Workplace and academic consequences of individual narcissism

Variation across dimensions of narcissism

A diversity of studies have explored the effects of narcissism on motivation at work.  Nevertheless, the effects of narcissism on motivation remain contentious and cloudy.  One possible cause of this ambiguity is that many of these studies conflate the various dimensions of narcissism.  To illustrate

• some research conflates grandiose narcissism—in which individuals attempt to exaggerate and to display their capabilities and achievements—and vulnerable narcissism—in which individuals strive to undermine or blame other people to maintain their status,
• similarly, research conflates distinct variants of grandiose narcissism—such as narcissistic admiration, in which individuals strive to attract esteem, narcissistic rivalry, in which individuals strive to defeat other people, and communal narcissism, in which individuals strive to be perceived as the most liked. 

Biolik (2025), from the University of Silesia in Katowice, conducted a study that was designed to overcome this limitation.  Specifically, Biolik examined whether four dimensions of narcissism–narcissistic admiration, narcissistic rivalry, communal narcissism, and vulnerable narcissism—each predict various facets of motivation and engagement at work.  Specifically, 500 Polish employees completed a series of scales including

• the Polish adaptation of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire,
• the Communal Narcissism Inventory (Gebauer et al., 2012),
• the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale to measure vulnerable narcissism,
• as well as measures of meaning at work, harmonious and obsession passion at work, work engagement, and conflicts between work and family responsibilities.

This range of measures helps distinguish motivation at work that is sustainable and motivation at work that might elicit various complications. To illustrate, Vallerand et al. (2003) distinguish two forms of passion: harmonious and obsessive passion.  Harmonious passion emanates when individuals immerse themselves in a beloved activity.  Obsessive passion emanates from a compulsion in individuals to complete these activities.  As Carbonneau et al. (2010) verified, obsessive passion is more likely than harmonious passion to elicit negative emotions, from anxiety to exhaustion. 

As the study that Biolik (2025) conducted revealed, whether narcissism was beneficial or detrimental varied, to a modest degree, across the various dimensions of this trait.  That is

• narcissism admiration was positively associated with a sense of meaning at work, harmonious passion, work engagement, work addiction, and conflict between work and family,
• narcissistic rivalry was inversely associated with harmonious passion, but positively related to work addiction and conflict between work and family,
• communal narcissism was positively associated with a sense of meaning at work, obsessive passion, work engagement, work addiction, and conflict between work and family,
• vulnerable narcissism was inversely associated with work engagement but positively associated with harmonious passion, obsession passion, and work addiction.

These findings imply that, in general, narcissism tend to be positively associated with meaning and passion at work as well as work addiction or conflict between work and family.  This finding is consistent with the notion that people who experience narcissism may perceive work as an opportunity to boost their status—their key motivation.  Consequently, these individuals feel compelled to thrive at work, eliciting a sense of meaning or passion in the workplace.  Yet, because of their preoccupation with status, rather than relationships, they may experience an obsession or addiction to work, sometimes forgoing relationships and other significant life goals. 

This pattern of results did not vary considerably across the various dimensions of narcissism.  Nevertheless, in contrast to the other dimensions, narcissistic rivalry and vulnerable narcissism were not as likely to predict work engagement but more likely to predict obsessive compassion. 

Explanations

Presumably, in contrast to narcissism admiration and communal narcissism, narcissistic rivalry and vulnerable narcissism often coincide with neuroticism.  And this neuroticism might direct attention to potential complications and problems (Gorman et al., 2012).  These individuals, therefore, perceive work as necessary to prevent these problems, eliciting a sense of obligation or obsessive passion, and not as opportunities to achieve gains.    and motivation to learn or change.  That is, if individuals experience self-compassion, they feel consoled—as if receiving comfort from a supportive relative or friend—after failures or problems unfold.  The unpleasant emotions these challenges elicit abate rapidly.  Individuals can thus manage their problems constructively (for a detailed account and evidence, see Inwood & Ferrari, 2018).    

Practices that boost the motivation of narcissistic individuals

Narcissism does not only affect the motivation of individuals but also influences the practices or circumstances that promote motivation. To illustrate, people often utilise self-talk to motivate themselves.  For example, they might repeat to themselves phrases like “I can win this session” or “You can do it”. 

Interestingly, as Abdoli et al. (2025) revealed, whether individuals should utilise first-person pronouns, such as “I”, or second-person pronouns, such as “you”, to motivate themselves depends on their level of narcissism.  In particular

• narcissistic cyclists feel especially motivated—and thus can cycle over a longer period—if they utilise first-person pronouns during self-talk, such as “I can win this session”,
• in contrast, other cyclists feel especially motivated—and thus can cycle over a longer period—if they utilise second-person pronouns during self-talk, such as “you can win this session”.

To explain this finding, Abdoli et al. (2025) observed that narcissists tend to be especially concerned about their personal needs.  First-person pronouns, such as “I”, thus resonate with narcissistic individuals.  So, messages that include first-person pronouns, such as “I can win”, are especially likely to inspire these individuals. 

In contrast, people who are not narcissistic are more inclined to change when they experience a sense of distance from themselves—as if observing themselves from the perspective of someone else.   That is, when people observe themselves from afar, they can more readily ascertain how to change.  Consequently, messages that include second-person pronouns, such as “you can win”, are especially likely to enable these individuals to improve their strategies on how to motivate themselves.    

When leaders exhibit grandiose narcissism, they often pursue courses of action and initiate behaviours that are designed to benefit themselves and not their organisation, called self-serving behaviour.  These behaviours and choices elicit distrust in their staff.  However, some practices and features of organisations can mitigate these deleterious effects of grandiose narcissism.   

An illustration

To illustrate, in one study of 546 teams in a range of Dutch organisations, Braun et al. (2025) uncovered some findings that verify this possibility. In this study, leaders completed some measures, and their followers completed some other measures.  Specifically, the leaders completed a measure of grandiose narcissism: the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. The leaders also answered questions that assess the climate of this organisation, including

• the degree to which the climate encourages staff to compete with each other, called a performance climate, such as “In my organisation, there exists a competitive rivalry among the employees”,
• the degree to which the climate encourages staff to cooperate and to share information, knowledge and ideas, called a mastery climate, such as “In my organization, cooperation and mutual exchange of knowledge are encouraged” (Nerstad et al., 2013).

The followers then evaluated the extent to which these leaders demonstrate self-serving behaviour, such as assume credit for successes.  Finally, these followers assessed the degree to which these leaders are trustworthy and dependable. 

The data were subjected to multilevel moderated mediation models.  Narcissistic leaders were perceived as untrustworthy, partly because they demonstrated self-serving behaviour. The degree to which narcissistic leaders were perceived as self-servicing was more pronounced in a performance climate and less pronounced in a mastery climate.  Presumably, when the climate encourages staff to prioritise learning over performance, narcissistic leaders are not as obsessed with status.  So, these leaders may withhold some of their natural tendencies to prioritise their personal interests over the needs of their company. 

Introduction

As research indicates, narcissism and similar traits tend to foster academic misconduct in both students and academics. To illustrate, Brunell et al. (2011) published one simple but pioneering study on this topic. In this study, 199 psychology students completed a survey.  The survey included the following measures:

• the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, comprising 40 items; this measure can be divided into three factors: exhibitionism or the need to attract attention, special person or the believe they deserve special treatment, and power or the need to lead and be perceived as influential and important (Kubarych et al., 2004),
• a question that assesses the guilt these participants would feel if they cheated on an exam (cf., Agnew & Peters, 1986),
• three question that assesses this level of guilt if the exam was unreasonably difficult, classmates had refused to share notes on the topic, and they felt pressure from friends to cheat (Agnew & Peters, 1986),
• three questions that measure academic dishonesty, such as the number of times they cheated on exams during the past 12 months and the likelihood they will cheat over the next month; however, half the participants instead specified the degree to which other students have cheated or would cheat as well.

Overall, individuals who reported elevated levels of narcissism were not as likely to feel guilty about cheating but more likely to perpetrate this academic dishonesty.  Specifically

• as a regression analysis revealed, one factor of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory in particular—exhibitionism or the need to attract attention—was positively associated with academic dishonesty and negatively associated with guilt over this dishonesty,
• these results were observed after controlling gender, age, and grade point average,
• narcissistic students were no more likely to believe that other students would cheat.

Overall, these results are consistent with the premise that narcissistic individuals can readily justify to themselves the decision to cheat (see Brown et al., 2009, Study 3).  That is, if students are narcissistic and like to be the centre of attention, they want to cheat partly to thrive in the class and to attract respect and admiration.  Because of their narcissism, they can readily bias their thoughts to justify this behaviour.  For example, to achieve this goal, they may convince themselves that perhaps the circumstances were unfair. These justifications diminish their guilt and thus encourage the perpetration of academic dishonesty.

Dark triad

Other research has explored which facets of the dark triad—comprising narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—are related to academic dishonesty.  For example, Esteves et al. (2021) administered a survey that 343 undergraduate students completed. First, these participants completed the Dirty Dozen scale: 12 items that assess

• narcissism, such as “(I) want attention from others”,
• Machiavellianism, such as “(I exploit) others for (my) benefit”,
• psychopathy, such as “There is a lack of remorse”.

Next, to assess academic dishonesty, participants completed the Self-Report Cheating Admission Scale that Paulhus et al. (2004) developed, comprising 16 items, such as “I paid more to help me cheat in the test” or “I copied other people’s answers with their acknowledgment”.  As multiple regression analyses revealed, narcissism and Machiavellianism, but not psychopathy, were significantly and positively associated with academic dishonesty (Esteves et al., 2021).

Subsequent research has revealed that entitlement mediates this association between the dark triads and academic dishonesty.  Specifically, students who exhibit the dark triad, including narcissism, may assign responsibility to other people. They feel entitled to receive assistance or support because they are special.  For example, they do not feel they should be responsible for garnering information or notes if they miss a class (for a measure, see Chowning & Campbell, 2009). 

As Curtis et al. (2022) showed, this variant of entitlement, in which students assign responsibility to other people, mediated the association between all three dark traits and academic dishonesty.  These results were observed even after a measure of social desirability, developed by Stöber (2001), was controlled, suggesting the tendency to conceal dishonesty does not explain the results.  Presumably, because of this entitlement, narcissistic students may feel that other people, such as lecturers, did not feel their responsibilities.  Consequently, they feel they are granted the license to cheat.. 

Introduction

Leaders who are narcissistic are not as likely to naturally embrace leadership approaches or styles that have been shown to benefit organisations.  For example, as research has revealed, when leaders exhibit narcissism, they are less inclined to adopt a leadership style called servant leadership (Brouns et al., 2020). 

Servant leadership refers to an approach in which the primary motivation of leaders is to serve their stakeholders (Greenleaf, 1977; Greenleaf, 1998; Greenleaf, 2003), such as their staff.  That is, a servant leader strives to ascertain and to fulfill the needs of other people, thus enabling these individuals to develop and to thrive, ultimately improving wellbeing, motivation, and performance. 

Scholars have not reached a consensus on the defining features, practices, or facets of servant leadership. Instead, researchers have developed several taxonomies and scales to delineate this leadership style.  For example, Spears (2010) delineated 10 characteristics that servant leaders should exhibit or develop, including awareness, community building, empathy, listening, foresight, and persuasion.  Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) developed questions that measure these characteristics.  A factor analysis, however, reduced these characteristics to five sub-scales:

• an altruistic calling or fundamental motivation to improve the lives of people,
• emotional healing or capacity to facilitate the recovery of other people from hardship,
• wisdom or an awareness of cues, such as an ability to decipher the needs of individuals,
• persuasive mapping in which leaders utilise sound reasoning to influence staff,
• organisational stewardship in which leaders demonstrate altruism, such as participate in community programs.

In contrast, Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) developed a measure of servant leadership that comprises eight dimensions or facets.  These facets include the tendency of leaders to

• empower staff, motivating these individuals to proactively seek development opportunities,
• ensure accountability, in which followers are aware of the expectations they should fulfill,
• stand back—that is, acknowledge the contribution of other staff,
• show humility—an awareness of their strengths and limitations as well as a willingness to seek advice to overcome these limitations,
• display authenticity—that is, to show their true emotions and motivations,
• replace obsolete practices with novel alternatives, epitomising courage,
• forgive people,
• role model actions that benefit the workplace over personal interest, called stewardship

For several reasons, narcissism may be inversely related to a servant leadership style.  For example, narcissism coincides with antagonism—such as contempt or hostility towards other people—rather than an agreeable personality.  Yet, as a comprehensive review shows, an agreeable personality is one of the main determinants of servant leadership (Eva et al., 2019).  Likewise, narcissistic leaders tend to prioritise their own concerns over the needs of other people (Peterson et al., 2012), impeding servant leadership.  Finally, narcissistic people are not as likely to exhibit humility (Bak & Kutnick, 2021).  Consequently, narcissistic leaders may not be as likely to demonstrate humility—an attribute has been shown to foster servant leadership in younger leaders (Krumrei-Mancuso & Rowatt, 2023).

Evidence

To explore this association between narcissism and servant leadership, Brouns et al. (2020) administered a survey to 170 German university students who were also working full time.  These individuals also distributed a link to either their leader or subordinate, generate 170 pairs of leaders and subordinates.  Specifically

• the subordinates completed the Servant Leadership Survey (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) to evaluate the extent to which the leaders demonstrate servant leadership, such as prioritise the needs of staff,
• the leaders then completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory to evaluate the degree to which they exhibit grandiose narcissism as well as a measure of compassion.

As hypothesised, narcissism was inversely associated with servant leadership and compassion, whereas compassion was positively associated with servant leadership. 

Implications of these findings

Accordingly, because servant leadership can enhance the collaboration and productivity of workgroups, narcissistic leaders may diminish these qualities. Indeed, as research has uncovered, servant leadership can generate many benefits that narcissism might nullify. For example 

• when staff believe their supervisors embrace servant leadership, these staff feel more engaged at work—especially if they trust their leader (Zhou et al., 2022)—and are thus more inclined to voice recommendations on how to improve the workplace (Song et al., 2022),
• when staff perceive their supervisors as servant leaders, they feel obliged to reciprocate the support they receive and thus are more inclined to suggest and to implement creative improvements to the workplace as well as help their colleagues (Aboramadan et al., 2022),
• if their leaders adopt a servant leadership style, staff feel confident they can uncover and implement novel innovations, enhancing the extent to which the team is innovative (Ren & Shen, 2024)—even after controlling other leadership behaviours, such as transformational leadership (Iqbal et al., 2023),
• whenever leaders embrace the philosophy of servant leadership, staff tend to experience greater resilience (Bartool et al., 2022)—as measured by the brief resilience scale (Smith et al., 2008), comprising items like “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times”; over time, these individuals learn to associate challenging settings with support or success,
• if their leaders embrace a servant leadership style and thus model attempts to assist other individuals, staff are more likely to collaborate effectively and to share their knowledge openly (Nauman et al., 2022),
• when the CEO exhibits service leadership, the profitability and performance of the organisation improves, at least in firms in which customer service is vital (Huang et al., 2016).

Despite these purported benefits of servant leadership, researchers have also raised several concerns about the legitimacy of these findings.  For example, as Schowalter and Volmer (2023) underscored, few studies have manipulated servant leadership—and then compared the effects of servant leadership with a suitable control on some work outcome.  Thus, some of the purported benefits, such as staff engagement, could be a cause rather than consequence of servant leadership.

Furthermore, the benefits of servant leadership may be amplified or nullified in specific conditions and circumstances (for a systematic review, see Lu et al., 2024).  To illustrate,

• servant leaders are more likely to inspire staff to cooperate effectively when these leaders share many characteristics with other members of the workgroup—because staff are especially inclined to emulate these leaders (Michel et al., 2024),
• servant leaders are more likely to enhance the creativity of staff and teams in egalitarian, rather than hierarchical, workplaces in which staff can question their managers and thus develop trusting relationships (Yang et al., 2017),
• servant leaders tends to enhance the performance of organisations, such as sales, profit, market share, and growth—but this benefit of servant leadership diminishes in workplaces that strive to minimise costs, formalise procedures, and thus diminish the capacity of leaders to interact effectively with staff (Eva et al., 2018).