You are on page 1of 20

J Bus Ethics (2014) 120:6580

DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1651-0

Hang on to Your Ego: The Moderating Role of Leader Narcissism on


Relationships Between Leader Charisma and Follower Psychological
Empowerment and Moral Identity
John J. Sosik Jae Uk Chun Weichun Zhu

Received: 3 September 2012/Accepted: 3 February 2013/Published online: 12 February 2013


Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract We develop and test a process model


demonstrating how leader charisma and constructive and
destructive forms of narcissism interact to influence
follower psychological empowerment and moral identity,
using survey data from 667 direct reports of leaders from
13 different industries. Study results revealed that leader
narcissism moderates the relationship between leader
charisma and follower psychological empowerment such
that when leaders possess a more constructive and less
destructive narcissistic personality, their charisma has a
stronger positive relationship with follower psychological
empowerment. Study results also revealed that follower
psychological empowerment mediates the differential
interactive effects of leader charisma and constructive and
destructive narcissism on follower moral identity.
Implications of these results for future theory development,
research, and practice are discussed.

J. J. Sosik
Department of Management, Great Valley School of
Graduate and Professional Studies, The Pennsylvania
State University, 30 East Swedesford Road, Malvern, PA
19355, USA e-mail: jjs20@psu.edu
J. U. Chun (&)
Management Department, Korea University Business
School,
Korea University, Anam-Dong,
Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 136-701, South
Korea e-mail: juchun@korea.ac.kr
W. Zhu
Department of Labor Studies and Employment Relations,
The Pennsylvania State University, 003 Keller
Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA e-mail:
wzhu@psu.edu

Keywords Leader charisma Narcissism Psychological


empowerment Self-concept Moral identity

Over the last century, the charisma displayed by leaders


has captivated both scholars and media interested in the
rhetorical, motivational, and envisioning processes by
which leaders influence their followers to achieve
extraordinary outcomes (e.g., Bass 1985; Conger and
Kanungo 1998; House 1977; Shamir et al. 1993; Sosik and
Dinger 2007; Weber 1947). Although charisma itself is
ethically neutral, whether charismatic leaders articulate
pro-social or self-serving visions depends in part on their
personality, the strength of ethical values of followers
(Bass and Steidlmeier 1999; Howell and Shamir 2005),
and if the leaders promote the empowerment or
dependence of followers (Kark et al. 2003). Leaders who
use their charisma to form a personalized relationship with
dependent followers advance their own self-interests
and often produce destructive organizational
outcomes, whereas leaders who use their charisma to
empower followers often achieve
constructive organizational outcomes (Howell and
Shamir 2005). Yet, in a study of top corporate
managers, Sosik et al. (2011) reported that the most
charismatic managers scored lowest on a test of
moral development, and suggested that future work
should examine personal attributes and ethics of
leaders and followers to reveal how potential
unethical influences on followers may be allayed.
One personality trait that has been linked to both
destructive and constructive forms of charismatic
leadership is narcissism (House and Howell 1992;

123

Hang on to Your Ego

Kets de Vries 2006; Rosenthal and Pittinsky


2006). Although the percentage of people
diagnosed with the psychiatric narcissism
disorder in the U.S. population has been
estimated as between 1 and 2.2 % (Crawford et
al. 2005; Millon 1996), several scholars have
discussed the prevalence of narcissism among
business, religious, and political leaders who
have power and influence over many people.
Maccoby (2003) argued that narcissists dominate
the top ranks of corporations, faith communities,
and governments, thereby posing a potential
problem for society. For example, writers have
attributed narcissistic personality traits to
leaders, such as Martha Stewart, Ken Lay,
Bernie Madoff, Jim Jones, and Muammar
Gaddafi, who produced destructive results for
their organizations and nations. Such traits have
also been attributed to Abraham Lincoln,
Benjamin Netanyahu, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey,
Steve Jobs, and Bill Clinton who used their
narcissism in a constructive way to promote prosocial change and to achieve positive social,
economic, and political outcomes (Maccoby
2003; Kets de Vries 2006; Rosenthal and
Pittinsky 2006). Narcissistic leaders display a
grandiose sense of self-importance, and very
high levels of confidence and charisma that
attract admiring and loyal followers. Whereas
such identification by followers increases
leaders selfesteem and satisfies their
egomaniacal needs, it can also promote blind
loyalty and ethical lapses in followers who may
be willing to do almost anything to please such
leaders. Unfortunately, such eagerness to please
often comes at the cost of loss of ones identity
as a moral person, unethical behavior, and
illegality (Humphreys et al. 2010).
Numerous studies have discussed both the
constructive and destructive forms of
charismatic leadership and their resulting
outcomes (see Bass 2008; Yukl 2010, for
comprehensive reviews). They also have linked
leader narcissism to both positive and negative
organizational outcomes such as vision and
innovation (Maccoby 2003), career derailment
(Kets de Vries 2006), workplace deviance or
counterproductive work behaviors (Penney and
Spector 2002), and reduced contextual
performance (Judge et al. 2006). However,
despite research suggesting that both narcissism
and charisma can be used for either constructive

66

or destructive purposes (e.g., House and Howell


1992; Maccoby 2003; Rosenthal and Pittinsky 2006),
no prior work to our knowledge has examined how a
leaders charisma and narcissism interact to influence
the extent to which followers are empowered and
degree to which they view themselves as being moral
and ethical.
The current study addresses this gap in the
literature by developing and testing a theoretical
process model demonstrating how an ethically neutral
form of leader charisma and constructive and
destructive forms of narcissism interact to influence
followers psychological empowerment and its
association with their moral identity. As such, this
study theoretically contributes to the literature by
clarifying the processes by which the type of
narcissism possessed by charismatic leaders
influences the motivational mechanisms of followers,
and helps elucidate differences between personalized
and socialized charismatic leaders. Practically, given
the limited control of followers over their own
decisions under some circumstances, they encounter
many ethical challenges in the workplace (Brown and
Trevino 2006). This study provides evidence for the
roles of socialized charismatic leadership and
follower psychological empowerment in helping
followers develop their moral identity.

Theoretical Background, Research Model,


and Hypothesis Development
Our study is grounded in a conceptual framework of
narcissism and emerging charismatic leadership
patterns developed by Humphreys et al. (2010).
Briefly, this framework proposes that the destructive
form of narcissism stemming from a sense of
grandiosity activates a leaders personalized power
motivation whereby charisma is displayed for
purposes of self-aggrandizement and satisfaction of
egomaniacal and entitlement needs. In contrast, the
constructive form of narcissism stemming from a
controlled high level of confidence is proposed to
activate a leaders socialized power motivation
whereby charisma is displayed for purposes of
envisioning, enabling, and empowering others. As a
result, the identities of followers of socialized
charismatic leaders shift to higher levels of morality
and collective self-conceptions, whereas the identities
of followers of personalized charismatic leaders shift
to relational self-conceptions focused on satisfying
the needs of the leader in a dependent manner.

123

Hang on to Your Ego

67

Building upon this conceptual framework and


Rosenthal and Pittinskys (2006) review of
leader narcissism, we propose and test a research
model that produces a mediated moderation as
shown in Fig. 1. Specifically, the positive
relationship between leader charisma and
follower psychological empowerment is stronger
when the perceived constructive narcissism is
high than when it is low and when the perceived
destructive narcissism is low than when it is
high. These moderation (interaction) effects
between leader charisma and two types of
narcissism on follower moral identity are
mediated through follower psychological
empowerment.
Charismatic Leadership
Charisma displayed by leaders is a product of
their personal attributes and behaviors,
attributions made by followers, and situational
elements. Charismatic leaders are most effective
in times of uncertainty or crises when they often
emerge to provide appealing and innovative
solutions to problems faced by followers (House
1977; Weber 1947). They are dominant, highly
self-confident, visionary, eloquent,
Constructive
narcissism

Leader charisma

vision, and make personal sacrifices for the collective


cause which they view as personally meaningful
(Conger and Kanungo 1998; Sosik and Dinger 2007).
Charisma displayed by leaders can be used to
attain other-serving, socialized power or self-serving,
personalized power. When leaders use their charisma
to meet the needs of followers as they work towards a
moral collective cause, they display socialized
charismatic leadership by empowering followers and
promoting their independent thinking and personal
development. In contrast, when leaders use their
charisma to satisfy their selfish needs for personal
power and self-aggrandizement, they display
personalized charismatic leadership that exploits
followers by keeping them dependent (House and
Howell 1992; Howell and Shamir 2005).
We operationalize charismatic leadership in the
current study along core behavioral and attributional
dimensions using ethically neutral items from the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X;
Bass and Avolio 1997). In line with Sosik and
Dingers (2007) approach, we assess two core
dimensions of charismatic leadership described in the
literature and consistent with the theories of
charismatic leadership (e.g., Conger and Kanungo
1998; House 1977; Shamir et al. 1993): inspirational
Destructive
narcissism

Psychological
empowerment

Moral identity

Fig. 1 Research model of leader charisma and constructive and destructive narcissism and follower psychological empowerment and moral
identity
motivation and idealized influence. Prior factor

charming, and narcissistic (House and Howell


1992). They are eccentric in that they engage in
unusual or personal risktaking behavior. They
are sensitive to environmental trends and skilled
at creating imaginative and evocative visions of
organizational, industrial, or societal change.
They use colorful rhetoric to articulate their
visions and champion collective action to
achieve them. As a result, followers perceive
charismatic leaders as extraordinary and gifted
role models and identify with them and/or their
vision. Followers also display high levels of
loyalty and commitment to the leader and

analytic work has identified these dimensions as


representing the two charismatic components of
transformational leadership (e.g., Antonakis et al.
2003; Avolio et al. 1999). Inspirational motivation
involves projecting a confident image of power and
articulating an exciting vision using colorful rhetoric
and meaningful content. Such behaviors reduce the
confusion and uncertainty that followers of
charismatic leaders initially experience and motivate
them to work enthusiastically toward a collective
goal. Idealized influence involves the display and
attribution of role modeling for followers by
discussing and exemplifying important shared values,
beliefs, and achieving high standards of performance.
Such behaviors activate relational or collective self-

123

68

identities of followers whereby they identify


with the leader through either personalized or
socialized relationships that yield high levels of
trust and commitment (Bass 1985; Howell and
Shamir 2005).

Narcissism
Building upon self-concept based explanations
of charismatic leadership (Shamir et al. 1993),
Sosik and Dinger (2007) demonstrated that
charismatic corporate managers expressed
aspects of their personality in the content of their
visions and behavior. Rosenthal and Pittinskys
(2006) review of the charismatic leadership
literature
concluded
thatnarcissismisaprominentpersonalitytraitofchar
ismatic leaders. However, the American
Psychiatric Association (APA) identifies
narcissism as a personality disorder involving
antagonism of others characterized by
grandiosity (i.e., feelings of entitlement, either
overt
or
covert;
selfcenteredness;firmlyholdingtothebeliefthatoneisb
etter than others; condescending toward others),
and attentionseeking involving excessive
attempts to attract and be the focus of the
attention of others through admiration seeking.
Narcissism results in impairments in selffunctioning as manifested by deficiencies in
identity (e.g., excessive referencetoothersforselfdefinitionandself-esteemregulation)or
selfdirection (e.g., goal-setting based on gaining
approval from others), and interpersonal
functioning as manifested by deficiencies in
empathy (e.g., impaired ability to recognize or
identify with the feelings and needs of others) or
intimacy (e.g., relationships that are largely
superficial and exist to serve self-esteem
regulation) (APA 2012).
There are both advantages and disadvantages
of being a narcissist. While narcissists may be
very popular and successful in the short-run,
they are likely to falter over time (Rosenthal
and Pittinsky 2006, p. 624) due to their
impairments in self- and interpersonal
functioning. For example, the narcissists
deficient self-identity and selfdirection processes
may result in arrogance, feelings of inferiority,
and an insatiable need for recognition and
superiority.
The
narcissists
deficient

123

J. J. Sosik et al.

interpersonal functioning may be associated with


hypersensitivity and anger, lack of empathy,
amorality, irrationality, inflexibility, and paranoia.
These dysfunctional traits reflect the destructive form
of narcissism and are likely to present a liability to
the social functioning of narcissists (Rosenthal and
Pittinsky 2006).
On the other hand, supreme confidence and
dominance characterize what Maccoby (2003) called
productive narcissists who create and articulate
grand visions and innovative strategies that can
inspire followers looking for an ideal solution to their
problems. Productive narcissists are able to detach
themselves from their self-centered views, laugh at
themselves, gain the right perspective on issues, and
therefore achieve constructive outcomes (Kets de
Vries 2006; Maccoby 2003). Narcissism is
constructive when the individuals impairments in
self- and interpersonal functioning are limited by
accumulation of wisdom and selfknowledge, and
constraints such as organizational policies and control
systems, counselors, peer review teams, and social
and legal sanctions (Kets de Vries 2006).
We operationalize narcissism in the current study
along the two dimensions of constructive/productive
narcissism and destructive/reactive narcissism
conceptualized in prior research (Humphreys et al.
2010; Kets de Vries 2006; Maccoby 2003; Rosenthal
and Pittinsky 2006) using a measure developed and
validated by Wink (1992). Constructive/productive
narcissism and destructive/reactive narcissism are
often associated with socialized charismatic
leadership and personalized charismatic leadership,
respectively (cf. Howell and Shamir 2005;
Humphreys et al. 2010; Rosenthal and Pittinsky
2006). Our approach allows us to examine the
charisma and narcissism possessed by either
socialized or personalized charismatic leaders.
Leader Charisma
Empowerment

and

Follower

Psychological

According to Spreitzer (1995, p. 1443), psychological


empowerment represents increased intrinsic task
motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions
reflecting an individuals orientation to his or her
work role: meaning, competence, self-determination
and impact. When an individual sees value in the
work being performing, s/he gains a sense of
meaning. When an individual gains feelings of selfefficacy or personal mastery regarding a task, s/he
becomes competent. When an individual has the

Hang on to Your Ego

freedom to choose the tasks s/he performs and


how it is performed, s/he experiences selfdetermination. Lastly, when an individual
believes that the work performed makes a
difference toward attaining a broader
organizational goal, s/he views the work as
impactful (Spreitzer 1995).
The self-concept based theory of charismatic
leadership developed by Shamir et al. (1993)
suggests that leader charisma can empower
followers by influencing aspects of their selfconcept and the way they view their work.
Specifically, charismatic leaders present their
vision in terms of a historical context, moral
justification, and broader goals and values they
represent. Such presentation style is proposed to
create a sense of evolution which is essential for
self-consistency and a sense of meaningfulness,
and to create an impression that the work
required to achieve the vision is impactful.
Charismatic leaders make positive references to
followers worth and efficacy and serve as
positive role models for followers; these
behaviors are proposed to increase followers
self-efficacy or perceived competence on tasks
(Shamir et al. 1993).
When charismatic leaders make references to
collective
efforts,
values,
and
moral
justifications, followers are likely to internalize
the goals and values espoused by the leader in
order to maintain consistency between their selfconcept and their perception of the leader
(Shamir et al. 1993). According to selfdetermination theory (Deci and Ryan 2000),
such internalization involves the assimilation of
espoused values and moral justifications into the
self-concept for the purpose of behavioral
regulation. Internalization leads to the pursuit of
self-concordant goals that well represent ones
implicit interests and identity (Sheldon and
Houser-Marko 2001), and thus may create a
sense of selfdetermination. In support of this line
of reasoning, prior empirical research has linked
the charismatic behaviors of leaders to follower
and group empowerment in business, military,
and educational contexts (e.g., Avolio et al.
2004; Conger et al. 2002; Kark et al. 2003; Jung
and Sosik 2002). Thus,
Hypothesis 1
Leader charisma will be
positively related to follower psychological
empowerment.

69

Interactive Effects
Narcissism

of

Leader

Charisma

and

Leader personality, behavior, and their effects on


followers
arelargelyintheeyeofthebeholder(Bass2008;Yukl2010
). While leader charisma may have empowering
influences on followers, the strength of the influence
may depend on whether charisma is perceived by
followers to be socialized or personalized. Given the
significant overlap between both the positive and
negative aspects of charisma and narcissism
(Maccoby 2003; Rosenthal and Pittinsky 2006), the
form of leader narcissism perceived by followers may
influence whether followers view the leader as either
a socialized or personalized charismatic leader, and
consequently, the
extent
of
psychological
empowerment they gain from the leader.
When charismatic leaders are perceived by
followers to possess a constructive form of
narcissism, followers may assume that leaders are
motivated by socialized power. These assumptions
may be confirmed when such leaders possess a
healthy form of narcissism, namely normal but not
excessively high levels of confidence and selfesteem, by using these positive traits to energize
followers through a grand vision. Moreover, such
leaders may raise followers level of moral and
professional development by stimulating them to aim
to achieve challenging goals while working toward a
meaningful collective task. Such socialized
charismatic leaders enable and empower followers,
thereby making them independent of the leaders
because they maintain a broader focus on the
collective and its mission, in addition to keeping a
healthy working relationship with the leaders.
Perceptions of such leader charisma by followers are
likely to enhance feelings of empowerment because
their collective self-concept becomes salient
(Humphreys et al. 2010; Kark et al. 2003). As such,
followers may come to possess a broader focus on
achieving wider collective goals, developing their
own skills, and forming independent opinions needed
to support that task, rather than just meeting the needs
of the leader.
In contrast, when charismatic leaders are perceived
by followers to possess a destructive form of
narcissism, followers may assume that leaders are
motivated by personalized power and self-serving
interests. These assumptions may be confirmed when
such leaders demonstrate destructive narcissism by
being arrogant, hypersensitive and angry, or when

123

70

they seek self-aggrandizement and maniacal ego


satisfaction and/or show a sense of entitlement.
These behaviors characterize personalized
charismatic leaders who are more interested in
satisfying their own needs than meeting the
developmental or empowerment needs of
followers. Such leaders get followers to
personally identify with their values and
ideology, but require followers to align their own
personal values with those of the leader, and
maintain this value congruency if they are to be
accepted by the leader and community (Howell
and Shamir 2005).
Psychodynamic theories of charismatic
leadership suggest that identification processes
used by personalized charismatic leaders can
exploit followers fragile self-esteem yet provide
followers with a sense of safety and security
(Popper 2011), thereby making them dependent
on the leader because they are focused on
maintaining good interpersonal relations with the
leader. Perceptions of such leader charisma by
followers are likely to diminish feelings of
empowerment because their relational selfconcept becomes salient. Although a salient
relational self-concept may not necessarily be
dysfunctional, it can make followers vulnerable
to the manipulative, exploitive, and egocentric
behaviors of personalized charismatic leaders
that shift followers attention away from the
development of a more healthy and balanced self
and its contribution to the collective (Humphreys
et al. 2010; Kark et al. 2003). As such,
followersare likelyto myopically focus on
satisfying theneeds of the leader and working
towards his/her priorities rather than developing
their own skills and independent opinions. Thus,
Hypothesis 2 The positive association between
leader charisma and follower psychological
empowerment will be stronger (a) when the
perceived constructive narcissism of the leader
is high than when it is low, and (b) when the
perceived destructive narcissism of the leader is
low than when it is high.
Mediating Role of Follower Psychological
Empowerment
By empowering followers, charismatic leaders
have profound effects on followers selfconcepts (Bass 1985; House 1977). Shamir et al.

123

J. J. Sosik et al.

(1993) suggest that a charismatic leader influences


the moral values of followers by aligning the personal
interests, values, and identities of followers with the
leaders morally justified goals, attitudes, and
ideology, and by behaving in ways that are selfexpressive of these personal attributes. Specifically,
charismatic leaders challenge followers to become
important contributors to collective efforts by
communicating confidence and high expectations
through the articulation of an exciting vision that is
framed as being socially approved, beneficial, and
morally defensible. The content of this vision
contains many references to values, moral virtues,
history, and describes followers as worthy and
efficacious individuals who are part of a righteous
cause. The leaders behavior and vision make the
collective identity more salient to followers and build
a sense of consistency between their self-concept and
actions on behalf of the leader and the collective
cause (Shamir et al. 1993, p. 10). The essence of this
process involves getting followers to feel more
positive and confident about their self-esteem, selfefficacy, and work by internalizing cherished and
socially approved values and identities as part of their
selfconcept. When followers internalize these norms
as part of their self-identity, they become more aware
of who they should be, what they should know, and
what they need to do to be accepted as part of the
collective by its members.
One aspect of followers self-concept that prior
research (e.g., Zhu et al. 2011) has linked to the
charismatic behaviors of transformational leaders is
moral identity, which Aquino and Reed (2002, p.
1424) defined as a self-conception organized around
a set of moral traits and a distinct mental image of
what a moral person is likely to think, feel, and do.
Theories of social identity (Erikson 1964) and social
cognition (Bandura 1999) suggest that individuals
with a high level of moral identity will strive to act in
ways that are consistent with the moral values and
principles associated with the social group or
organization that is a salient part of their self-concept.
In his review of the moral identity literature, Zhu
(2008) concluded that individuals who possess a high
level of moral identity are more likely to commit to
and act in accordance with their moral principles,
despite the personal risks associated with doing so.
These individuals also tend to make personal
sacrifices for the good of the group, which often
inspires others to think and act ethically (Zhu 2008).
As argued above, charismatic leaders who are
perceived by followers to display a constructive form

Hang on to Your Ego

of narcissism based on a socialized power


motivation psychologically empower followers.
Such empowerment occurs through role
modeling and the development of positive
attitudes about ones work, self-concept, and the
contributions and sacrifices one makes for the
greater good of the collective (Spreitzer 1995).
Social cognitive theory (Bandura 1999) suggests
that when followers view a highly confident
leader optimistically articulating a vision of
positive change for the greater good, they may
perceive such leadership as ethical and become
prepared to assume greater moral responsibility.
Zhu (2008) pointed out that such vicarious
learning by followers gained from a self-assured
and optimistic leader may ultimately develop
followers into moral exemplars through moral
socialization processes described by Hoffman
(1988). Theories of moral development
(Hoffman 1988; Kegan 1982; Kohlberg 1976)
suggest that holding positive attitudes about
ones empowered capabilities and autonomy
while working toward a collective goal can shift
the focus of concern from the self to the
collective. Other-oriented focus is often
associated with leaders and followers, who
maintain higher moral principles, believe that
they are moral people, and thus possess a
stronger moral identity (Kuhnert and Lewis
1987; Sosik et al. 2011; Zhu 2008).
In contrast, charismatic leaders who are
perceived by followers to display a destructive
form of narcissism based on a personalized
power motivation exploit followers and promote
their dependence on the leader (Kark et al.
2003). Such exploitation and dependency can
have deleterious effects on the psychological
empowerment of followers and lessen the
salience of their moral identity. When followers
recognize destructive aspects of narcissism such
as amorality, lack of empathy towards others, or
irrationality in a charismatic leaders words or
behavior, they are likely to lose trust,
confidence, and commitment to the leader and
question the rhetoric and logic of the leaders
vision. In this case, followers may view working
towards the greater good of the collective as
unwise, immoral, or even unethical, if the
symbolic words and behaviors of the
personalized charismatic leader are inconsistent
with the implicit personal values and beliefs held
by the followers.

71

Theories of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957)


and authenticity (Sheldon 2002) suggest that such
inconsistency can be uncomfortable and lessen the
degree of self-concept clarity regarding whether one
is a moral person. If the identity of a reasonably
moral follower becomes rooted in the rhetoric,
behavior, and vision of a destructively narcissistic
leader who relies on deception, manipulation, and
intimidation to satisfy his/her need for approval, the
follower is likely to reexamine his/her own personal
beliefs and attitudes toward his/her work and
membership in the leaders group. Theories of moral
development (e.g., Hoffman 1988) suggest that
holding negative attitudes about ones empowered
capabilities and dependence while working toward a
collective goal can shift the focus of concern to the
self. Self-oriented attention is often associated with
leaders and followers who maintain lower moral
principles, lack self-awareness of their own morality,
and thus may possess a weaker moral identity
(Kohlberg 1976; Kuhnert and Lewis 1987; Sosik et
al. 2011).
Prior empirical research has discovered links
between the extent to which leaders display ethical
behavior and the psychological empowerment and
moral identity of followers. For example, Zhu (2008)
found that followers psychological empowerment
mediated the relationship between ethical leadership
and followers moral identity. Based on the research
summarized above, we similarly propose that
follower psychological empowerment will explain
how leader charisma interacts with constructive and
destructive forms of narcissism to influence
followers moral identity. Thus,
Hypothesis 3 Follower psychological empowerment
will mediate the interactive effects of leader charisma
and perceived (a) constructive narcissism and (b)
destructive narcissism on follower moral identity.

Methods
Participants and Procedure
We asked a research service company to issue an
internetbased survey to 2,200 potential participants
across a broad variety of industries throughout the
United States. Participation in the survey was limited
to those who had been in leaderfollower
relationships as direct reports at least for 3 months.
Voluntary participation was ensured but the

123

72

participants had a chance to win 10-dollar gift


certificates.
To warrant confidentiality and anonymity in the
response while minimizing socially desirable
responding, survey instructions emphasized that
the survey was only for academic research and
only aggregated results without personal
information would be published. Six hundred
and seventy-two individuals responded, with a
response rate of 30.5 %. Of these, 5
questionnaires returned were excluded because
of their incomplete ratings on key study
variables, resulting in 667 useable data records.
In the final sample, 297 participants (44.5 %)
were female; the average age was 47.8 years
(SD = 10.80); 421 participants (63.1 %) had a 4year college degree or higher; and the average
years in the current position was 7.87 (SD =
7.78). Respondents came from over 13
industries, including retail/wholesale (23 %),
banking and finance (13 %), information
technology (13 %), and manufacturing (12 %).
Measures
The participants rated their direct supervisors
charismatic leadership and constructive and
destructive narcissism, and reported their own
psychological empowerment and moral identity.
Unless otherwise indicated, every item was
measured on a seven-point response scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).
Charismatic Leadership
We assessed charismatic leadership along two
core dimensions of authentic transformational
leadership, including idealized influence and
inspirational motivation, which were measured
by items from the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass and Avolio
1997). Because two of the 12 items assessing the
charismatic leadership in the MLQ-5X represent
socialized charismatic leadership (i.e., My
leader considers the moral and ethical
consequences of decisions, and My leader
goes beyond self-interest for the good of the
group) (Bass and Avolio 1997; Bass and
Steidlmeier 1999), we excluded them to capture
an ethically neutral form of charismatic
leadership. A total of 10 items used typify the
charismatic quality, such as strong value

123

J. J. Sosik et al.

orientation, confidence, enthusiasm, and vision. A


sample item states My leader talks optimistically
about the future. Respondents indicated how
frequently each statement described their leader
behavior on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all)
to 5 (frequently, if not always). The Cronbachs alpha
was .93.
Leader Narcissism
To assess constructive and destructive narcissism, we
used Winks (1992) three observer-based narcissism
scales based on a California Q-set (CAQ) narcissism
prototype. The three scales include items for
willfulness,
hypersensitivity,
and
autonomy
dimensions. The willfulness dimension represents
self-assuredness, rebelliousness, and exhibitionism
characteristics
of
overt
narcissism.
The
hypersensitivity form of narcissism refers to social
inhibition, cynicism, and depression along with
hostility, indicative of covert narcissism. Contrarily,
the autonomy dimension is characterized by
achievement orientation, creative and intellectual
interests, empathy, and independence, and thus
represents a healthy form of narcissism. Five items of
the autonomy scale reflecting the healthy form of
narcissism were used to assess perceived constructive
narcissism, excluding a reverse-coded item. In
contrast, the willfulness and hypersensitivity
dimensions represent the dysfunctional aspects of
narcissism and share in common hostility and
ineffective control of impulses (Wink 1992). Thus,
we used 7 items capturing these two forms of
narcissism to measure followers perception of leader
destructive narcissism. Sample items state My
leader has a high aspiration level of self
(constructive narcissism) and My leader
characteristically pushes and tries to stretch limits;
sees what s/he can get away with (destructive
narcissism). Cronbachs alphas for the constructive
and destructive narcissism scales were .72 and .93,
respectively.
Psychological Empowerment
We used a 12-item scale developed by Spreitzer
(1995) to measure self-reported psychological
empowerment. Sample items for each of the four
subscales include the following: The work I do is
very important to me (meaning); I am confident
about my ability to do my job (competence); I can

Hang on to Your Ego

decide on my own how to go about doing my


work (self-determination); and My impact on
what happens in my department is large
(impact). Because these four dimensions had
relatively high inter-correlations (ranging from .
54 to .74), we averaged the 12 items of four
dimensions to form an overall index of
psychological empowerment (Cronbach alpha
= .92), which is consistent with the strategy
adopted by Spreitzer (1995).
Moral Identity
To measure followers self-reported moral
identity, we used a 5-item scale developed and
validated by Zhu et al. (2011). This scale of
moral identity was specifically designed to tap
how leadership primes an individual assuming a
follower role, which is suitable for our research
purpose. Sample items state I am committed to
my moral principles, and I am willing to place
the collective interest over my own personal ego
and interest. The Cronbachs alpha of the scale
was .90.
Control Variables
Prior research (e.g., Bass 2008; Zhu et al. 2011)
has theoretically or empirically linked follower
age, gender, educational level, and gender
composition of the leaderfollower relationship
to our study variables. As such, we included
these demographic variables as controls. Age
was in number of years. Gender was dummy
coded (female = 1; male = 0). A dummy variable
was also used to measure the leaderfollower
gender composition (same = 1; different = 0).
The educational level was measured as less than
highschool
=
1;highschooldegree
=
2;somecollege = 3; associate degree = 4; fouryear college = 5; master degree = 6; doctoral
degree or equivalent = 7.

Results
Preliminary Analyses

73

Confirmatory Factor Analyses


The data in this study were based on a single rating
source (i.e., followers), and thus testing hypotheses
might be subject to a common method bias
(Podsakoff et al. 2012). We attempted to minimize
this method artifact by ensuring respondent
anonymity, counterbalancing item order, and
improving response scale in the phases of
questionnaire development and data collection.
Nonetheless, we conducted a series of confirmatory
factor analyses to empirically verify whether there
was a serious method factor and to ensure construct
validity.
First, we examined the fit indices of a five-factor
model (charisma, constructive narcissism, destructive
narcissism, psychological empowerment, and moral
identity) including two second-order factors
(charisma and psychological empowerment). The
result revealed that the five-factor model fit the data
adequately (v2 (df) = 2664.36 (686), CFI = .91, TLI
= .90, RMSEA = .06). Second, following Podsakoff
et al.s (2012) suggestion, we conducted another
confirmatory factor analysis using a single-methodfactor approach that partitions a total of response
variance into trait, method, and random error
components by adding an unmeasured method factor
on which all items of the five study variables were set
to load. Fit indices of this fivefactor model with
method factor (v2 (df) = 2068.96 (648), CFI = .93,
TLI = .92, RMSEA = .06) and Chi-squared difference
between the first and second models ((Dv 2 (Ddf) =
595.4 (38), p\.01) indicated that inclusion of the
method factor in the five-factor model significantly
improved the model fit. However, the comparison of
squared-multiple correlations between the two
models revealed that the method factor explained an
additional 17 % of the total response variance, which
is much below the usual method variance (25 %)
found by Williams et al. (1989). Furthermore, even
after controlling for the method factor, all factor
loadings of items on their respective study variables
remained above .50. Taken together, there was a
common method factor present in our data, but it
appeared minimal and might not significantly bias the
results of hypothesis testing. Therefore, these results
of confirmatory factor analyses provide evidence of
construct validity for our study measures and help
minimize the concern for common method bias.

123

74
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and alphas of variables
Variables

SD

1. Age

47.78

10.80

2. Gender
3. Education
4. Gender composition

J. J. Sosik et al.

.45

.50

-.23**

4.57

1.40

.03

-.10**

.64

.48

.11**

-.41**

.03

.90

.05

-.05

.04

6. Constructive narcissism

4.96

1.11

.07

-.01

7. Destructive narcissism

2.96

1.61

-.11**

8. Psychological empowerment

4.20

.68

9. Moral identity

4.41

.67

.06

.08*
.09*

(.93)
.61**

-.01

-.01

.22**

.01

-.07

-.03

.37**

.36**

-.42**

.24**

.03

-.01

-.02

.39**

.36**

-.28**

Tests of Hypotheses
To test the hypothesized research model of
mediated moderation, we followed the
procedure suggested by Edwards and Lambert
(2007) and used the application developed by
Preacher et al. (2007). The application involves
the following four steps to test our research
model. At the first step, the mediator (follower
psychological empowerment) is sequentially
regressed on the independent variable
(charisma), the moderator (narcissism), and the
interaction (charisma 9 narcissism), and the
interaction effect should be significant in the
regression. A simple slope test is also conducted
to probe the pattern of interaction effect (Aiken
and West 1991). At the second step, the
dependent variable (moral identity) is regressed
on the mediator (psychological empowerment)
in addition to the independent variable, the
moderator, and the interaction. In this regression,
the mediator should have a significant effect on
the dependent variable. Finally, the third and

-.53**

(.72)

.01

Table 1 presents the means, standarddeviations,


Cronbachs alphas, and zero-order correlations
of all variables included in this study. Tests of
skewness and kurtosis of the study
variablesproducedabsolutevaluesbelow2.0,indica
tingthat the variables were normally distributed
(Kerlinger and Lee 1999). The hypothesized
relationships among study variables seem to be
well represented in the correlations. Specifically,
leader charisma was positively correlated with
followers psychological empowerment (r = .37,
p\.01), which in turn was positively related to
their moral identity (r = .59, p\.01).

3.72

Descriptive Statistics

5. Charisma

123

-.15**

(.93)
(.92)
.59**

fourth steps test the conditional indirect effects by


specifying high and low levels of the moderator as
one standard deviation above and below the mean
value of moderator. At the third and fourth steps, the
Sobel test with normal distribution assumption and
the bootstrap method to obtain 95 % confidence
intervals with 5,000 bootstrapped subsamples are
conducted, respectively. This
Values in parentheses along the diagonal are Cronbachs alphas
N =

667 *

p\.05, ** p\.01

four-step application also integrates the stepwise


procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986).
Before the four-step application, we mean-centered
all the variables used as a component of the
interaction term to avoid a multicollinearity issue
(Aiken and West 1991). Tables 2 and 3 present the
regression results of the mediated moderation models
for constructive and destructive narcissism,
respectively. As the regression model 2 at step 1 in
Tables 2 and 3 shows, leader charisma was positively
related to follower psychological empowerment (b= .
37, p\.01) after controlling for follower age, gender,
education, and leaderfollower gender composition.
This result supports Hypothesis 1.
We predicted that the positive relationship between
leader charisma and follower psychological
empowerment is stronger when the perceived
constructive narcissism is high than when it is low
(Hypotheses 2a), and when the perceived destructive
narcissism is low than when it is high (Hypothesis
2b). Regression model 4 at step 1 in Table 2 shows
that the interaction effect between leader charisma
and
constructive
narcissism
on
follower
psychological empowerment was significant (b= .20,
p\.01; DR2 = .04, p\.01). Also, regression model 4 at
step 1 in Table 3 indicates that the interaction
between leader charisma and destructive narcissism

(.90)

Hang on to Your Ego

was significantly associated with follower


psychological empowerment (b=- .25, p\.01;
DR2 = .06, p\.01). To probe the interaction
patterns, we plotted two simple slopes at one
standard deviation above and below the mean
value of each type of narcissism. As shown in
Fig. 2a, the positive relationship between leader
charisma and psychological empowerment was
stronger when the perceived constructive
narcissism was high (simple slope b = .35, t =
8.59, p\.01) than when it was low (simple slope
b = .07, t = 1.66, p[.05).
This pattern of interaction and significant
interaction effect support Hypothesis 2a. Figure
2b shows that the positive relationship between
leader
charisma
and
psychological
empowerment was more pronounced when the
perceived destructive narcissism was low
(simple slope b = .40, t = 10.28, p\.01) than
when it was high (simple slope b = .04, t = 1.01,
p[.05). This interaction pattern was consistent
with Hypothesis 2b.
We also predicted the mediating role of
psychological empowerment in the relationship
between charisma narcissism interaction and
follower moral identity. The result of regression
model 5 at step 2 in Table 2 reveals that follower
psychological empowerment as the mediator was
significantly associated with moral identity after
controlling for the effects of leader charisma,
constructive narcissism, and their interaction on
moral identity (b= .48, p\.01), thus supporting
Hypothesis 3a. Consistent with Hypothesis 3b,
as presented in model 5 at step 2 in Table 3,
psychological empowerment was significantly
related
to
moral
identity,
aftercontrollingfortheeffectsofleadercharisma,de
structive narcissism, and their interaction (b= .
50, p\.01).
Although results of the steps 1 and 2 above
indicate that leader charisma interacts with
constructive and destructive narcissism to
influence the extent of follower psychological
empowerment which in turn positively relates to
follower moral identity, these separate analyses
do not directly assess the conditional indirect
effects. Therefore, as shown in the bottom
portions of Tables 2 and 3, subsequent analyses
at the steps 3 and 4 examined the conditional
indirect effects at high and low levels of each
type of narcissism. Results of both the Sobel
tests and bootstrap method revealed that the

75

indirect effect of leader charisma on follower moral


identity
through
follower
psychological
empowerment was significant only when the
perceived constructive narcissism was high (z = 6.92,
p\.01; boot z = 5.47, p\.01) and when the perceived
destructive narcissism was low (z = 7.57, p\.01; boot
z = 5.86, p\.01). These results corroborate the
hypothesized research model of mediated moderation.

123

76
Table 2 Results for the mediated moderation: constructive narcissism
Predictors

J. J. Sosik et al.

Step 1
Psychological empowerment
Model 1

Step 2
Moral identity

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Controls
Age

.23**

.22**

.21**

.20**

.14**

Gender

.04

.04

.03

.03

.06
.02

Education

-.07

-.08*

-.09*

-.09*

Gender composition

-.04

-.06

-.07

-.07

-.03

Independent variable
Charisma

.37**

.23**

.27**

.17**

.22**

.22**

.07

Moderator
Constructive narcissism
Interactive effect
Charisma 9 constructive narcissism

.20**

-.04

Mediator
Psychological empowerment

.48**

F
R2
2

Adjusted R

9.68**

30.51**

30.38**

32.45**

57.10**

.06

.19

.22

.26

.41

.05

.18

.21

.25

.40

.13**

.03**

.04**

DR2
Constructive narcissism

Conditional indirect effects at constructive narcissism = mean 1 SD


Indirect effects

SE

Low (mean - 1 SD)

.03

.02

1.85

High (mean ? 1 SD)

.16

.02

6.92**

Low (mean - 1 SD)

.03

.02

1.74

High (mean ? 1 SD)

.16

.03

5.47**

Step 3: Sobel test

Step 4: Bootstrap method

Standardized regression coefficients are shown in the


regression result
N = 667. Bootstrap N = 5,000
* p\.05, ** p\.01

Discussion
A substantial amount of research on charismatic
leaders has been concerned with their traits,
behaviors, and the motivational mechanisms
they use to influence followers to produce
individual, group, and organizational outcomes
(Conger and Kanungo 1998; Howell and Shamir
2005). The main goal of the current study was to
focus on the ethics and morality of charismatic
leaders and their motivational influences on
followers morality by examining on a

123

personality trait of charismatic leaders that has


received far less empirical attentionnarcissism, in
both its constructive and destructive forms. To this
end, we developed and tested a theoretical process
model of mediated moderation demonstrating how
followers psychological empowerment mediated the
relationship between the interaction of an ethically
neutral form of leader charisma with narcissism type
and followers moral identity.
Several notable findings of our study support
and/or extend prior research. First, as predicted,
leader charisma was found to be positively related to
both follower psychological empowerment and moral
identity. This result is consistent with prior theoretical
and
empirical
research
that
haslinkedethicalleadershipandtransformationalleaders
hip to follower psychological empowerment and
moral
identity

Hang on to Your Ego

77

(BrownandTrevino2006;Zhu2008;Zhuetal.2011).
Given that moral identity is part of an
individuals overall selfconcept (Aquino and
Reed 2002; Weaver 2006), this result also
provides empirical support for self-concept
based theories of charismatic leadership (e.g.,
Shamir et al. 1993). Moreover, this result also
suggests that leaders may not necessarily have to
display all four behavioral components

Bass (1985); the charisma components of


inspirational motivation and idealized influence
may be sufficient as shown in Barling et al. (2008)
study of the morality of transformational leadership.
Second, results depicted in Fig. 2 indicated that
when a leader is perceived by followers to possess a
more constructive and less destructive narcissistic
personality, the leaders charisma has a stronger
positive relationship with followers psychological

Table 3 Results for the mediated moderation: destructive narcissism


Predictors

Step 1
Psychological empowerment
Model 1

Step 2
Moral identity

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Controls
Age

.23**

.22**

.19**

.16**

.15**

Gender

.04

.04

.04

.01

.06

Education

-.07

-.08*

-.07*

-.06

Gender composition

-.04

-.06

-.05

-.06

Independent variable
Charisma

.37**

Moderator
Destructive narcissism

.21**
-.29**

.03
-.02

.30**

.24**

-.28**

.07

-.25**

.01

Interactive effect
Charisma 9 destructive narcissism
Mediator
Psychological empowerment

.50**

9.68**

30.51**

35.94**

40.58**

56.85**

R2

.06

.19

.25

.30

.41

Adjusted R2

.05

.18

.24

.29

.40

.13**

.06**

.06**

DR2
Destructive narcissism

Conditional indirect effects at destructive narcissism = mean 1 SD


Indirect effects

SE

Low (mean - 1 SD)

.19

.03

7.57**

High (mean ? 1 SD)

.03

.02

1.76

Low (mean - 1 SD)

.20

.03

5.86**

High (mean ? 1 SD)

.03

.02

1.57

Step 3: Sobel test

Step 4: Bootstrap method

Standardized regression coefficients are shown in the


regression result
N

Bootstrap

667.
N

5,000 * p\.05, **
p\.01

of transformational leadership in order to


empower followers as originally pointed out by

empowerment. Contrarily, leader charisma did not


have a significant positive relationship with
followers psychological empowerment when the
leader was perceived to possess less constructive
and more destructive narcissism. This result
suggests that not every charismatic leader can
empower followers. Followers feel empowered only
when they perceive the charisma to be based on
more constructive narcissism and less destructive

123

78

J. J. Sosik et al.

narcissism. To the extent that charisma


displayed by leaders is an integral component
of transformational leadership (Bass 1985;
Bass and Steidlmeier 1999), these results are
also consistent with findings reported by Kark
et al. (2003) linking transformational
leadership and elements of empowerment.
Authentic transformational leaders are able to
control their narcissism and use their socialized
power to improve followers skillsets and raise
their level of confidence and moral
development (Bass and Steidlmeier 1999).
These results are also consistent with the
findings of Barling et al. (2008) indicating that
leaders perceived by followers as displaying
high levels of both idealized influence and
inspirational motivation (i.e., authentic
transformational
leaders
who
possess
socialized charisma) are associated with lower
levels of follower dependence

Destructive
narcissism
High

narcissism

Destructive

Low

narcissism
High
Constructive
Constructive
narcissism
Low

Psychological empowerment
4
6
3
5
2

Psychological empowerment

Low charisma

High charisma

Fig. 2 Interactive effects of leader charisma and narcissism on


follower psychological empowerment
3

123

Low charisma

High charismathan

leaders perceived as displaying low levels of


idealized influence and high levels of inspirational
motivation (i.e., pseudo-transformational leaders who
possess personalized charisma). The elements of
empowerment measured in the Kark et al. (2003)
study were significantly and negatively related to
follower dependence.

Hang on to Your Ego

Third, follower psychological empowerment


fully mediated the relationship between the
leader charisma narcissism interaction and
follower moral identity. This result highlights the
importance of psychological empowerment for
priming followers moral identity, and appears to
be consistent with previous theorizing in the
moral identity literature. Specifically, Aquino
and Reed (2002) suggest that moral identity is
associated with feelings of efficacy, competence,
and courage that are useful in successfully
dealing with moral challenges. Given the limited
control over their decisions and behaviors, most
followers encounter ethical and moral challenges
in organizations that may impede their ability to
follow moral rules (Brown and Trevino 2006).
As such, followers may not be able to be moral
even if they may want to be moral. However,
when followers are psychologically empowered
(i.e., competent, self-determined, and allowed to
make impactful decisions), they are likely to
become moral and ethical or at least believe that
they would be so.
The results of this study provide several
theoretical implications that shed light on the
ethics of charismatic leaders and their influence
on followers moral identity. Our research results
indicating the mediated moderation model
described above support the notion that a
leaders charisma and destructive narcissistic
personality combine to detract from the
development of followers moral identity
through empowerment processes. Moreover, a
review of Table 1 indicates a negative
association between followers perception of
leaders destructive narcissism and followers
moral identity. In hindsight, social learning
theory (Bandura 1999) may explain this
relationship by describing how followers look to
leaders for ethical guidance. Narcissistic leaders
suffer from deficiencies in identity and empathy
(APA 2012). As such, the more followers
recognize and perceive these traits in their
leader, the less sure they may be regarding what
constitutes being a moral person within their
organization. Prior theoretical and empirical
research on the traits of moral leaders (e.g.,
Riggio et al. 2010; Sosik and Cameron 2010)
suggest that the self-identity of such leaders
stems from character strengths and virtues,
which Weaver (2006) identified as important
elements of moral identity that affects ones

79

behaviors and influence on others. Future research


should examine the content of the self-concept of
narcissistic leaders and their followers to better
understand the type of person they believe they
should be.
Prior research has found inverse relationships
between personality traits associated with destructive
narcissism (e.g., manipulativeness) and leader
honesty and respectable leadership emergence
(Paunonen et al. 2006). Because our model is
grounded in a conceptual framework of narcissism
and emerging charismatic leadership patterns
(Humphreys et al. 2010), it may explain these
findings. Specifically, it is possible that charismatic
persons possessing a destructive narcissistic
personality may emerge as leaders initially but they
are less likely to maintain the leadership positions in
the long run, because followers do not feel as
empowered by such leaders compared to leaders
whose charisma is accompanied by a constructive
narcissistic personality. As followers recognize a
leaders excessive desire to be revered for his/her
accomplishments and the titles, honor, and fame that
comes with them, they may ultimately view the
leaderfollower relationship as shallow, one-sided,
and/or self-serving. Implicit theories of what
constitutes outstanding leadership in contemporary
contexts reviewed by Bass (2008) and Yukl (2010)
suggest that leaders are expected to act more as
servants and facilitators who use behaviors that
reflect an ethic of care for others, as opposed to
acting with arrogance, egotism, self-indulgence, and
exploitation of others. These latter behaviors
characterizing destructive narcissism would be
consistent with theoretical explanations of
pseudotransformational leadership (Bass and
Steidlmeier
1999),
personalized
charismatic
leadership (House and Howell 1992), and leadership
that encourages the pursuit of questionable goals
(Giampetro-Meyer et al. 1998).
An alternative explanation for these findings
regards the toxic triangle of leadership, a
theoretical model developed by Padilla et al. (2007)
that describes the characteristics of leaders, followers,
and contexts associated with destructive forms of
leadership. According to this model, destructive
leadership is likely to emerge when charismatic
leaders, who possess a narcissistic personality and use
their power for personal gain and selfaggrandizement, interact with susceptible followers.
Such followers either conform or collude with
personalized charismatic leaders because they possess

123

80

unmet needs, low core self-evaluations, low


maturity, or ambitions, worldviews, and bad
values similar to those of the leader (Padilla et
al. 2007). Results of the current study suggest a
theoretical addition to the literature on
followership and toxic leadership. Specifically,
charismatic individuals possessing a destructive
narcissistic personality may emerge as leaders
initially and may be more likely to maintain their
leadership positions in the long run, because
followers do not feel empowered or morally
independent. As such, followers may lack the
wherewithal, power, and sense of moral
autonomy/ authority to challenge the destructive
leaders. Future empirical research is needed to
test the competing alternative explanations for
these findings.
In addition, the mediated moderation model
supported by our data can guide future research
towards a better understanding of how leader
charisma influences the self-concept of
followers. Self-concept based explanations of
charismatic leadership (e.g., Howell and Shamir
2005; Humphreys et al. 2010; Lord and Brown
2001; Shamir et al. 1993) do not explain how
leader personality traits interact with charisma to
influence the extent to which followers feel both
empowered and moral. Our model suggests that
charisma displayed by a leader who possesses a
more constructive and less destructive
narcissistic personality is able to prime
followers moral identity by psychologically
empowering them. Future work may build upon
our model to ascertain whether the interaction of
constructive narcissism and leader charisma is
conceptually and empirically related to
socialized
charisma
and
authentic
transformational leadership, and whether the
interaction of destructive narcissism and leader
charisma can be linked to personalized charisma
and pseudotransformational leadership.
Several methodological issues of the current
study place limitations on the interpretation of its
results, and these issues should be addressed in
future research. These include the studys crosssectional design, which precludes claims of
causality from being made, and single-source
data collection from direct reports, which may
result in common method bias and inflated
associations among study variables (Podsakoff et
al. 2012). In their metaanalytic review of
organizational science research, Doty and Glick

123

J. J. Sosik et al.

(1998) concluded that the presence of common


method bias does not invalidate many studies, and
Spector (2006) came to the same conclusion in his
subsequent analysis. Consistent with these views, our
statistical evaluation of response variance indicated
that the common method factor in our data was not a
serious concern.
Nevertheless, future research should collect data
from multiple independent sources at different points
in time or alternatively use experimental designs to
attempt to replicate the findings of the current study.
Although our sample was diverse and represented a
variety of industries, we cannot be sure that it is
representative of U.S. business managers because the
research service company did not provide us with
data from which we could draw such a conclusion. It
would be helpful if researchers can collect a random
sample that is representative of U.S. managers to
better understand the complex relationships of the
proposed hypotheses of this study. Furthermore, due
to restrictions placed upon us by the research service
company, each focal leader was rated by one direct
report. Such leadership ratings may be idiosyncratic,
subject to attributional biases, and not fully
representative of leader personal attributes and
behaviors (Yukl 2010). Future research should engage
more numerous direct reports of each leader. In
addition to enabling a test of inter-rater consistency,
such an undertaking also would allow for data
collection from various individuals who may each
hold different perceptions of the leader across the
leaders span of control.
In addition, our hypothesized research model was
limited to examining two leader personal attributes
(i.e., charisma and narcissism) and two follower
outcomes (i.e., psychological empowerment and
moral identity). Although our model aimed to achieve
a balance between being leader- and follower-centric
(Bass 2008), future research may also extend our
model by accounting for other personal attributes of
leaders and followers associated with narcissism(e.g.,
Paunonenet al.2006)andauthenticity(e.g., Bass and
Steidlmeier 1999) that would determine whether
leaders use socialized or personalized power to
influence followers to attain more distal performance
outcomes, such as managerial and business unit
performance from the financial, customer,
operational, and human resource perspectives of
organizations (Kaplan and Norton 2007). These
attempts may help research on leadership ethics
establish a legitimate implication for business
organizations. These model extensions could be

Hang on to Your Ego

tested across a variety of industries with varying


levels of uncertainty/crisis where charisma is
proposed to be most effective (Conger and
Kanungo 1998).
Despite these limitations, future research
might benefit by following our approach to
operationalizing all elements of Spreitzers
(1995) conceptualization of empowerment and
the two prominent forms of narcissism
(Rosenthal and Pittinsky 2006) tested in our
model. Our method provides an improvement
over how these variables were measured in past
research which did not cover the full range of
factors in empowerment conceptualizations (cf.,
Kark et al. 2003) and used personality traits of
egotism, manipulativeness, self-esteem, and
impression management as surrogate measures
of the two forms of narcissism (Paunonen et al.
2006).
In conclusion, this study has contributed to
the literature on ethics of business leaders, many
of whom possess personal attributes of charisma
and narcissism, who influence their employees
by either promoting their moral and professional
development, or by facilitating their moral or
ethical downfall. We proposed and tested a
model of mediated moderation for understanding
how leader charisma and two forms of
narcissism interact to influence followers
psychological empowerment and its association
with follower moral identity, thus helping to
better understand the different ways socialized
and personalized charismatic leaders influence
followers
ethics
and
morality.
This
understanding is both important and timely
given the prevalence of arrogant, entitled, and
egotistical behavior and quests for recognition
by individuals in contemporary work
environments (Maccoby 2003), especially in top
management levels of organizations (Kets de
Vries 2006), and society in general (Trasier and
Eighmy 2011; Cooper and Pullig 2013). As such,
the results of this study have implications for
individuals selected for leadership positions in
organizations, their interactions with coworkers,
and how they affect the ethical behavior of
others in the workplace. Organizations have to
be careful about selecting charismatic
individuals because they may possess the
destructive form of narcissism that can have
deleterious effects on the psychological
empowerment and moral identity of their

81

associates. Thus, organizations interested in


empowering their associates and protecting their
sense of morality are well advised to screen out
charismatic candidates who score high on measures
of destructive narcissism. In addition, organizational
leaders possessing these traits may benefit from the
development and delivery of training programs on
how to control narcissistic impulses and strive for
more humility and concern for others by working to
meet the psychological and developmental needs of
others (Kets de Vries 2006; Popper 2011). As our
results suggest, leaders who can keep their ego in
check and use their charisma to empower others may,
as Burns (1978) called for, raise followers to higher
levels of moral identity, and while doing so, become
moral agents themselves.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
American Psychiatric Association. (2012). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders 5 development:
Proposed revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Association. Retrieved August 17, 2012 from
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/
Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=19.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003).
Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor
full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(3), 261295.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral
identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83(6), 14231440.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Reexamining
the components of transformational and transactional
leadership
using
the
Multifactor
Leadership
Questionnaire.
Journal
of
Occupational
and
Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441462.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Puja, B. (2004).
Transformational
leadership
and
organizational
commitment:
Mediating
role
of
psychological
empowerment and moderating role of structural distance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951968.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration
of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 3, 193209.
Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudotransformational leadership: Towards the development
and test of a model. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 851
861.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator
variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.

123

82
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (2008). TheBass handbook of
leadership:Theory, research
and
managerial
applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership
development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Palo Alto: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character,
and authentic transformational leadership behavior.
The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181217.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical
leadership: A review and future directions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595616.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper &
Row.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic
leadership: The elusive factor in organizational
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2002).
Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747767.
Cooper, M. J., & Pullig, C. (2013). Im number one!
Does narcissism impair ethical judgment even for
the highly religious? Journal of Business Ethics,
112(1), 167176.
Crawford, T. N., Cohen, P., Johnson, J. G., Kasen, S.,
First, M. B., Gordon, K., et al. (2005). Self-reported
personality disorder in the children in the
community sample: Convergent and prospective
validity in late adolescence and adulthood. Journal
of Personality Disorders, 19(1), 3052.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why
of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,
11, 227268.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods
bias: Does common methods variance really bias
results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374
406.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for
integrating moderation and mediation: A general
analytical framework using moderated path analysis.
Psychological Methods, 12, 122.
Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility. New
York: Norton. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive
dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, M. N., &
Kubasek, N. (1998). Do we really want more
leaders in business? Journal of Business Ethics, 17,
17271736.
Hoffman, M. L. (1988). Moral development. In M. H.
Bornstein & M. L. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental
psychology: An advanced textbook (2nd ed., pp.
205260). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic
leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189207).
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and
charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
3(2), 81108.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers
in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships

123

J. J. Sosik et al.
and their consequences. Academy of Management
Review, 30(1), 96112.
Humphreys, J., Zhao, D., Ingram, K., Gladstone, J., & Basham,
L. (2010). Situational narcissism and charismatic
leadership: A conceptual framework. Journal of
Behavioral and Applied Management, 11(2), 118136.
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving
yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic
personality to selfand other perceptions of workplace
deviance, leadership, and task and contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 762
776.
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership
in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness,
and collectiveefficacy on perceived group performance.
Small Group Research, 33(3), 313336.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2007). Using the balanced
scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard
Business Review, 85(78), 150.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of
transformational
leadership:
Empowerment
and
dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246
255.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in
human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (1999). Foundations of
behavioral
research
(4th
ed.).
Stamford:
Wadsworth/Thompson.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2006). The leader on the couch: A
clinical
approachto
changingpeople
andorganizations.NewYork:Wiley.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The
cognitivedevelopmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.),
Moral development and behavior (pp. 3153). New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and
transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental
analysis. The Academy of Management Review, 12(4),
648657.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and
subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership Quarterly,
12(2), 133152.
Maccoby, M. (2003). The productive narcissist: The promise
and peril of visionary leadership. New York: Broadway
Books.
Millon, T. (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM-IV-TM and
beyond. New York: Wiley.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic
triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and
conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(3), 176194.
Paunonen, S. V., Lonnqvist, J. E., Verkasalo, M., Leikas, S., &
Nissinen, V. (2006). Narcissism and emergent leadership
in military cadets. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(5), 475
486.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and
counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger
problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
10, 126134. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., &
Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it.
Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539569.
Popper, M. (2011). Toward a theory of followership. Review of
General Psychology, 15(1), 2936.

Hang on to Your Ego


Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007).
Addressing moderated mediation hypothesis:
Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 42, 185227.
Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A.
(2010). Virtuebased measurement of ethical
leadership: The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Research and
Practice, 62(4), 235250.
Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617
633.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The
motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A
self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4,
557593.
Sheldon, K. M. (2002). The self-concordance model of
healthy goalstriving: When personal goals correctly
represent the person. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan
(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research
(pp. 6586). Rochester: University of Rochester
Press.
Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Selfconcordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of
happiness: Can there be an upward spiral?
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,80(1),152
165.
Sosik, J. J., & Cameron, J. C. (2010). Character and
authentic transformational leadership behavior:
Expanding the ascetic self toward others. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4),
251269.
Sosik, J. J., & Dinger, S. L. (2007). Relationships
between leadership style and vision content: The
moderating role of need for approval, selfmonitoring, and need for social power. The
Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 134153.

83
Sosik,J.J.,Juzbasich,J.,&Chun,J.U.
(2011).Effectsofmoralreasoning and management level on
ratings of charismatic leadership, in-role and extra-role
performance of managers: A multisource examination.
The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 434450.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational
research: Truth or urban legend. Organizational Research
Methods, 9(2), 221232.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the
workplace: Dimensions, measurement & validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 14421465.
Trasier, S., & Eighmy, M. A. (2011). Moral development and
narcissism of private and public university business
students. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 325334.
Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity
as a foundation for moral agency. Organizational Studies,
27(3), 341368.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic
organizations (T. Parsons, Trans.) New York: Free Press.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of
method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at
work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 462468.
Wink, P. (1992). Three narcissism scales for the California Qset. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 5166.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Zhu, W. (2008). The effect of ethical leadership on follower
moral identity: The mediating role of psychological
empowerment. Leadership Review, 8, 6273.
Zhu, W., Riggio, R., Avolio, B. J., & Sosik, J. J. (2011). The
effect of leadership on follower moral identity: Does
transformational/ transactional style make a difference?
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(2),
150163.

123

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media
B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

You might also like