Competitive workplace environments
As some research indicates, various features of workplaces may promote one facet of narcissism in particular: a sense of entitlement. For example, in workplaces that are competitive—and, for example, managers compare the results or performance of various staff—individuals are more likely to demonstrate entitlement. This possibility was uncovered by a pair of studies, published by Černe et al. (2025). The first study was conducted longitudinally.
- First, staff, recruited from 10 technology companies in China, completed a measure that assesses the degree to which the climate of their workplace was competitive, epitomised by items like “My coworkers frequently compare their results with mine” (Brown et al., 1998).
- In addition, these staff completed a measure that assesses the degree to which they perceive themselves as creative, such as “I suggest new ways to achieve goals or objectives” (Zhou & George, 2001).
- Finally, two months later, these staff indicated the degree to which they feel entitled, such as “I honestly feel I am just more deserving than others”. For other purposes, the research also included measures of knowledge hiding and innovation—as measured by supervisors and managers.
As derived from Bayesian statistics, using the Stan software, individual creativity was positively associated with entitlement, especially when the climate was deemed as competitive. Arguably, when the workplace is competitive, individuals feel that managers tend to value status, rank, and superiority. Therefore, to impress these managers, some staff will attempt to boost their status immediately and depict themselves as special: a hallmark of narcissism and entitlement.
Staff who perceive themselves as creative are especially like to adopt this strategy. That is, if people are creative—a skill that demonstrates capability and originality—they recognise they are both talented and unique. Hence, these individuals feel they can readily boost their status, promoting a sense of entitlement.
The second study was similar but manipulated whether the climate was competitive and the creativity of participants. Specifically, the participants were assigned to one of 44 teams, in which the individuals collaborated on a task to create a suitable job advertisement. To elicit a sense of competition, some individuals were informed that performance of each member will be compared and, hence, their colleagues should be regarded as rivals. This instruction tended to foster a sense of entitlement, especially if participants had also been instructed to behave as creatively as possible during the task.
Obligation to assist other people
Rather than encourage staff to compete with each other, some workplaces inspire staff to assist one another. That is, in these workplaces, staff are encouraged to demonstrate organisational citizenship behaviour—behaviour that transcends the official role of individuals but improves the productivity and wellbeing of the university. Nevertheless, as Yam et al. (2017) revealed, when staff feel obliged to demonstrate organisational citizenship behaviour, they may become more likely to develop a sense of entitlement. Specifically, these individuals may feel they have contributed to a degree that exceeds their official responsibilities—but to a degree they did not chose—and thus feel they deserve special treatment as a consequence. Yam et al. also invoked moral licencing theory to predict that organisational citizenship behaviour, if obligatory, may foster a sense of entitlement.
To test this possibility, 345 employees from 82 workgroups, working in Chinese organisations, completed a survey:
- First, participants indicated the degree to which they demonstrate organisational citizenship behaviour, such as “initiates assistance to coworkers who have a heavy workload” (Farh et al., 2004),
- Second, participants specified the extent to which they initiated these behaviours to be rewarded or to evade punitive responses, such as “so that others won’t yell at me”,
- Finally, participants answered four questions that assess psychological entitlement, such as “I deserve more things in my life”.
As hypothesised, if staff demonstrated significant, rather than limited, organisational citizenship behaviour, they were more likely to experience a sense of entitlement—but only if they had initiated these behaviours to attract rewards or to evade punishments. A second longitudinal study replicated these findings. These findings imply that managers should inspire, but should not compel, staff to demonstrate organisational citizenship behaviour. These behaviours should not be embedded in job descriptions, demanded by supervisors, or evaluated comprehensively.
Leadership behaviour
The behaviour of leaders may also determine the likelihood that staff develop a sense of entitlement. For example, in some workplaces, leaders respond leniently to misconduct—such as negligence, dishonesty, or disrespect to colleagues. These leaders do not respond as harshly or as punitively as other managers. When leaders respond leniently to misconduct, staff may be more likely to experience a sense of entitlement, but only in particular circumstances, as Zhu et al. (2024) revealed.
Specifically, in one of their studies, staff of a pharmaceutical company in China answered a series of questions at two times. In particular
- they first completed a measure to gauge whether their leaders are lenient, comprising items like “My leader has given me at work a lighter punishment for my misconduct than he or she could have” (Zipay et al., 2021),
- two weeks later, they completed measures the gauge why they believe the leader had been lenient, including references to values, such as “because it reflects his or her core values and beliefs”, and references to personal interests, such as “because it enables him or her to maximize his or her own interests” (derived from Qin et al., 2018),
- they also completed a measure of psychological entitlement, comprising four items, such as “I honestly feel I am just more deserving than others” (Yam et al., 2017).
As the data revealed, when individuals ascribed leniency to the personal interests of these leaders, this leniency of leaders was positively associated with a sense of entitlement in staff. In contrast, when individuals did not ascribe leniency to personal interests, the leniency of leaders was inversely associated with this sense of entitlement.
Presumably, when staff feel that a leader is lenient only to fulfill personal interests, they perceive themselves as valuable and special. That is, the leader, from their perspective, would not have acted leniently unless they believe these staff could be useful and invaluable. These staff, therefore, feel special and superior, fostering a sense of entitlement.
In contrast, when staff feel that a leader is lenient because of a sense of morality or care, they may not assume they are especially valuable. Instead, they feel an obligation to reciprocate this favour, consistent with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964).
