The Relationship Between Narcissism and Taking Charge: The Role of Energy at Work and Hierarchical Level

Abstract

Drawing on the framework of human energy in organizations, this study proposed a moderated mediation model between narcissism and taking charge, as well as the role of energy at work and the employee’s hierarchy within organizations. A sample of 312 employees at one Chinese manufacturing company suggested that employees with narcissistic personality are more apt to exhibit taking charge at work via their energy at work. In addition, the results also indicated that employees’ hierarchical level within organization reinforced the indirect effect of energy at work between narcissism and taking charge. These findings have important implications for narcissism research and managerial practices.

Keywords

Narcissistic personality feelings of energy taking charge hierarchical level

Introduction

Narcissism—the degree to which a person enjoys having an inflated view, authority, and entitlement (Emmons, 1984; Raskin & Terry, 1988)—has long been considered as a “dark” trait (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Narcissistic employees, characterized by being arrogant and aggressive, are often associated with a series of negative outcomes, such as leadership emergence (e.g., Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis, & Fraley, 2015), workplace deviance (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006), and job performance (O'Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). However, having a narcissistic personality also has a bright side. Specifically, individuals with narcissistic personality might act proactively than nonnarcissistic individuals. Past research indicated that individuals with high levels of narcissistic traits have stronger motivation for self-enhancement and, therefore, have more opportunities to excel than those with low levels of narcissistic traits (Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio, 2011; Kets de Vries & Miller, 1986). Prior studies have found that having a narcissistic personality may be advantageous to one’s self-development (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007), as it displayed a positive correlation with leadership emergence (Grijalva et al., 2015) and taking charge (Klimchak, Carsten, Morrell, & MacKenzie, 2016). However, it still remains hazy exactly what positive outcomes of narcissism might be, how and under what conditions narcissism can brings about such outcomes.

In this study, we aim to explore the positive relationship between narcissistic personality and proactive behaviors. Employees taking initiatives to correct errors or make improvements in work procedures and practices is important in dynamic organizations (Staw & Boettger, 1990). Given that such proactive behaviors benefit organizations (Grant & Ashford, 2008), many studies have focused on indentifying the factors that predict these behaviors (for a review, see Crant, 2000). Specifically, one fundamental proactive behavior, taking charge, actively participating in efforts to bring about change in work methods (Morrison & Phelps, 1999, p. 403), has gained widespread attention (e.g., Burnett, Chiaburu, Shapiro, & Li, 2015; Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman, & Xie, 2013; McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban, 2007). Previous studies have indicated that individual personality is an important antecedent of taking charge (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). Although some scholars have explored the predicting role of some personalities on taking charge, such as curiosity (Harrison, Sluss, & Ashforth, 2011), proactive personality (Fuller & Marler, 2009), and conscientiousness (i.e., Moon, Kamdar, Mayer, & Takeuchi, 2008), few of them focused on the relationship between narcissism and taking charge. Moreover, the underlying mechanism of this relationship is rarely discussed. Therefore, this study aims to explore why and when narcissistic employees are more apt to take charge at work.

Drawing on the framework of human energy in organizations (Quinn, Spreitzer, & Lam, 2012), we argue that narcissistic employees usually have stronger internal motivations to release the potential energy stored in their bodies as to prove they are better than other employees. Hence, we predict that narcissistic employees may be more energized to exhibit taking-charge behavior in the workplace. In addition, we also identify when narcissism is more likely to influence employees’ energy. Given that hierarchy is a universal feature of groups and teams (Magee & Galinsky, 2008), we also explore the moderating effect of this feature in the process mentioned above.

Our research makes several contributions. First, we extend the narcissism research within organization context by exploring its positive outcomes. Previous researches mainly focused on the negative consequences of narcissism, leaving its positive effects largely neglected. Our research is one of the few pioneer studies to explore the relationship between narcissism and taking charge. Second, our research contributes to the mechanisms between personality and taking charge by examining the mediating role of energy at work, one kind of “energized-to” motivation proposed by Parker et al. (2010) in their model of proactive motivation. Finally, we enrich the boundary conditions of the relationship between taking charge with its antecedents by exploring the contingency of hierarchy in explaining the relationship between narcissism and taking charge.

Theory and hypothesis

Narcissism was originally viewed as a mental disorder (Raskin & Terry, 1988). With further research, however, scholars gradually accepted it as a common personality trait (Miller & Campbell, 2008). Individuals with narcissistic personality are usually characterized by grandiosity, an exaggerated sense of self-importance, self-centeredness, a feeling of superiority, exploitativeness, arrogance, and a drive for personal power and glory (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006).

Recently, narcissism has become an increasingly hot topic in organizational research (O'Reilly, Doerr, Caldwell, & Chatman, 2014; Wu & Lebreton, 2011). Many studies have explored negative effects of narcissism on individuals and organizations. For example, Ouimet (2010) found that employees with narcissistic personalities are reluctant to accept feedback from others. In addition, many deviant and unprincipled behaviors (e.g., cheating or dishonesty) have been found to be positively related with narcissism (O'Boyle et al., 2012).

However, some scholars have begun to pay attention to the positive aspects of narcissism (e.g., more focus on self-development and leadership emergence). The results of prior research have revealed that narcissistic individuals usually tend to view themselves as extremely intelligent, outstanding, and have high levels of confidence (Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002; John & Robins, 1994; Judge et al., 2006). Moreover, employees with narcissism are more likely to stand out and become leaders (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). Unfortunately, only a limited number of empirical research probed into this issue. Thus, we attempt to examine the effects of narcissism on taking charge, as well as the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions.

Narcissism and taking charge

People with narcissistic personality usually hold that they are smarter and more creative than others (Campbell, Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005). They also have high levels of confidence (Judge et al., 2006). In other words, narcissistic employees have stronger psychological means than nonnarcissistic employees, are more likely to seek authority and exhibit their successes (Judge et al., 2006), and such behavioral inclination induces them to produce more taking-charge behavior.

In addition, narcissistic employees hold the belief that they are more powerful than others and have the ability to do taking-charge behavior very well. Also, they are motivated to do so as such behavior exhibits their superiority and success. This argument is consistent with Morrison and Phelps’s (1999) idea that employees with such beliefs are more likely to consider the benefit and possibility of exhibiting taking-charge behavior. Thus, based on the logic mentioned above, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1: The employee’s level of narcissism is positively related to the taking charge.

The mediating role of energy at work

Narcissistic individuals tend to have an over-inflated sense of privilege and self-importance. Based on Quinn et al.’s (2012) model, we argue that narcissistic employees might have a high level of energy at work due to their innate psychological needs. Specifically, narcissistic employees might have more psychological resource (e.g., perceptions of superiority over others and excessive demand for admiration) to make themselves feel energized at work. These perceptions and demands motivate them to self-regulate more efficiently and make them turn more remaining possible resources to “resources-in-use” (Quinn et al., 2012, p. 345). In addition, narcissistic employees have a stronger sense of control over the work than ordinary people, which also contributes to their higher level of inner resource. Their “resources-in-use” contribute to appraisals of their demand-resource discrepancies, which are related to their energetic activations (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Quinn et al., 2012). Therefore, such suitable resources will stimulate narcissistic employees’ feeling of energy at work.

When individuals have feelings of energy at work, they tend to expand their attentional focus, cognition, action, and physical and intellectual resources (Fredrickson, 1998) and enable to exhibit taking-charge behaviors. When employees decide to take charge, they need to feel energized (Parker et al., 2010). Feelings of energy at work broaden their repertoires related to their thoughts and actions (Fredrickson, 1998), which enables them to come up with more ideas (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005) and be more creative (Isen, 2000) than other employees. Feeling energized at work broadens individuals’ horizons, shifts their attentions to future problems, and the improvement of current work procedures, and urges them to facilitate the functioning of their organizations. In a word, the level of employee narcissism leads to variations of their energy at work, which further facilitate their taking-charge behavior. Thus, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2: The employee’s level of narcissism is positively related to the energy at work.

Hypothesis 3: Energy at work mediates the relationship between narcissism and taking charge.

Moderating role of employee hierarchical level

From the resource perspective, we argue that the hierarchical level of narcissistic employees within organization might influence their feeling of energy at work for the following two reasons. First, employees in different hierarchical level differ in their ownership or availability to multiple resource. Employees in higher hierarchy are easier to obtain tangible and intangible resources that are needed to facilitate their taking charge at work.

Second, narcissistic employees at higher hierarchical level tend to exhibit their superiority and attribute other employees’ accomplishments to their own for their sense of self-entitlement and excessive demand for admiration and compliance. They tend to adopt self-regulatory strategies (e.g., steal credit from others) to maintain their inflated egos. Narcissistic individuals with high hierarchical level can easily implement these strategies. Thus, advantages related to employees’ hierarchical levels enlarge their “resources-in-use,” which contributes their feelings of energetic activation (Quinn et al., 2012). Therefore, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 4: The employee’s hierarchical level moderates the relationship between narcissism and energy at work, such that the relationship is stronger when the employee’s hierarchical level is high as opposed to low.

In line with the moderated mediation model proposed by Edwards and Lambert (2007), we combine the preceding hypotheses and come up with a moderated mediation of employee narcissism with taking charge. Specifically, we argue that employees’ hierarchical level might reinforce the indirect effect of energy at work between employee narcissism and taking charge. Thus, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 5: The employee’s hierarchical level moderates the indirect effect of narcissism on taking charge through energy at work, such that the indirect effect is stronger when the employee’s hierarchical level is high as opposed to low.

Method

Sample and procedures

We collected multi-source data from the research and development department at one large manufacturing company in Mid-south of China. With the permission of the chief executive officer and HR manager, our research assistants distributed our questionnaires to the targeted employees and their department leaders. Employees were asked to report their narcissism, energy at work, and hierarchical levels, while the supervisors were asked to report on their subordinates’ taking charge. After the employees and their supervisors completed the questionnaires, they were instructed to hand them over to the research assistants. We received 312 useable questionnaires. In this sample, 163 of the employees were female (52.1%) and 149 employees were male (47.9%). Most of the respondents held a bachelor’s degree (n = 154, 49.5%). Of the remaining respondents, 22.7% held a tertiary diploma (n = 71), 20.1% were postgraduate (n = 63), and 7.7% were high school level (n = 24).

Measures

All questionnaire were seven-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Narcissism, feelings of energy at work, and hierarchical level were rated by the subordinates, while the frequency of taking charge was rated by their immediate supervisors.

Narcissism

Narcissism was measured with a nine-item instrument (α = .90) adapted from Jones and Paulhus’s (2014) narcissism subscale of the Short Dark Triad. This measure is based on prior versions of narcissism scale (Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006; Raskin & Hall, 1979), and previous studies have shown good reliability and validity (Martin, Côté, & Woodruff, 2016). Sample items include “I have been compared to famous people” and “I know that I am special because everyone keeps telling me so.” The employees were required to report to what extent they agree that the statements are suitable to describe their narcissism.

Taking charge

We used Parker and Collins’s (2010) three-item measure (α = .88) of taking charge. A sample item from this scale is “This subordinate tries to implement solutions to pressing organization problems”. The employees’ immediate supervisors were asked to rate to what extent their subordinates have those behaviors at work.

Energy at work

We measured the employee’s feelings of energy at work using an eight-item (α = .96) scale developed by Atwater and Carmeli (2009). Sample items from this scale include “The work in this organization gives me positive energy” and “When I am at work I feel vital and alive”. The employees were required to report to what extent they agree that the statements are suitable to describe their energy at work.

Hierarchical level

A dummy variable (nonmanagerial position = 0, managerial position = 1) was created to represent hierarchical level.

Control variables

We controlled for gender differences (0 = female, 1 = male) and age because they may account for differences in depicting behavior of taking charge. We also controlled for educational and organizational tenure because previous research has indicated that employees who have different educational backgrounds may develop different work habits (e.g., Bindl & Parker, 2010; Ouyang, Lam, & Wang, 2015).

Analytic strategy

We used Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 2015) to conduct the path analyses in order to test the main effects of narcissism on taking charge and energy at work (Hypotheses 1 and 2). Hypothesis 3 suggested a mediating effect of energy at work and Hypotheses 4 and 5 suggested a moderating effect of the hierarchical level. To test these hypotheses, we employed the multiple group analysis and bootstrapping technique to generate confidence intervals for the mediation and difference between the two parameter estimations obtained from the multiple group analysis.

Discriminant validity

We conducted omnibus confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) in order to examine the discriminant validity of narcissism, feelings of energy, and taking charge. We first ran a measurement model that included three measures (a three-factor model), and then compared it against other alternative models. As shown in Table 1, the hypothesized three-factor model had an accepted fit index (χ² = 444.66, df = 167, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .94, TLI = .93, standardized root mean square residual = .05, root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07) and was better compared to other models (Δχ² differences were significant at p < .001). The other models had lower CFI and TLI values (ranging from .54 to .85) and higher RMSEA values (ranging from .12 to .19). In addition, all of the factor loadings of the three-factor model were relatively high and significant (p < .01). Based on these results, we examined the three variables as distinctive constructs.

Table 1.

Confirmatory factor analyses on the three subordinate-reported variables.

Model	χ²	df	Δχ²(Δdf)	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
1. Hypothesized three-factor model	444.66	167	–	.94	.93	.05	.07
2. Two-factor model (NP and FE are combined)	1732.98	169	1288.32*** (2)	.68	.64	.16	.17
3. Two-factor model (FE and TC are combined)	892.01	169	447.35*** (2)	.85	.83	.09	.12
4. Two-factor model (NP and TC are combined)	924.64	169	479.98*** (2)	.85	.83	.10	.12
5. Single-factor model	2161.87	170	1717.21*** (3)	.59	.54	.17	.19

Note: All alternative models were compared with the hypothesized three-factor model.

NP: Narcissism personality; FE: feelings of energy at work; TC: taking charge; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA: root mean squared error of approximation.

***p < .001.

Results

The descriptive statistics and correlations of all of the variables are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Gender	0.48	0.50
2. Age	29.30	5.63	−.05
3. Education	2.82	0.84	.06	−.30^**
4. Tenure	3.68	4.72	−.06	.74^**	−.33^**
5. Hierarchical level	0.32	0.47	.09	.24^**	−.10	.19^**
6. Narcissism	4.49	0.96	.05	−.01	.03	−.04	.12*	(.90)
7. Feelings of Energy	5.02	1.01	−.12*	.17^**	−.12*	.16^**	.07	.43^**	(.96)
8. Taking charge	4.66	0.99	−.03	.07	−.05	.10	.07	.31^**	.36^**	(.88)

Note: n = 312. Reliability coefficients are reported along the diagonal in parentheses. Gender, education, and hierarchical level are categorical variables. Gender: female = 0, male = 1; hierarchical level: nonmanagerial position = 0, managerial position = 1; education: Had not received tertiary education = 1; tertiary diploma = 2, bachelor degree = 3, postgraduate qualification = 4.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Hypothesis test

Hypothesis 1 predicted that narcissism would be positively related to the employee’s taking charge. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a path analysis without energy at work. The results showed that the direct effect of narcissism on employee taking charge was .24 (SE = .06, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 1.

To test Hypotheses 2 and 3, we conducted another path analysis with all of the variables. The path modeling results for testing our hypotheses (for clarity purposes, the control variables are not shown in this figure) showed that narcissism significantly predicted feelings of energy (β = .44, p < .001), providing support for Hypothesis 2. The results of the bootstrapping analysis (10,000 bootstrap samples) confirmed that the indirect effect of having a narcissistic personality on taking charge via energy was significant (95% CI = [.051, .217]). In addition, the effect of having a narcissistic personality on taking charge was significant (β = .20, p < .01). These results indicated that energy partially mediated the relationship between having a narcissistic personality and taking charge. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Table 3 shows the results related to testing Hypotheses 4 and 5. Narcissism significantly predicted feelings of energy (employee: β = .392, p < .001; leader: β = .633, p < .001) and the difference between these two effects was significant, −.240 (95% CI = [−.476, −.002]), supporting Hypothesis 4. Having a narcissistic personality’s indirect effect via energy was .104 (95% CI = [.038, .194]) when the employee’s hierarchical level was high and .168 (95% CI = [.068, .288]) when the employee’s hierarchical level is low. The difference between these two indirect effects was significant (indirect effect difference = −.064, 95% CI = [−.152, −.004]). Thus, Hypothesis 5 was supported.

Table 3.

Indirect effects of narcissism on taking charge via feelings of energy at high versus low hierarchical level.

	Narcissism → Feelings of energy (SE)	Feelings of energy → Taking charge (SE)	Indirect effect (95% CI)
Low hierarchy	.392*** (.074)	.266** (.081)	.104 (.038, .194)
High hierarchy	.633*** (.095)	.266** (.081)	.168 (.068, .288)
Difference (95% CI)	−.240 (−.476, −.002)		−.064 (−.152, −.004)

Note: Standardized coefficients and their associated standard errors (SE) are reported in the first two columns, which were used to calculate the indirect effect and their bootstrapped confidence intervals (CIs).

**p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 1 shows the moderating effect of employees’ hierarchical level, when an employee’s hierarchical level was high, the narcissistic personality–energy relationship was more positive than when an employee’s hierarchical level was low.

Figure 1.

Interaction between narcissism and hierarchical level in predicting feelings of energy.

Discussion

Summary of findings

This study uncovered the mechanism and boundary conditions that narcissism has on the employee’s taking charge at work. Consistent with the proposed moderated mediation model, the findings indicated that employee narcissism has positive effect on employees’ taking charge via feeling of energy. In addition, an employee’s hierarchical level was found to moderate the positive relationship between energy and taking charge, with this relationship being stronger among employees with managerial positions (i.e., high hierarchical level).

Theoretical implications

Our study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, this article reveals that narcissism has positive effects on employees’ taking charge at work. Prior research largely focused on the negative effects of narcissism on employees’ behaviors (O'Boyle et al., 2012; Ouimet, 2010); however, our research found that narcissistic employees have stronger psychologcial energy than nonnarcissistic employees. The psychological energy increased more behaviors of taking charge at work. Our primary contribution is to enrich the outcomes of narcissism within organization context.

Second, this study provides the underlying mechanism to explain the relationship between narcissism and taking charge. By introducing feelings of energy at work, this study identified an emotional antecedent of taking charge, which contributes to existing proactive behavior research in organizations (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). While extant research suggested that some positive personality traits (e.g., proactive personality, Fuller & Marler, 2009; extraversion, Crant, 2000) play an important role in promoting employees’ proactive behaviors, less is known about the effect of the “dark” trait (Jones & Paulhus, 2014) on the employee’s taking-charge behaviors. Our findings contribute to this area of the taking-charge research.

Third, our results showed that narcissistic employees with high hierarchical level have more energy at work than those narcissistic employees with low hierarchical level. This finding contributes to the theory of narcissism by showing that hierarchical level may be an important context for the positive effects of narcissism.

Finally, we showed that energy at work might be attributed to high narcissistic traits, which can promote employees’ engagement in taking charge. In line with Parker et al.’s (2010) theory, we provided insights in regard to how narcissistic traits may affect taking charge via “hot” affect-related motivational states. Thus, this article not only provides evidence for the model of proactive motivation presented by Parker et al. (2010) but also supplements the research findings of Quinn et al. (2012) in regard to energy at work.

Practical implications

Our research findings have important practical implications for management in organizations. First, managers need to take employees’ narcissistic personalities into consideration when encouraging employees to take charge at work. Since taking charge is risky and change oriented, narcissistic employees have superiority in depicting such behaviors. Organizations can make more taking-charge behavior happen by selecting those narcissistic employees. Second, managers also need to consider the hierarchical levels of employees. Specifically, the managers should pay attention to narcissistic employees with higher hierarchical levels, for these employees are more likely to feel energized at work and therefore may be willing to take on more responsibilities.

Limitations and future research

Several limitations exist in this study that should be addressed in future research. First, our research method did not allow us to build a causal relationship among narcissism, feelings of energy, and taking charge. Future studies could use an experimental or longitudinal study to further examine the causal link of the narcissism–taking charge relationships. Second, our findings showed that narcissistic employees with high hierarchical levels may feel more energy at work, and this energy may be an important source of proactive behaviors (e.g., taking charge). Although high energy is good, continuing high emotional energy may result in burnout and deviance. Future research should address the negative effects of sustained high energy at work. Finally, our sample was only from one manufacturing company in China (a cultural context with low individualism and high power distance), which might constrain the generalizability of our findings. Future studies should adopt more diverse samples (e.g., employees from individualistic countries) to reinforce the robustness of our findings.

Footnotes

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethic Committee of Huazhong University of Science & Technology and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Article Notes

References

Ames

D. R.

Rose

Anderson

C. P.

(2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 440–450.

Atwater

Carmeli

(2009). Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 264–275.

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

Muraven

Tice

D. M.

(1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265.

Bindl

U. K.

Parker

S. K.

(2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In Zedeck

(Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Burnett

M. F.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Shapiro

D. L.

(2015). Revisiting how and when perceived organizational support enhances taking charge: An inverted u-shaped perspective. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1805–1826.

Campbell

W. K.

Bush

C. P.

Brunell

A. B.

Shelton

(2005). Understanding the social costs of narcissism: The case of the tragedy of the commons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1358–1368.

Campbell

W. K.

Hoffman

B. J.

Campbell

S. M.

Marchisio

(2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268–284.

Campbell

W. K.

Rudich

E. A.

Sedikides

(2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 358–368.

Chatterjee

Hambrick

D. C.

(2007). It's All about Me: Narcissistic Chief Executive Officers and Their Effects on Company Strategy and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351–386.

10.

Crant

J. M.

(2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462.

11.

Edwards

J. R.

Lambert

L. S.

(2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.

12.

Emmons

R. A.

(1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 291–300.

13.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319.

14.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Branigan

(2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.

15.

Fuller

Jr. Marler

L. E.

(2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329–345.

16.

Furnham

Richards

S. C.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2013). The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216.

17.

Grant

A. M.

Ashford

S. J.

(2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.

18.

Griffin

M. A.

Neal

Parker

S. K.

(2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347.

19.

Grijalva

Harms

P. D.

Newman

D. A.

Gaddis

B. H.

Fraley

R. C.

(2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1–47.

20.

Harrison

S. H.

Sluss

D. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2011). Curiosity adapted the cat: The role of trait curiosity in newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 211–220.

21.

Isen

A. M.

(2000). Positive affect and decision making. In Haviland-Jones (Ed.), Handbook of Emotions (pp. 417–435). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

22.

John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

(1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 66(1), 206–219.

23.

Jones

D. N.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3). Assessment, 21(1), 28–41.

24.

Judge

T. A.

LePine

J. A.

Rich

B. L.

(2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762–776.

25.

Kets de Vries

M. F. R.

Miller

(1986). Personality, culture, and organization. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 266–279.

26.

Klimchak

Carsten

Morrell

MacKenzie

W. I.

(2016). Employee entitlement and proactive work behaviors: The moderating effects of narcissism and organizational identification. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(4), 387–396.

27.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Kirkman

B. L.

Xie

(2013). Spotlight on the followers: An examination of moderators of relationships between transformational leadership and subordinates’ citizenship and taking charge. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 225–260.

28.

Magee

J. C.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.

29.

Martin

S. R.

Côté

Woodruff

(2016). Echoes of our upbringing: How growing up wealthy or poor relates to narcissism, leader behavior, and leader effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2157–2177.

30.

McAllister

D. J.

Kamdar

Morrison

E. W.

Turban

D. B.

(2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1200–1211.

31.

Miller

J. D.

Campbell

W. K.

(2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 449–476.

32.

Morrison

E. W.

Phelps

C. C.

(1999). Taking Charge At Work: Extrarole Efforts to Initiate Workplace Change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419.

33.

Moon

Kamdar

Mayer

D. M.

Takeuchi

(2008). Me or we? The role of personality and justice as other-centered antecedents to innovative citizenship behaviors within organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 84–94.

34.

Muthén

(2015). Mplus 7.4. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

35.

O'Boyle

E. H.

Forsyth

D. R.

Banks

G. C.

McDaniel

M. A.

(2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579.

36.

O'Reilly

C. A.

Doerr

Caldwell

D. F.

Chatman

J. A.

(2014). Narcissistic CEOs and executive compensation. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 218–231.

37.

Ouimet

(2010). Dynamics of narcissistic leadership in organizations: Towards an integrated research model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(7), 713–726.

38.

Ouyang

Lam

Wang

(2015). Roles of gender and identification on abusive supervision and proactive behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(3), 671–691.

39.

Parker

S. K.

Bindl

U. K.

Strauss

(2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856.

40.

Parker

S. K.

Collins

C. G.

(2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633–662.

41.

Paulhus

D. L.

Williams

K. M.

(2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563.

42.

Quinn

R. W.

Spreitzer

G. M.

Lam

C. F.

(2012). Building a sustainable model of human energy in organizations: Exploring the critical role of resources. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 337–396.

43.

Raskin

Terry

(1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902.

44.

Raskin

R. N.

Hall

C. S.

(1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45(2), 590–590.

45.

Rosenthal

S. A.

Pittinsky

T. L.

(2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617–633.

46.

Staw

B. M.

Boettger

R. D.

(1990). Task revision: A neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33(3), 534–559.

47.

Lebreton

J. M.

(2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality. Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 593–626.