‘No Better Fund Without Me!’ Do Narcissistic Start-up Entrepreneurs Succeed in Venture Funding?

Abstract

Unlike other narcissism research, this research uses a narcissism personality inventory (NPI) to capture the effect of startup entrepreneur’s narcissism in determining resource acquisition. Using Indonesian startup founders as the sample, the results demonstrate a positive association between narcissism and funding success, indicating that highly narcissistic startup entrepreneurs have a higher probability of success in their funding acquisition. The findings of this study are different from existing findings of the literature on narcissistic entrepreneurs that use unobtrusive measures and they support the upper-echelon theory. This research practically implies that a grandiose entrepreneur might be bad for the working environment but good for resource acquisition.

Keywords

Narcissism startup funding upper echelon theory entrepreneurial finance NPI

Introduction

Empirical findings of upper-echelon theory show that entrepreneurs who are narcissistic, which refers to a personality with a combination of grandiosity, vanity, and self-absorption (Emmons, 1987), are associated with better business planning (Byrne & Worthy, 2013), innovation (Kashmiri et al., 2017) and firm performance (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Wales et al., 2013). At the same time, they are also less ethical (Kontesa et al., 2021; Olsen & Stekelberg, 2016; Rijsenbilt & Commandeur, 2013) and do not want to learn from failure (Liu et al., 2019). Narcissistic entrepreneurs have also been linked to resource acquisition (Aghazadeh et al., 2018; Gombola & Marciukaityte, 2007) and crowdfunding (Buttice & Rovelli, 2020). Nevertheless, prior research focuses more on the narcissism of top executives from listed companies (refer to Table 1) rather than entrepreneurs or startup companies, notwithstanding a few recent studies (e.g., Buttice & Rovelli, 2020; Gruda et al., 2021). Moreover, previous research in narcissism has been extensively conducted using a non-obtrusive approach such as pictures in the annual report (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Kashmiri et al., 2017; Kontesa et al., 2021; Marquez-Illescas et al., 2019; Olsen & Stekelberg, 2016; Rijsenbilt & Commandeur, 2013) or text-mining (Buttice & Rovelli, 2020; Gruda et al., 2021). Meanwhile, other management studies use students as samples (Byrne & Worthy, 2013; Foster et al., 2009), but it is rarely found that business research uses a psychometric approach and tests it within the startup context.

Table 1.

Compilation of Studies on Narcissistic Top Executives.

Article	Research Design	Observation	Narcissism Measure	Dependent Variable	Result
Byrne & Worthy (2013)	Experimental	116 students	Narcissistic personality inventory	Decision-making performance	Positive association
Foster et al. (2009)	Experimental	605 students	Narcissistic personality inventory	Risk-taking	Positive association
Yao et al. (2019)	Survey	473 employees	Employee perception towards Manager	Job stress	Positive association
Xiao et al. (2018)	Survey	228 employees	Employee perception towards Manager	Knowledge sharing	Negative association
Liu et al. (2019)	Survey	378 entrepreneurs	Narcissistic personality inventory	Learning from Failure	Negative Association
Wales et al. (2013)	Survey	173 CEOs	Narcissistic personality inventory	Firm performance	Positive association
O’Reilly III et al. (2014)	Survey & secondary data	250 employees	Employee perception towards Manager	Compensation	Positive Association
Kontesa et al. (2021)	Unobtrusive (secondary data)	514 CEOs	Content analysis from Annual Report	Earnings management	Positive association
Marquez-Illescas et al. (2019)	Unobtrusive (secondary data)	215 CEOs	Content analysis from Annual Report	Financial disclosure	Positive association
Kashmiri et al. (2017)	Unobtrusive (secondary data)	395 CEOs	Content analysis from Annual Report	Innovation	Positive Association
Olsen & Stekelberg (2016)	Unobtrusive (secondary data)	232 CEOs	Content analysis from Annual Report	Tax sheltering	Positive association
Rijsenbilt & Commandeur (2013)	Unobtrusive (secondary data)	953 CEOs	Content analysis from Annual Report	Fraudulent	Positive Association
Chatterjee & Hambrick (2007)	Unobtrusive (secondary data)	110 CEOs	Content analysis from Annual Report	Strategy performance	Positive Association
Buttice & Rovelli (2020)	Unobtrusive (secondary data)	59,538 crowdfunding campaigns	The tone of campaigns (pronoun usage)	Crowdfunding	Negative Association

Startup companies provide an ideal empirical setting to contribute to this area. Startup companies need urgent funding to grow, and it is the job of the entrepreneurs (the founders) to raise the funds (Leach & Melizher, 2020; Rogers, 2020). Prior literature on entrepreneurship has broadly shown that the entrepreneur’s personality plays an important role in achieving better funding (Astebro et al., 2014; Clark, 2008; Kerr et al., 2018). Given their presence in convincing the investors, prior studies provide initial support to the funding performance of narcissistic entrepreneurs. Furnham et al. (2013), Mathieu and St-Jean (2013), Back et al. (2010), and Goncalo et al. (2010) surmise that the personal skills of narcissistic individuals such as charm, easy-going attitude, determination, and fear of losing allow them to perform well while convincing people.

Given the persona of narcissistic entrepreneurs in running the business, a better understanding of how narcissistic entrepreneurs obtain better funding is critical to the entrepreneurial finance literature. However, this important topic has not been exploited empirically and is thus poorly understood. This lack of attention may be driven by the difficulty of a direct measure of narcissism and reaching out to startup entrepreneurs. As per current knowledge from the desk literature, it is rarely found that research exploits narcissism using psychological inventory, especially testing the narcissistic characteristics of startup entrepreneurs.

The question regarding the performance of startup entrepreneurs is crucial for entrepreneurship literature, especially the discussion on upper-echelon theory which remains largely unexplored. Considering the limited existing knowledge regarding the fundraising performance of narcissistic entrepreneurs in the literature, this research aims to contribute by employing a direct narcissistic testing approach. This approach aims to answer the question: ‘Do narcissistic startup entrepreneurs raise more funding than their peers?’ The theoretical motivation of this study is to contest upper-echelon theory in the startup context.

Addressing the relationship between narcissism and venture funding is the focus of the study. To do so, this study captures the narcissistic personality adapting psychometric test called Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI). A meta-analysis of this approach concludes that NPI has resulted in a rich and valid literature on narcissism as a personality (e.g., Miller & Campbell, 2011). Several studies also support the use of NPI (Antes et al., 2007; Miller & Campbell, 2011; Venema & Pfattheicher, 2021). Using this approach allows us to enrich the entrepreneurial finance literature, which is dominated by non-obtrusive methods, and also allows us to examine vital yet still unanswered questions regarding the performance of narcissistic entrepreneurs in raising funding.

The next section reviews the literature on narcissism and entrepreneurship, focusing on the performance of narcissistic entrepreneurs. This is followed by the methodology and results. Finally, the conclusion section discusses the results and limitations and shows some future directions.

Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Upper Echelon Theory

Many management studies in organisation theory and empirical findings are based on upper echelon theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). This theory is used to better understand how top executives filter and interpret situations based on their personal characteristics (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). In addition, it outlines several behavioural assumptions about top executives’ strategic decisions. Specifically, upper-echelon research concludes that variance in executive characteristics, such as narcissism, drives numerous organisational outcomes (Campbell et al., 2011; Cragun et al., 2020). This area is consistent with behavioural studies, suggesting that individual cognitive mechanisms influence how top executives respond to the organisation and market dynamics and, in turn, affect organisational decision-making (Thaler, 2005).

These widely held behavioural assumptions drive organisation studies by gauging top executives’ characteristics as the key factor. For instance, CEO narcissism studies rooted in upper echelon theory focus on their grandiose behaviour that overcomes the rational behaviour assumption so that their actions create organisational dynamics. Much of this research examines how narcissistic CEOs affect the firm’s performance (Wales et al., 2013), firm’s earnings management (Kontesa et al., 2021), firm’s risk (Foster et al., 2009), and firm’s tax avoidance (Olsen & Stekelberg, 2016). It is thought to be driven by the fact that the acts of narcissistic CEOs are due to their grandiosity characteristics, leading them to go all out to achieve their goals due to their self-esteem (Campbell et al., 2011; Emmons, 1987; Raskin & Hall, 1979).

Given this assumed cognitive psychological effect, entrepreneurship research also exploits the founders’ levels of hubris and grandiosity effects on the business. Their narcissistic characteristics are associated with entrepreneurial intention (Hmieleski & Lerner, 2016), innovation (Navis & Ozbek, 2016), performance (Engelen et al., 2016), and crowdfunding (Buttice & Rovelli, 2020). In contrast, other studies show a negative association with motivation (Hmieleski & Lerner, 2016), working environment (Norouzinik et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2019), and overall performance (Klotz & Neubaum, 2016). In sum, upper-echelon theory is broadly utilised to explain how managerial characteristics influence strategic choices and organisational effectiveness.

The Concept of Narcissism

The concept of narcissism was first introduced to the psychology literature by Ellis (1898), portraying the characteristics of a young man in Greek mythology, Narcissus, who loves his own reflection in a pool. This concept was further exploited by Freud (1957), who identified self-admiration and self-aggrandisement as the manifestation of narcissism. In its broad definition, narcissism consists of the characteristics of exaggerated self-importance, authority, superiority, self-admiration, and entitlement (Emmons, 1987).

Studies in the psychology of narcissism address the cognitive and motivational elements of the narcissistic personality. On the cognitive side, narcissism entails self-overvaluation and overconfidence; a narcissistic individual thinks that he/she has superior qualities to others (Judge et al., 2006). Narcissistic personalities rate themselves highly on intelligence, creativity, leadership, and strategy (Furnham et al., 2013; Goncalo et al., 2010; John & Robins, 1994). With these cognitive elements, a narcissistic individual motivates him/herself to virtually and confidently finish their responsibilities and tasks. Research shows that narcissistic individuals think they have done the job much better than others or significantly outperformed their peers (Roberts et al., 2018; Nevicka et al., 2016).

Psychological literature extensively investigates narcissism as a clinical manifestation, aiming to examine the psychiatry of narcissism (Pincus et al., 2014), its consequences on behaviours (Cheshure et al., 2020; Hart et al., 2019), and its relation with other disorders and traits (Hart et al., 2020; Rogoza & Fatfouta, 2020).

Even if narcissism is extensively exploited in clinical psychology, scholars re-conceptualised it as a personality dimension by developing psychometric scales such as Raskin and Hall’s (1979) NPI. Given that narcissism is viewed as a personality dimension, it receives more and more attention in economics and business studies. This research stream commonly uses organisation theory such as upper echelon theory to understand the role of narcissistic personality on organisation dynamics.

For instance, accounting and finance research has examined various hypotheses under upper echelon theory for examining the narcissism effects on corporations. The empirical findings show that CEO’s narcissism has affected financial performance (Wales et al., 2013), fraud (Rijsenbilt & Commandeur, 2013), tax avoidance (Olsen & Stekelberg, 2016), and accounting disclosure (Marquez-Illescas et al., 2019). Strategic management research explores the effect of narcissistic top executives on strategy choice (Byrne & Worthy, 2013), mergers and acquisitions decisions (Aabo et al., 2020), and internationalisation (Oesterle et al., 2016). In entrepreneurship studies, narcissistic entrepreneurs exhibit greater entrepreneurial intention (Hmieleski & Lerner, 2016), entrepreneurial orientation (Engelen et al., 2016), and innovation (Kashmiri et al., 2017). However, this research area also shows a negative association between narcissistic entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial motivation (Norouzinik et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2019).

Despite these theoretical and empirical findings, to date, studies on narcissistic entrepreneurs are rarely examined by using the NPI. A meta-analysis from Klein et al. (2019) and Maxwell et al. (2011) showed that most NPI studies were tested on students, who are not a good proxy for entrepreneurs’ narcissism. Further, the consequences of having a narcissistic personality in a startup context are far from being fully understood (Navis & Ozbek, 2016). Empirical research that examines the narcissistic entrepreneurs’ effect in the context of a startup is scarce; some studies like Buttice and Rovelli (2020) tested the relationship using the unobtrusive method, not NPI.

Startup Funding and Success

Startup funding is financial investment from other parties as the source to operate a startup business (Leach & Melizher, 2020; Rogers, 2020). It has several stages, starting from pre-seeding and ending at IPO (Leach & Melizher, 2020; Rogers, 2020). The earlier the stages, the lower its value; therefore, it is important for the entrepreneurs (the founders) to raise capital as fast as possible to grow their startups. According to existing literature, successful entrepreneurs are those who are able to raise funding for startup value creation (Leach & Melizher, 2020; Rogers, 2020).

Entrepreneurial finance research has explored the determinants of startup funding with two streams of research. The first one is empirical findings which investigate from the perspective of organisational characteristics. For example, Quas and D’Adda (2018) examine the role of human capital, innovativeness, size, asset intangibility, and alternative equity sources in the financing decision. Jeng and Wells (2000) examine the funding performance with market capitalisation growth, accounting standards, and macroeconomic factors as the key drivers. Lee et al. (2015) also tested innovation as a factor affecting funding performance.

Coleman et al. (2016) found more specific firm characteristics such as growth, size, tangible assets, and turnover as affecting the financing decisions of startups. In addition, Alperovych et al. (2020) argued that the choices of location, colocation, syndication, and industry focus would affect the obtaining of additional private venture capital funding in comparison to peers. From the institutional perspective, Nofsinger and Wang’s (2011) article pioneered the testing of institutional effect on financing performance, which was explored further by Xiao and North (2012) and Bonini and Capizzi (2019).

The second stream of empirical findings deals with managerial capability as the determining factor affecting startup funding performance. A meta-analysis from Klein et al. (2019) comprehensively showed previous research findings of non-financial factors as the drivers of startup funding performance. It supports the literature review by Tenca et al. (2018), who addressed managerial ability as an important non-financial factor for a funding success story. This article showed that 37% of business research addressed managerial ability as an essential criterion for venture capital in selecting good startup companies. For instance, research findings from Banerji and Reimer (2019) and Alexy et al. (2012) showed the importance of social capital for startup funding.

Meanwhile, Kanze et al. (2018), Kwapisz and Hechavarría (2018), and Kuschel et al. (2017) argued the importance of gender in startup funding. In terms of founders’ education, Franco et al. (2021) and Carter et al. (2003) showed a positive relationship between education and startup funds raised. Additionally, Zhang (2011) and Honoré (2022) reported the positive effect of founders’ experience on startup funding performance. Nevertheless, there is not much research elaborating on the effect of personality traits, especially narcissism, on the startup funding success story. Some research focuses more on crowdfunding success rather than funding performance (e.g., Buttice & Rovelli, 2020; Sundermeier & Kummer, 2019; Taylor, 2019).

Narcissism and Funding Success

Given the vast amount of narcissism research in management based on upper echelons theory, it is surprising that its findings and theoretical assumptions have yet to be fully integrated into the entrepreneurship literature, especially within the startup context. Indeed, a core assumption of upper echelons theory is that the narcissistic characteristics of entrepreneurs influence their strategic choices. While this postulation has been theorised and investigated extensively, the empirical findings from startups, especially the founders as the unit of analysis, are rarely found. Based on the available findings, this study leverages insight from listed companies and SMEs to develop the hypothesis and empirically test the effect of narcissistic entrepreneurs on his/her ability to achieve startup funding.

To link narcissistic entrepreneurs with the total funding collected, this study utilises the NPI of Van der Linden and Rosenthal (2016), which is a modification of Raskin and Hall’s (1979) NPI. Table 1 reports that most studies on top executives are conducted in an unobtrusive manner. Other research approaches, such as experiments and surveys, are conducted with students as respondents. This tallies with the meta-analysis of Klein et al. (2019) and Maxwell et al. (2011), which reported that most studies in this field took students as respondents in the case of experimental design. This current study aims to fill this lacuna by capturing the narcissistic behaviour of top executives such as entrepreneurs (the founders) by using NPI.

Previous findings in management studies are dominated by the success story of a narcissistic individual, especially related to performance. Table 1 shows that Wales et al. (2013) and Chatterjee and Hambrick (2007) reported a positive association between narcissistic individuals and firm performance. Based on upper echelons theory, the competencies and capabilities that belong to narcissistic individuals, such as creativity, self-reliance, and determination, may lead the organisation to perform better.

In entrepreneurship research, especially in crowdfunding, several attempts have been made to explore the relationship between entrepreneurs’ narcissism and their performance. For instance, Anglin et al. (2018) found an inverse relationship between narcissism and crowdfunding success. They argued that successful narcissistic entrepreneurs are typically charismatic and confident (e.g., Gupta et al., 2014), affecting their ability to attract funding. In the beginning, arrogance, aggressiveness, dishonesty, and lack of trustworthiness (e.g., Campbell et al., 2004, 2011) will give a wrong impression for crowdfunding. Conversely, given their creative, charismatic, and self-reliant characteristics (e.g., Furnham et al., 2013; Goncalo et al., 2010), the narcissistic entrepreneurs eventually gain trust and agreement; hence, they achieve successful crowdfunding. However, Bollaert et al. (2020) supported the inverse relationship between entrepreneurs’ narcissism and crowdfunding success, arguing that arrogance and bad attitude affect the evaluation and judgment during the crowdfunding campaign. In more recent studies, Buttice and Rovelli (2020) affirmed the inverse relationship, showing that entrepreneurs with high narcissism characteristics have a lower probability of successful crowdfunding campaigns. It is noteworthy that these three findings in crowdfunding were arrived at after utilizing an unobtrusive method to capture narcissistic behaviour.

Theoretically, upper echelons theory argues that individuals view their situation through their personalised lenses and that individualised construal arises from their narcissistic personalities. Given that narcissistic personality has aggressive, creative, charismatic, and self-reliant characteristics, the expectation should be that highly narcissistic entrepreneurs would receive better funding performance for their startups. Thus, the narcissistic founders can be expected to be more successful for their startup funding in a manner consistent with upper echelons theory. This is stated in the following hypothesis:

H₁: Founders’ narcissistic character will be positively related to startup funding\ success, such that the funding from narcissistic founders significantly outperforms the funding from non-narcissistic founders.

Methods

The data is drawn from a sample of Indonesian startups with a sampling frame of 1,722 registered startups. Since many startups do not provide their email or contact, they were excluded, and the sample came down to 836 startups. The survey communication of this study is an email-based approach. For the data collection process, this study conducted an email survey with three follow-up reminder emails between December 2020 and March 2021. This study received 187 usable observations with a response rate of 22.4% (after excluding the incomplete questionnaires). Low response rates (10%–15%) are typical for mailed surveys to top executives, particularly when asking sensitive questions, and comparable to those in similar studies. This might also be the reason why previous studies focus more on unobtrusive methods.

The estimation model is built from the upper echelons theoretical framework and previous empirical findings to specify a linear regression model with all contemporaneous variables. The model specification is as follows:

\begin{array}{l} F u n d i n g_{i} = β_{0} + β_{1} N a r c i s s i t i c_{i} + β_{2} Re p u t a t i o n_{i} + β_{3} S o c M e d_{i} + \\ β_{4} N e g o_{i} + β_{5} A g e_{i} + β_{6} F o u n d e r S i z e_{i} + β_{7} S i z e_{i} + ε_{i} \end{array}

(1)

Following the existing research on entrepreneurial finance, this research investigates the role of the founder/entrepreneur’s narcissism on financing success by a robust econometric analysis. The dependent variable is financing success (Funding_i), measured by the total funding acquired by the startups. For robustness reasons, this research introduces alternative measurements for the total funding amount. The funding success is measured by a dummy variable in which success is denoted by 1 if the funding campaign reached at least the 25^th percentile of their industry funding median.

The primary independent variable in this research is narcissism (Narcissitic_i), which is operationalised using NPI. Unlike other research that used an unobtrusive approach, this study directly measures the personality trait by adopting the NPI approach from Raskin and Hall (1979), which is later modified by Van der Linden and Rosenthal (2016) with 16 items. According to Miller et al. (2018), NPI questions are suitable for non-clinical subjects. This study also introduces alternative measurements for NPI, which is a dummy variable. This research assigns ‘1’ if the entrepreneur is narcissistic and ‘0’ otherwise.

Several control variables are introduced to avoid estimation bias. In line with the existing literature, reputation (Reputation_i), breadth of social media (SocMed_i), negotiation round (Age_i), startup age, the number of founders (FounderSize_i), and startup size (Size_i) are taken as part of control variables. Reputation is measured by the CrunchBase reputation score. The breadth of social media is measured by the ratio of the number of actively used social media divided by total media used by other startups. The negotiation round is the number of funding pitching done. Startup age is defined as the natural logarithm of the established year of the startup. Startup size is defined as the natural logarithm of the total number of employees of the startup. Lastly, the number of founders is measured by the total founders of the startups. A complete list of variable definitions is provided in Table A1.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

For the summary statistics, Panel B reports that the mean value of the funding performance is 1.05 in lognormal form. The average total funding is USD 2.456 million in nominal value, with the highest value being USD 137 million. The NPI-16 average is 3.9, and the categorical dummy value is 0.68, implying the number of narcissistic entrepreneurs in Indonesia is slightly above the mean. The NPI score is slightly lower than the average value of 4 reported by Van der Linden and Rosenthal (2016). The control variables’ mean values are also documented in Panel B. The average reputation value is 12.28, meaning that the chosen samples were active startup companies. Based on the mean values of social media, negotiation rounds, age, founder size, and startup size, Indonesian startups are dominated by early-stage companies with a strong social media presence, a moderate number of negotiation rounds, and an acceptable number of founders (Table 2).

Table 2.

Summary Statistics.

	SD	Min	Mean	Max
Funding (LN)	1.56	0	1.05	5.14
Narcissistic (NPI-16)	3	1	3.9	5
Narcissistic (dummy)	0.14	0.38	0.68	1
Reputation (CB score)	1.13	13.76	12.28	6.03
Social media	1.12	1	2.5	4
Negotiation	0.32	3.56	4.12	4.89
Age (LN)	0.52	0	1.6	3.4
Founder size	0.96	1	1.82	9
Startup size (LN)	0.87	0.69	2.36	6.78

Table 3 presents the correlation matrix, showing the correlations between the explanatory variables and funding performance to provide a preliminary view of their univariate relationship. The correlation between funding and narcissistic personality measures implies a connection between the success of Indonesian startups in securing funding and the presence of narcissistic traits in their founders. Meanwhile, all the control variables have the expected signs, implying higher funding performance is associated with immense reputation, substantial social media channels, extensive pitching/negotiation rounds, older, larger founder size, and larger startup size. Moving to correlation among independent variables, Panel A reveals the domination of a small magnitude of the correlation, with the sole exception of social media. Note that the multicollinearity for Model (1) was tested under Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). The VIF scores of each explanatory variable are lower than 5, implying multicollinearity is not violated.

Table 3.

Summary of Descriptive Statistics.

	[1]	[2]	[3]	[4]	[5]	[6]	[7]	[8]
Panel A. Correlation
[1] Funding	1
[2] Narcissistic (dummy)	0.5735*	1
[3] Reputation	0.3406*	0.1889*	1
[4] Social media	0.6297*	0.3207*	0.3343*	1
[5] Negotiation	0.1994*	0.086	0.1208	0.2433*	1
[6] Age	0.1204	0.1600*	0.0481	0.0635	0.0775	1
[7] Founder size	0.1719*	0.0339	0.2172*	0.1452*	0.0262	0.1114	1
[8] Startup size	0.3929*	0.2603*	0.0848	0.0728	0.0447	0.0795	0.0961	1

Note: * indicates significance level of 5%.

Regression Results

Table 4 reports the estimation model results with different alternative measures. The dependent variable, funding performance, is measured by a continuous variable (the lognormal of achieved funding) and the dummy variable. Meanwhile, the main effect, narcissism, is also measured by both continuous (NPI score) and the dummy variable. The continuous variable of the dependent variable is estimated using OLS regression. Meanwhile, the dummy variable is estimated using logit regression. Hence, there are four estimated models, which are reported in Columns (1), (2), (3), and (4).

Table 4.

Regression Results.

	OLS	OLS	Logit	Logit
	[1]	[2]	[3]	[4]
Narcissistic	3.439***	0.804***	8.522***	2.598***
	(0.529)	(0.147)	(2.297)	(0.775)
Reputation	0.123*	0.137^*	0.444^*	0.459
	(0.066)	(0.071)	(0.267)	(0.295)
Social media	0.637***	0.678***	1.867***	1.972***
	(0.078)	(0.079)	(0.306)	(0.314)
Negotiation	0.166	0.101	0.385	–0.119
	(0.237)	(0.245)	(0.965)	(0.956)
Firm age (LN)	0.057	0.065	0.184	0.169
	(0.124)	(0.128)	(0.447)	(0.426)
Number of founder	0.036	–0.023	0.516	0.301
	(0.085)	(0.092)	(0.372)	(0.361)
Firms size (LN)	0.468***	0.572^***	1.833***	1.993***
	(0.096)	(0.098)	(0.567)	(0.662)
Constant	–2.981*	–0.702	–14.679***	–7.705
	(1.594)	(1.652)	(4.820)	(5.047)
adj. R²	0.636	0.611	0.632	0.633

The regression approach for Columns (1) and (2) are OLS regression models with robust standard errors to consider heteroscedasticity. Meanwhile, Columns (3) and (4) report the results of the logit regression model with robust standard errors. Columns (1) and Columns (3) use a different measure of narcissism from Columns (2) and (4). In Columns (1) and (3), narcissism is measured as the ratio from the NPI scale (the continuous variable), whereas the narcissism measure for Columns (2) and (4) is the dummy variable, where ‘1’ denotes narcissistic founders, and ‘0’ denotes non-narcissistic entrepreneurs. It should be noted that this study had run the complete diagnostic test of the classical linear regression model prior to estimating the models, but this has not been included here in the interest of brevity.

Results from Column [1] support the hypothesis, showing that high narcissism might achieve higher funding (β = 3.439, p < .01). Column [2] reports the result of the model with a dummy variable of narcissistic entrepreneurs. This result also supports the hypothesis of a positive relationship between narcissism and funding performance (β = 0.804, p < .01). The funding performance of narcissistic entrepreneurs is significantly different from that of non-narcissistic entrepreneurs, and the difference is 0.804%. These results are consistent with prior literature (Anglin et al., 2018; Gruda et al., 2021; Wales et al., 2013) and affirm the upper echelons theory.

As can be noted from Column [3], the beta coefficient of narcissism is positive and statistically significant (β = 8.522, p < .01), indicating that higher narcissism leads to a higher probability of the startup obtaining high funding. When the alternative measure for narcissism is used in Column [4], the dummy variable, the conclusion remains the same. This result also reveals a positive and statistically significant relationship between narcissism and funding performance (β = 2.598, p < .01). It surmises that narcissistic entrepreneurs are more likely to obtain higher funding than non-narcissistic entrepreneurs. Again, these findings support the prior literature.

Robustness Tests

The research’s main estimator is the OLS and logit regression with robust standard errors. As a robustness check, this study re-estimated Model [1] with quantile regression and PLS-SEM and documented the results in Table 5. The first regression approach is designed to address the limitation of OLS regression that estimates the conditional mean effect of narcissism on funding performance, and the potential bias arises from the non-normality of the dependent variable. More specifically, the advantage of quantile regression is its ability to discern the effect of narcissism along with the entire range of funding performance conditional distribution, especially at the extreme upper and lower tails. Finally, this study reports the estimation from QLS regression in three quartiles: Quantile 25th, 50th, and 75th.

Table 5.

Robustness Test.

	q25	q50	q75	PLS–SEM
Narcisstic	1.067	3.322***	3.479***	3.721***
	(0.736)	(0.754)	(0.655)	(0.530)
Reputation	0.048	0.091	0.031	0.119*
	(0.094)	(0.096)	(0.083)	(0.070)
Social media	0.162*	0.602***	0.859***	0.643***
	(0.097)	(0.100)	(0.087)	(0.075)
Negotiation	0.162	0.181	–0.049	0.175
	(0.314)	(0.322)	(0.279)	(0.231)
Firm age (LN)	–0.005	0.023	–0.011	0.022
	(0.186)	(0.190)	(0.165)	(0.116)
Networking	0.058	0.022	0.037	0.082
	(0.108)	(0.110)	(0.096)	(0.082)
Firms size (LN)	0.317***	0.506***	0.442***	0.461***
	(0.115)	(0.117)	(0.102)	(0.100)
Constant	–1.72	–3.812*	–3.316*	–3.632**
	(2.011)	(2.061)	(1.790)	(1.504)
R ²	0.269	0.3261	0.5568	0.612

Note: The reported values are coefficient values, except the value inside parentheses, which are robust standard errors. *, **, and *** indicate the significant level of 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively. The R² for QLS regression is pseudo R²; meanwhile, the R² for PLS-SEM is Adjusted R².

The regression estimates at the 25th, 50th, and 75th quantiles of the funding performance distribution are presented in Columns (1), (2), and (3), respectively. The coefficients of narcissism are consistently highly significant, with the signs remaining unaffected across the three representative quantiles, except for the 25th. Thus, it suggests that narcissistic entrepreneurs significantly influence only higher than the 25th percentile of funding performance. In other words, narcissistic entrepreneurs may significantly earn increased funding, which is more than the 25th percentile of that earned by their peers.

This study examines the relationship further by using the Partial Least Square approach of the Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM), developed by Hair et al. (2011). This approach addresses the issue of latent variables and provides a more robust estimation (Hair et al., 2011; Rigdon et al., 2017). It provides parameter estimates that maximise the explained variance of the dependent constructs, and therefore support prediction-oriented goals of a causal relationship (Hair et al., 2011; Rigdon et al., 2017).

The coefficient value of the PLS-SEM in Column (4) reports that the conclusion remains intact, by showing that narcissistic entrepreneurs have a positive relationship with funding performance (β = 3.721, p < .01). Moreover, it affirms this research’s earlier findings, indicating that higher narcissism of entrepreneurs would increase funding performance.

Coefficient Plots

This study further examines the effect of narcissism on funding performance by portraying it with coefficient plots. The logit regression results were estimated to plot the coefficients, which report the marginal effect of narcissism on the success of funding performance. Figure 1 reveals the coefficient plots.

Figure 1.

Coefficient Plot Result.

The plot shows that the probability of successful funding (increased funding) is larger for highly narcissistic entrepreneurs compared to low narcissistic entrepreneurs. The difference is significant; the low narcissistic entrepreneurs have only 20.64%, whereas, the highly narcissistic entrepreneurs have 42.24%. This result again confirms the earlier findings and supports the literature.

Discussion and Conclusion

The overarching objective was to investigate how personality traits may shape startup funding. Specifically, this study looked at the entrepreneurs’ narcissism, based on a psychometric approach of the NPI. The results of this study advance the literature on personality traits in startup funding by showing that narcissism is positively associated with funding performance. The estimation models demonstrate that the high narcissism of entrepreneurs is more likely to lead to success in raising funding. Moreover, the results imply that startup companies with narcissistic entrepreneurs are more likely to have higher funding. In other words, narcissistic startup entrepreneurs outperform non-narcissistic ones in terms of venture funding.

This research theorises this conclusion in the context of the personality characteristics of the narcissist, which are creative, convincing, determined, and confident. These traits are important for pitching (Clark, 2008), and potential investors usually pay attention to the proposal due to these non-financial factors (Klein et al., 2019). Potential investors may change their decision, from unfavourable to favourable, because of the ‘charm’ of the entrepreneurs. Given that a narcissistic individual has that ‘charm’, it would not be difficult for narcissistic entrepreneurs to gain assurance and credence from the potential investor in raising the funding. The findings of this research are consistent with this expectation, providing support for the notion that the personality traits of startup entrepreneurs are essential factors in raising funding.

The findings are aligned with the upper echelons theory of Hambrick and Mason (1984), which suggests the characteristics of entrepreneurs are key drivers for organisational outcomes. Based on this logic, upper echelons theory broadly suggests that entrepreneurs’ personality traits would draw the organisation’s outcome. When the startup is set to achieve funding to operationalise its business, the entrepreneur (founder) will make strategic choices based on his/her personality traits or characteristics. In the context of this study, the narcissism dimension would trigger the cognitive process of the entrepreneurs, such as creativity, persuasion, confidence, and determination; hence, it leads to significantly different funding performance compared to that of low or non-narcissistic entrepreneurs.

In the context of narcissistic entrepreneurs, several key factors come into play. First, narcissistic entrepreneurs often possess charismatic leadership qualities (Furnham et al., 2013; Goncalo et al., 2010; John & Robins, 1994) that can captivate and persuade potential investors. Their self-confidence and charismatic persona present a compelling vision and create a favourable impression, increasing their chances of securing venture funding. Second, narcissistic entrepreneurs often have grandiose visions and a strong belief in their own abilities (Nevicka et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2018). They may present their startup as a game-changer or disruptive force in the industry, which can attract investors looking for high-risk, high-reward opportunities. Third, narcissistic entrepreneurs can be adept at building relationships and networking (Grijalva et al., 2015; Maccoby, 2012). They may be skilled at identifying key stakeholders and developing influential connections within the investment community, providing them with a wider network of potential investors, and increasing their chances of securing funding.

Further, the homophily hypothesis (Maass et al., 2018; Maske & Sohn, 2022), where narcissistic entrepreneurs know and ‘love’ another narcissistic individual might explain why narcissistic entrepreneurs attract investors who share similar narcissistic traits. Literature documents that many VCs are led by narcissistic individuals (Buttice & Rovelli, 2020; Lien et al., 2022). Therefore, when narcissistic entrepreneurs pitch for funding, the alignment of values, perspectives, and cognitive styles between the entrepreneurs and investors can foster a sense of mutual understanding and increase the likelihood of funding being provided.

The study contributes to the body of knowledge and practical implications in several ways. First, it confers new insight into the extant literature by elaborating upon the upper-echelon theory within the entrepreneurship literature. This study shows that personality traits such as narcissism play an important role in startup performance metrics including venture funding. Further, the grandioseness and self-entitlement of narcissistic entrepreneurs are important to achieve funding for startups. In a significant departure from previous studies, this study utilised psychological inventory to measure narcissism of entrepreneurs.

In terms of practical implications, the findings of this study show that narcissistic entrepreneurs might attract more venture capitalists and angel investors than their peers. However, these investors need to focus more on the business model and potential performance metrics rather than be swayed by the ‘charisma’ and ‘charm’ of narcissistic entrepreneurs. It also raises the cultural issue in the startup ecosystem, where narcissistic entrepreneurs are more celebrated or valued, deteriorating the range of qualities and skills that contribute to the venture’s long-term success.

Despite its contributions, this article does have limitations, which open up the scope for future research. First, the sample size is 187 because of the difficulty of approaching entrepreneurs for a survey. Other studies with unobtrusive methods can reach an extensive sample despite their critics (see Carey et al., 2015). Moreover, the research context is registered Indonesian startup companies which are relatively small compared to those in the USA, UK, or even China and India, which may have different institutional characteristics (e.g., regulation, ecosystem, culture). Scholars in these countries might replicate this study and test the hypothesis further.

Further, the findings from this study do not suggest that narcissism plays a vital role in funding performance, especially as a criterion for personality traits in entrepreneurship. While this research looks at how narcissistic entrepreneurs have better funding performance than their peers, other personality traits or organisational structures may moderate or conjointly influence that association. Future research can explore circumstances under which a specific combination of personality traits or characteristics may lead to the best outcomes for the startup. For example, the role of culture, Big 5 personality traits, humour, leadership type, the demographic characteristics of the startup’s entrepreneurs (i.e., experience, gender, education), networking, or the power of the managing director (CEO Power) may strengthen/weaken the narcissism-funding performance associations. These may lead to exciting research. In addition, this study does not consider the type of startup, which may also be an intriguing issue. This research believes each startup with a business model of AI-based, marketplace, digital payment, remittance, cryptocurrencies, e-hailing, cloud kitchen, education, proptech, insurtech, regtech, or P2P lending might give unique findings. Each of these sectors has its own distinct characteristics, challenges, and opportunities. By studying startups within these sectors individually, researchers can gain valuable insights into the trends, dynamics, and outcomes specific to each industry. Unfortunately, the sample size of this research does not allow us to do a robustness analysis by testing the hypothesis in those sub-samples. Consequently, this research defers the exploration of that aspect to future investigations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Appendix A

References

Aabo

, Als

, Thomsen

, & Wulff

J. N.

(2020). Watch me go big: CEO narcissism and corporate acquisitions. Review of Behavioral Finance, 13(5), 465–485. 10.1108/RBF-05-2020-0091

Aghazadeh

, Sun

, Wang

, & Yang

(2018). Investors’ perception of CEO overconfidence: Evidence from the cost of equity capital. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 51(4), 1129–1150. 10.1007/s11156-017-0699-9

Alexy

O. T.

, Block

J. H.

, Sandner

, & Ter Wal

A. L.

(2012). Social capital of venture capitalists and startup funding. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 835–851. 10.1007/s11187-011-9337-4

Alperovych

, Groh

, & Quas

(2020). Bridging the equity gap for young innovative companies: The design of effective government venture capital fund programs. Research Policy, 49(10), 104051. 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104051

Anglin

A. H.

, Wolfe

M. T.

, Short

J. C.

, McKenny

A. F.

, & Pidduck

R. J.

(2018). Narcissistic rhetoric and crowdfunding performance: A social role theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(6), 780–812. 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.04.004

Antes

A. L.

, Brown

R. P.

, Murphy

S. T.

, Waples

E. P.

, Mumford

M. D.

, Connelly

, & Devenport

L. D.

(2007). Personality and ethical decision-making in research: The role of perceptions of self and others. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(4), 15–34. 10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.15

Astebro

, Herz

, Nanda

, & Weber

R. A.

(2014). Seeking the roots of entrepreneurship: Insights from behavioral economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), 49–70. 10.1257/jep.28.3.49

Back

M. D.

, Schmukle

S. C.

, & Egloff

(2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism–popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 132–145. 10.1037/a0016338

Banerji

, & Reimer

(2019). Startup founders and their LinkedIn connections: Are well-connected entrepreneurs more successful? Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 46–52. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.033

10.

Bollaert

, Leboeuf

, & Schwienbacher

(2020). The narcissism of crowdfunding entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 55(1), 57–76.

11.

Bonini

, & Capizzi

(2019). The role of venture capital in the emerging entrepreneurial finance ecosystem: Future threats and opportunities. Venture Capital, 21(2–3), 137–175. 10.1080/13691066.2019.1608697

12.

Buttice

, & Rovelli

(2020). “Fund me, I am fabulous!” Do narcissistic entrepreneurs succeed or fail in crowdfunding? Personality and Individual Differences, 162, 110037. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110037

13.

Byrne

K. A.

, & Worthy

D. A.

(2013). Do narcissists make better decisions? An investigation of narcissism and dynamic decision-making performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(2), 112–117. 10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.020

14.

Campbell

W. K.

, Goodie

A. S.

, & Foster

J. D.

(2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(4), 297–311. 10.1002/bdm.475

15.

Campbell

W. K.

, Hoffman

B. J.

, Campbell

S. M.

, & Marchisio

(2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268–284. 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.007

16.

Carey

A. L.

, Brucks

M. S.

, Küfner

A. C.

, Holtzman

N. S.

, Back

M. D.

, Donnellan

M. B.

, Pennebaker

J. W.

, & Mehl

M. R.

(2015). Narcissism and the use of personal pronouns revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), e1–e15.

17.

Carter

, Brush

, Greene

, Gatewood

, & Hart

(2003). Women entrepreneurs who break through to equity financing: The influence of human, social and financial capital. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 5(1), 1–28. 10.1080/1369106032000082586

18.

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. 10.2189/asqu.52.3.351

19.

Cheshure

, Zeigler-Hill

, Sauls

, Vrabel

J. K.

, & Lehtman

M. J.

(2020). Narcissism and emotion dysregulation: Narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry have divergent associations with emotion regulation difficulties. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109679.

20.

Clark

(2008). The impact of entrepreneurs’ oral ‘pitch’ presentation skills on business angels’ initial screening investment decisions. Venture capital, 10(3), 257–279. 10.1080/13691060802151945

21.

Coleman

, Cotei

, & Farhat

(2016). The debt-equity financing decisions of US startup firms. Journal of Economics and Finance, 40(1), 105–126. 10.1007/s12197-014-9293-3

22.

Cragun

O. R.

, Olsen

K. J.

, & Wright

P. M.

(2020). Making CEO narcissism research great: A review and meta-analysis of CEO narcissism. Journal of Management, 46(6), 908–936. 10.1177/0149206319892678

23.

Ellis

(1898). Auto-erotism: A psychological study. Alienist and Neurologist (1880–1920), 19(2), 260.

24.

Emmons

R. A.

(1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 11–17. 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.11

25.

Engelen

, Neumann

, & Schmidt

(2016). Should entrepreneurially oriented firms have narcissistic CEOs? Journal of Management, 42(3), 698–721. 10.1177/0149206313495413

26.

Foster

J. D.

, Shenesey

J. W.

, & Goff

J. S.

(2009). Why do narcissists take more risks? Testing the roles of perceived risks and benefits of risky behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 885–889. 10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.008

27.

Franco

, Cappa

, & Pinelli

(2021). Founder education and start-up funds raised. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 49(3), 42–48.

28.

Freud

(1957). On narcissism: An introduction. In Strachey

(Ed. and Trans.), Standard edition of the complete works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 7).

29.

Furnham

, Hughes

D. J.

, & Marshall

(2013). Creativity, OCD, narcissism and the Big Five. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 91–98. 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.05.003

30.

Gombola

, & Marciukaityte

(2007). Managerial overoptimism and the choice between debt and equity financing. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 8(4), 225–235. 10.1080/15427560701699510

31.

Goncalo

J. A.

, Flynn

F. J.

, & Kim

S. H.

(2010). Are two narcissists better than one? The link between narcissism, perceived creativity, and creative performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1484–1495. 10.1177/0146167210385109

32.

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. 10.1111/peps.12072

33.

Gruda

, McCleskey

, Karanatsiou

, & Vakali

(2021). I’m simply the best, better than all the rest: Narcissistic leaders and corporate fundraising success. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110317. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110317

34.

Gupta

V. K.

, Goktan

A. B.

, & Gunay

(2014). Gender differences in evaluation of new business opportunity: A stereotype threat perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(2), 273–288. 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.02.002

35.

Hair

J. F.

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

36.

Hambrick

D. C.

, & Mason

P. A.

(1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. 10.5465/amr.1984.4277628

37.

Hart

, Kinrade

, Tortoriello

G. K.

, Richardson

, & Breeden

C. J.

(2020). Identifying with the “bad” guy: A novel account for apparent moral-judgment deficiencies in antagonistic personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, 110161.

38.

Hart

, Richardson

, & Breeden

C. J.

(2019). An interactive model of narcissism, self-esteem, and provocation extent on aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 145, 112–118.

39.

Hmieleski

K. M.

, & Lerner

D. A.

(2016). The dark triad and nascent entrepreneurship: An examination of unproductive versus productive entrepreneurial motives. Journal of Small Business Management, 54, 7–32. 10.1111/jsbm.12296

40.

Honoré

(2022). Joining forces: How can founding members’ prior experience variety and shared experience increase startup survival?. Academy of Management Journal, 65(1), 248–272. 10.5465/amj.2018.1386

41.

Jeng

L. A.

, & Wells

P. C.

(2000). The determinants of venture capital funding: evidence across countries. Journal of Corporate Finance, 6(3), 241–289. 10.1016/S0929-1199(00)00003-1

42.

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 and Social Psychology, 66(1), 206.

43.

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.

44.

Kanze

, Huang

, Conley

M. A.

, & Higgins

E. T.

(2018). We ask men to win and women not to lose: Closing the gender gap in startup funding. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 586–614. 10.5465/amj.2016.1215

45.

Kashmiri

, Nicol

C. D.

, & Arora

(2017). Me, myself, and I: Influence of CEO narcissism on firms’ innovation strategy and the likelihood of product-harm crises. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 633–656. 10.1007/s11747-017-0535-8

46.

Kerr

S. P.

, Kerr

W. R.

, & Xu

(2018). Personality traits of entrepreneurs: A review of recent literature. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 279–356.

47.

Klein

, Neitzert

, Hartmann-Wendels

, & Kraus

(2019). Startup financing in the digital age–A systematic review and comparison of new forms of financing. The Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 21(2), 3.

48.

Klotz

A. C.

, & Neubaum

D. O.

(2016). Article commentary: Research on the dark side of personality traits in entrepreneurship: Observations from an organizational behavior perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(1), 7–17.

49.

Kontesa

, Brahmana

, & Tong

A. H. H.

(2021). Narcissistic CEOs and their earnings management. Journal of Management and Governance, 25(1), 223–249. 10.1007/s10997-020-09506-0

50.

Kuschel

, Lepeley

M. T.

, Espinosa

, & Gutiérrez

(2017). Funding challenges of Latin American women startup founders in the technology industry. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management. 24(2), 310–331. 10.1108/CCSM-03-2016-0072

51.

Kwapisz

, & Hechavarría

D. M.

(2018). Women don’t ask: An investigation of startup financing and gender. Venture Capital, 20(2), 159–190. 10.1080/13691066.2017.1345119

52.

Leach

J. C.

, & Melicher

R. W.

(2020). Entrepreneurial finance. Cengage Learning.

53.

Lee

, Sameen

, & Cowling

(2015). Access to finance for innovative SMEs since the financial crisis. Research Policy, 44(2), 370–380. 10.1016/j.respol.2014.09.008

54.

Lien

W. C.

, Chen

, & Sohl

(2022). Do I have a big ego? Angel investors’ narcissism and investment behaviors. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(5), 106247.

55.

Liu

, Li

, Hao

, & Zhang

(2019). Narcissism and learning from entrepreneurial failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(3), 496–512. 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.01.003

56.

Maass

, Wehner

, & Ziegler

(2018). Narcissism and friendships. In Herman

A. D.

, Brunell

A. B.

& Foster

J. D.

(Eds.). Handbook of trait narcissism: Key advances, research methods, and controversies (pp. 345–354). Springer.

57.

Maccoby

(2012). Narcissistic leaders: Who succeeds and who fails. Crown Business.

58.

Marquez-Illescas

, Zebedee

A. A.

, & Zhou

(2019). Hear me write: Does CEO narcissism affect disclosure? Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 401–417.

59.

Maske

, & Sohn

(2022). Do birds of a feather flock together? The joint effects of manager and subordinate narcissism on performance evaluation. SSRN, 1–45. 10.2139/ssrn.4046897

60.

Mathieu

, & St-Jean

É.

(2013). Entrepreneurial personality: The role of narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 527–531.

61.

Maxwell

, Donnellan

M. B.

, Hopwood

C. J.

, & Ackerman

R. A.

(2011). The two faces of Narcissus? An empirical comparison of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 577–582.

62.

Miller

B. K.

, Nicols

K. M.

, Clark

, Daniels

, Grant

(2018) Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha for scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. PLoS ONE, 13(12): e0208331. 10.1371/journal.pone.0208331

63.

Miller

J. D.

, & Campbell

W. K.

(Eds.) (2011). Addressing criticisms of the narcissistic personality inventory (NPI). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 146–152). John Wiley & Sons.

64.

Navis

, & Ozbek

O. V.

(2016). The right people in the wrong places: The paradox of entrepreneurial entry and successful opportunity realization. Academy of Management Review, 41(1), 109–129.

65.

Nevicka

, Baas

, & Ten Velden

F. S.

(2016). The bright side of threatened narcissism: Improved performance following ego threat. Journal of Personality, 84(6), 809–823.

66.

Nofsinger

J. R.

, & Wang

(2011). Determinants of startup firm external financing worldwide. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2282–2294.

67.

Norouzinik

, Rahimnia

, Maharati

, & Eslami

(2021). Narcissistic leadership and employees’ innovative behaviour: Mediating roles of job embeddedness and job engagement. Innovation, 24(3), 1–26. 10.1080/14479338.2021.1897467

68.

O’Reilly III

C. A.

, Doerr

, Caldwell

D. F.

, & Chatman

J. A.

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

69.

Oesterle

M. J.

, Elosge

, & Elosge

(2016). Me, myself and I: The role of CEO narcissism in internationalization decisions. International Business Review, 25(5), 1114–1123.

70.

Olsen

K. J.

, & Stekelberg

(2016). CEO narcissism and corporate tax sheltering. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 38(1), 1–22.

71.

Pincus

A. L.

, Cain

N. M.

, & Wright

A. G.

(2014). Narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability in psychotherapy. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(4), 439.

72.

Quas

, & D’Adda

(2018). High-tech entrepreneurial ventures seeking external equity: Whether, when, where… and why not? Economia e Politica Industriale, 45(3), 311–334.

73.

Raskin

R. N.

, & Hall

C. S.

(1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological reports.

74.

Rigdon

E. E.

, Sarstedt

, & Ringle

C. M.

(2017). On comparing results from CB-SEM and PLS-SEM: Five perspectives and five recommendations. Marketing: ZFP–Journal of Research and Management, 39(3), 4–16.

75.

Rijsenbilt

, & Commandeur

(2013). Narcissus enters the courtroom: CEO narcissism and fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 413–429.

76.

Roberts

, Woodman

, & Sedikides

(2018). Pass me the ball: Narcissism in performance settings. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 190–213.

77.

Rogers

(2020). Entrepreneurial finance: Finance and business strategies for the serious entrepreneur. McGraw-Hill Education.

78.

Rogoza

, & Fatfouta

(2020). Decoding the narcissism-charisma link: A facet approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 156, 109774.

79.

Sundermeier

, & Kummer

(2019). Startup founders’ personality attributes in crowdfunding campaigns: The relevance of hubris and charisma in raising seed funding online. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 4476–4482). Association for Information Systems.

80.

Taylor

K. P.

(2019). Angel investor-entrepreneur fit: The nexus of Angel motivation and entrepreneur personality and passion. In Caputo

& Pellegrini

M. M.

(Eds.) The anatomy of entrepreneurial decisions. contributions to management science (pp. 197–210). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-19685-1_9

81.

Tenca

, Croce

, & Ughetto

(2018). Business angels research in entrepreneurial finance: A literature review and a research agenda. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(5), 1384–1413.

82.

Thaler

R. H.

(Ed.). (2005). Advances in behavioral finance, Volume II. Princeton University Press.

83.

Van der Linden

, & Rosenthal

S. A.

(2016). Measuring narcissism with a single question? A replication and extension of the Single-Item Narcissism Scale (SINS). Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 238–241.

84.

Venema

T. A.

, & Pfattheicher

(2021). Perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and narcissistic traits. Personality and individual differences, 175, 110696.

85.

Wales

W. J.

, Patel

P. C.

, & Lumpkin

G. T.

(2013). In pursuit of greatness: CEO narcissism, entrepreneurial orientation, and firm performance variance. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6), 1041–1069.

86.

Xiao

, & North

(2012). Institutional transition and the financing of high-tech SMEs in China: A longitudinal perspective. Venture Capital, 14(4), 269–287.

87.

Xiao

, Liu

, Zhou

, & Chen

(2018). Narcissistic leadership and employees’ knowledge sharing: influence of organizational identification and collectivism. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 46(8), 1317–1329.

88.

Yao

, Zhang

, Liu

, Zhang

, & Luo

(2019). Narcissistic leadership and voice behavior: The role of job stress, traditionality, and trust in leaders. Chinese Management Studies, 14(3), 543–563.

89.

Zhang

(2011). The advantage of experienced startup founders in venture capital acquisition: Evidence from serial entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 36(2), 187–208.