership—might prove even more valuable in the future.

Definition of Terms

Attachment style. Regarding attachment theory, “most researchers currently conceptualize

and measure individual differences in attachment dimensionally rather than categorically”

(Fraley, 2004, p. 1). As such, there are four basic attachment types based on two dimensions

labeled avoidance and dependence (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) which can be scored on a

continuous basis. The four styles that shall be considered are secure, dismissive (also known as

avoidant), preoccupied (also known as anxious or ambivalent), and fearful. They are described

as follows:

1. Secure: It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me. I don't worry about being alone or having others not accept me.

PREVIEW