Asian J Bus Ethics

DOI 10.1007/s13520-014-0039-2

Narcissism and counterproductive workplace behaviors

among Iranian managers and nonmanagerial employees
Asal Aghaz & Maryam S. Sharifi Atashgah &
Masoomeh Zoghipour

Received: 1 April 2014 / Accepted: 12 October 2014

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Unlike many other studies which assumed narcissism to be equivalent to

overt narcissism, the purpose of this study is to empirically examine how covert and
overt narcissism affect counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), a type of unethical
behavior that can be discussed by ethical ideology. Furthermore, this research tests
whether the relationship between managerial position and CWBs is direct or mediated
by narcissism. The population of this study consisted of managers (N=196) and
nonmanagerial employees (N=221) in 10 relatively small Iranian firms. Questionnaires
were used to collect the required data. The results indicated that most of the Iranian
managers show both types of narcissistic behaviors specifically overt type, covert
narcissism is a stronger predictor of interpersonal and organizational CWBs than overt
narcissism, and managerial position does not seem to have a direct effect on CWBs, but
has an indirect effect mediated through covert narcissism.
Keywords Counterproductive workplace behaviors . Overt narcissism . Covert
narcissism . Managerial position

Introduction
In the last decade, there has been a surge in unethical behaviors exhibited in the
business workplace. An increasing concern has been devoted to ethical and unethical
behaviors by several authors due to unethical performance of some of the famous
companies (such as Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco) and its expenses (Appelbaum et al.
A. Aghaz (*) : M. S. Sharifi Atashgah : M. Zoghipour
Department of Management, Science and Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424, 3rd
Floor, Farabi Building, Rasht Street, Hafez Avenue, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: a.aghaz@aut.ac.ir
M. S. Sharifi Atashgah
e-mail: maryam.sharifi@aut.ac.ir
M. Zoghipour
e-mail: zoghipour@aut.ac.ir

A. Aghaz et al.

2005).They have tried to develop frameworks for indicating the determinants

of unethical behavior (Chang 1998). The results of these studies indicated
that employees ethical or unethical behaviors are determined by a set of
individual and situational factors. In addition, according to some studies, the
philosophies of managers influence the exhibition of ethical or unethical
behaviors by followers. Managers act as a role model for their employees.
Besides, those having inconsistent attitudes and practices with ethical considerations cannot expect their employees to exhibit ethical behavior (Stead
et al. 1990). So, the behavior of managers should be as such to impact their
employees ethical and unethical behaviors (Hoogervorst et al. 2010).
One type of unethical or socially criticized behavior that can be discussed
by ethical ideology is workplace deviance or counterproductive workplace
behaviors (CWBs) (Robinson and Bennett 1995; Henle et al. 2005). Over the
past decade, an increasing number of organizational researchers have studied
CWBs because such behaviors significantly seem to decrease job performance and increase costs to the company (Wei and Steven 2013). Since
CWBs impose huge expenses on organizations, they are regarded as an
important topic in organizational research (Penney and Spector 2002). Prevalence of CWBs in an organization complicates work conditions for employees, deteriorates their psychological health (Aube et al. 2009), and
lowers organizational performance (Yang et al. 2013). In predicting CWBs,
numerous reasons have been proposed as causes of such behaviors, largely
classified as personal or situational variables. Among personal variables,
narcissism is a concept now widely used to describe organizational behavior, particularly for deviant behaviors among senior managers and politicians (Campbell and Campbell 2009; Campbell et al. 2011).
In spite of increasing focus on the relationship between the behaviors of
narcissists and those being in managerial positions, most of the leadership
studies have emphasized on the positive characteristics of leaders than the
negative ones (Hoffman et al. 2011). In Iran, it seems that many professionals especially those in managerial positions are going to exhibit highly
narcissistic behavior; however, there are not enough scientific studies about
the prevalence of such behavior among Iranian managers and its possible
problems. Furthermore, while most of the narcissism researches conducted
about managers have focused on the overt form of narcissistic behavior, the
overt and covert forms of narcissism may have different impacts on managers behavior and performance. So, the present study attempts to empirically examine the impact of narcissism on occurring CWBs among managers
in comparison with those among nonmanagerial employees. In addition,
unlike many other studies which assumed narcissism to be equivalent to
overt narcissism, this study investigates the impacts of both overt and covert
narcissism on CWBs. Furthermore, this research tests whether the relationship between managerial position and CWBs is direct or is mediated by
narcissism. We will review CWBs and narcissism in short before proposing
the hypotheses.

Narcissism and counterproductive workplace behaviors

Counterproductive workplace behaviors: definitions and antecedents

Definitions
How to manage ethical behavior is one of the most important concerns for business
organizations nowadays (Stead et al. 1990). CWB, also known as a workplace deviance, may also be regarded as an unethical behavior (Robinson and Bennett 1995).
However, CWB and workplace deviance differ in terms of what they focus on. While
ethical behavior is judged in terms of justice and law, deviant behavior is assessed
based on violation of organizational norms (Peterson 2002).
Since human beings worked together to achieve common goals, CWBs have been a
problem (MacLane and Walmsley 2010). Such behaviors have been defined as intentional and deliberate behaviors that violate organizational norms, thereby endangering
the health of an organization and its members (Robinson and Bennett 1995). In other
words, CWBs are preplanned behaviors which harm an organization and/or an individual (Bolton et al. 2010). Such behaviors may include a wide range of acts from
aggression, obstructive behaviors, and theft to intentional defiance, refusal to obey
orders, or poor performance of tasks. Other scholars have expanded the list to include
anti-citizenship behavior, violation, retaliation, desire for revenge, bullying (Fox 2001),
sabotage, withdrawal, inappropriate jokes, abusing or threatening, or ignoring peers
(Spector et al. 2006), concealing information and refusal to provide others with
information, and sexual harassment (Jensen and Patel 2011; Sackett and DeVore
2001). Although a number of researchers regard CWBs as a set of distinct behaviors
with particular consequences (Guo 2012; Spector et al. 2006), most scholars believe
that these behaviors are generally interrelated and can be incorporated into a single
variable (Sackett 2002). As such, CWBs represent a series of behaviors rather than a
single behavior (Cohen et al. 2013).
A comprehensive view on CWBs was introduced by Robinson and Bennett (1995) who
classified deviant behaviors within an organization under a single collective category based
on the nature of the intention (interpersonal vs. organizational) behind these behaviors. Their
study confirmed the works previously carried out by other researchers and instigated new
research on organizational bullying, cyber loafing, violence at workplace, organizational
ethics, citizenship behavior, and organizational incivilities (Kelloway et al. 2010).
Since definition of CWBs may include various types of particular behaviors,
researchers have investigated the dimensions of such behaviors to better understand
their nature. In their seminal work on CWBs, Hollinger and Clark (1983) considered
two dimensions for this concept: (1) property deviance which involves misuse of
employers properties, e.g., theft or destruction of property; and (2) production deviance, involving violation of norms in performing and completing tasks, for example,
absence, lateness, taking long breaks, violation of rules, and behaviors which reduce
efficiency, including use of drug and alcohol, inadequate work, and intentional disorder
or disorganization in doing tasks (Sackett 2002). The behaviors observed by Hollinger
and Clark did not include personal counterproductive behaviors such as bullying and
sexual harassment. Therefore, Robinson and Bennett (1995) presented a broad classification with two dimensions in which any behavior matching their definition could be

A. Aghaz et al.

distinguished from other deviant behaviors. The first dimension classifies deviant
behaviors on a scale from low to high depending on their intensity. With regard to
the second dimension, these behaviors are classified based on their goals which may
pose a threat to members of an organization or to the organization as a whole. The
former being known as interpersonal deviance and the latter recognized as organizational deviance (Kelloway et al. 2010). Despite the criticisms of this model, it has been
approved by many scholars and still plays the dominant role (Berry et al. 2007).
Antecedents
Conventionally, CWBs have been examined using the conceptual frameworks of equity
theory (Adams 1965) and aggression theory (Spector 1978). In fact, several factors
have been proposed to cause CWBs, mostly classified as personal or situational
variables (Murphy 1993). Robinson and Greenberg (1998) believe that these antecedents root in three sources: personal factors (e.g., personality and demography), social
and interpersonal factors (e.g., in the face of unfair interpersonal behaviors), and
organizational factors (e.g., in response to problematic characteristics of a job).
Sackett and DeVore (2001) used this model along with other models to identify six
subcategories for antecedents of CWBs: personality variables, job characteristics,
characteristics of work group, organizational culture, inequality, and control systems.
More recently, Fine et al. (2010) has classified these factors into three groups: personal
factors, job attitudes, and organizational norms. It seems that most studies emphasize
the role of work conditions more than they focus on personal factors such as personality
traits (Lau et al. 2003). However, CWBs comprise a set of behaviors rather than being a
single behavior. They are more stable over time and in different conditions and may be
influenced by such personality traits as narcissism (Cohen et al. 2013).

Narcissism
Narcissism has its origin in the Greek term narcissus and is widely used both in
theoretical bases for social personality and theoretical foundations of clinical psychology and psychiatry (Luchner et al. 2011). This concept refers to individuals need for
reputation, admiration, and enhancing ones image perceived by others (Pincus et al.
2009). According to the theoretical foundations of social personality, narcissism is a
personality trait normally distributed among individuals (Foster and Campbell 2007).
In this definition, narcissism is linked to other variables such as self-esteem, Machiavellianism, and psychological disorders (Paulhus and Williams 2002). In basic clinical
psychology and psychiatry, narcissism is defined as a personality disorder. In this
definition, narcissism is an inflexible and steady characteristic which involves exaggeration, egotism, and the desire for being admired (Campbell et al. 2011). According
to this theory, narcissism often involves extreme arrogance, self-focus, self-importance,
and self-righteousness. Narcissists usually claim to be right and attain positive outcomes including high-ranking positions, leadership, popularity, and short-term success
(Rauthmann and Kolar 2012).
In recent years, the multidimensionality of narcissism has been emphasized by some
authors. Many researchers consider two dimensions for narcissism as potential

Narcissism and counterproductive workplace behaviors

dimensions of personality, namely normal narcissism and pathological narcissism, the

former being largely evaluated in sociopsychological studies and the latter often
assessed in clinical research (Pincus et al. 2009). In another classification, researchers
have made a distinction between overt narcissism (grandiose narcissism) and covert
narcissism (vulnerable narcissism) (Wink 1991; Dickinson and Pincus 2003; Gabbard
2009). A review of theoretical literature indicates that most studies on narcissism have
focused on overt narcissism while largely ignoring the covert form (Cain et al. 2008).
However, a large number of studies, including Miller and Campbell (2008), stressed
studying both types for achieving a comprehensive assessment of narcissism.
Overt narcissism is typically exhibited in the form of expressed behaviors, arrogance, excessive self-esteem, violence, and grandiosity, while covert one often involves
unexpressed behaviors, vulnerability, low self-esteem, and hypersensitivity (Luchner
et al. 2011). According to Wink (1991, 1996), overt narcissism is defined by the direct
expression of self-importance and the intention to receive appreciation from others. In
contrast, covert narcissism is associated with hypersensitivity, nervousness, and vulnerability in ones behavior but self-admiration, egotism, and arrogance in personal
relationships. Overt and covert narcissism have similarities, but still distinct. The
common characteristic seen in both types of narcissism is exploitative character.
These two forms of narcissism are associated with psychological problems. Overt
narcissism can be problematic because it is associated with overconfidence, selfishness,
and an excessive demand for attention and admiration from other people. Covert
narcissism may also cause serious problems owing to lack of self-confidence, depression, anguish, negative emotions, and vulnerability but underlying (covert) attitudes of
dominance and sense of claim (Masterson 1993; Wink 1991).

Managerial position and narcissism

Narcissism is a personality variable linked to the desire for unlimited achievement and
power. It is not surprising that many narcissists seek managerial positions to satisfy
their need for power and fame (Campbell et al. 2011). They pursue power more than
others and are more likely to reach higher levels in organizations (Blair et al. 2008).
One study showed that narcissism can act as a motivator for getting promoted and
having higher-level positions in organizational hierarchy (Andreassen et al. 2012). On
the other hand, other researchers believe that organizational position may result in
development of narcissism. Narcissists rarely seek advice from others since they think
they are aware of the best choices (Blair et al. 2008). They are more competitive and
may use different mechanisms to achieve power and organizational position (Ho 2012).
Narcissists tend to dominate others as they see the life as a competition that they should
win. Furthermore, narcissists rarely allow their subordinates or peers to take a role in
making organizational decisions and usually ignore other views (Blair et al. 2008).
Narcissists often attempt to make opportunities to receive others attentions and
admiration, and when they do, they feel better, more self-confident, and more satisfied
with their lives; when they fail, however, they show aggression and sometimes feel
anxious and depressed (Campbell et al. 2011).
Narcissistic managers are often very smart and diligent and have remarkable
performance in their areas of activity, but their narcissistic needs may neutralize or

A. Aghaz et al.

destroy their creative capabilities in organizations. So, the first hypotheses of this study
can be conceptualized as follows:
H1: There is a significant relationship between managerial position and overt narcissism.
As mentioned before, some researchers have made a distinction between overt
narcissism (grandiose narcissism) and covert narcissism (vulnerable narcissism)
(Dickinson and Pincus 2003; Gabbard 2009). So, we develop the second hypothesis
as follows:
H2: There is a significant relationship between managerial position and covert narcissism.
Furthermore, we proposed a hypothesis to test the correlation between overt and
covert narcissism as follows:
H3: There is a significant positive relationship between overt and covert narcissism.

CWBs and narcissism

In recent years, many researchers have attempted to identify personality traits such as
Machiavellian personality, span of control, and negative impression which increase the
tendency to CWBs. One such characteristic, whose impact on CWBs has not been well
studied, is narcissism (Pincus et al. 2009).
Baumeister et al. (1996) found that aggression and CWBs may be caused by high
self-confidence or sensing threat from anything that may threaten desirable perceptions
of the self. It does not mean, however, that all individuals with high levels of selfconfidence exhibit aggressive or counterproductive behaviors; rather, it means that
some highly confident individuals, particularly those who are more vulnerable to losing
their positive image, are more likely to show counterproductive behaviors. Based on
this theory, a distinction must be made between a high level of self-confidence which is
based on precise evaluation of positive characteristics and what is based on exaggeration and aggrandizement of ones image, i.e., narcissism. Unlike individuals with high
levels of self-confidence, narcissists try to maintain their positive image even when it is
not necessarily based on reality (Penney and Spector 2002). For some scholars, this
process can be used to predict conflict, aggression, and bullying within the organization
(Campbell et al. 2011).
Recently, Grijalva and Newman (2014) concluded that narcissism is the strong predictor
of CWBs. But, there is not enough studies about the impact of different types of narcissism
on CWBs. Based on what is described above, two hypotheses are proposed as follows:
H4: Overt narcissism predicts counterproductive workplace behaviors among managers.
H5: Covert narcissism predicts counterproductive workplace behaviors among managers.
Regarding what were discussed, the hypothesized model in the study is presented in
Fig. 1. According to Fig. 1, there is a significant and positive relationship between
managerial position and overt/covert narcissism (H1 and H2) and between overt and
covert narcissism (H3). Overt and covert narcissism predict CWBs among managers
(H4 and H5) as well. Hence, concerning these hypothesized relationships, the sixth
hypothesis is proposed as follows:
H6: There is a significant relationship between managerial position and CWBs.

Narcissism and counterproductive workplace behaviors

Managerial
position

Overt
narcissism

H1

H3

Interpersonal
CWBs

H6
H5
H2

Covert
narcissism

Counterproductive
workplace behaviors

H4

Organizational
CWBs

Fig. 1 The hypothesized model in the study

Method
Participants
Iran is known as a prominent country in Middle East. The public sector in Iran
consists of large-scale industries; the private sector, including small- and
medium-size companies, supplements the public sector activities, and the cooperative sector is in insignificant practice (Yeganeh and Su 2008). Privatization
efforts in Iran have not been so successful. In many cases, private sector has
been remained on the shadow of the public sector. Nevertheless, because of an
increasing number of multinational companies in Iran, it can now be regarded
as an emerging economy (Budhwar and Mellahi 2006).
Many researchers have studied Iranian cultural traits; among them, the
analyses conducted by GLOBE revealed the results as follows: a strong family
ties and relationships, in-group orientation and a high degree of high power
distance and individualism but low degree of societal collectivism; bestowal of
excessive privilege of those in positions of power and denial of those with
much disagreement; and not following the rules and regulations seriously and
setting them in accordance with different interest groups (House et al. 2004).
Nevertheless, Iranians are excellence oriented, they honor themselves owing to
the science and rationalism (Bar 2004); in addition, they value responsibility
and dispraise favoritism (Gable 1959).
The population of the study consisted of the managers and employees in 10
relatively small Iranian firms. The participants provided self-report data on their
perceived level of narcissism and counterproductive behavior. Five hundred fifty
questionnaires were distributed among both managers (including senior managers, vice presidents, presidents, and supervisors) and nonmanagerial employees in order to make it possible to compare these two groups and examine
the relationship between managerial position and overt/covert narcissism. In the
end, 417 analyzable questionnaires were returned. As indicated in Table 1,
47.1 % of respondents (N=196) were managers and 52.9 % (N=221) were
nonmanagerial employees; 36.4 % were women and 63.1 % were men; 29.2 %
of respondents were under 30 years of age, 30.1 % were 3039, 28.2 % were
4049, and 10.7 % were 50 and above; and 54.8 % had a bachelors degree
and 45.1 % had a masters or PhD degree.

A. Aghaz et al.
Table 1 Characteristics of participants
Percent
Organizational level
Managers

47.1

Nonmanagerial employees

52.9

Gender
Male

36.4

Female

63.1

Age (years)
Under 30

29.2

3039

30.1

4049

28.2

50 and above

10.7

Level of education
Bachelors degree

54.8

Masters degree or PhD

45.1

Measures
The research method adopted in this study was survey, and the main tool for data
collection was a 45-item questionnaire, with 26 questions about overt/covert narcissism
and 28 questions on CWBs.
Narcissism
Overt narcissism is often assessed using Raskin and Terrys (1988) Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI) with 40 questions about narcissistic personality.
Internal reliability of this questionnaire was measured by Watson et al. (1997
1998) who found this value to be 0.85. Recently, Ames et al. (2006) developed a
more compact one-dimensional version of this questionnaire with 16 questions
(NPI-16). Since our purpose was to examine both overt and covert narcissism,
we preferred to employ one-dimensional version of NPI (i.e., NPI-16) for
measuring overt narcissism. Examples of questions used include I know Im
good because everyone keeps saying that to me, I think Im special, I like to
have the power to control others, and Others should respect me because I am a
worthy person.
To measure covert narcissism, we used Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale
(HSNS) developed by Hendin and Cheek (1997). This scale contains 10 questions,
and its reliability was reported to be 0.75 by its developers. Examples of questions
used to measure covert narcissism include My feelings are easily hurt by ridicule
or by the slighting remarks of others, I dont like to join a group, unless I know
that at least one member will acknowledge me, I think my temperament is
different from others, and I usually interpret others statements based on my
personal view.

Narcissism and counterproductive workplace behaviors

Counterproductive workplace behaviors

Bennett and Robinsons (2000) organizational deviant behavior scale was used to
measure CWBs. The original questionnaire contains 28 questions which measures
interpersonal and organizational dimensions of workplace deviant behaviors. However,
after factor analyses, three questions were eliminated due to being provocative and
having low factor loading (e.g., items on drug use during work). Examples of questions
utilized to measure CWBs include the following: How often do you do one of the
following: made fun of someone at work, to use offensive words (for measuring
interpersonal CWBs) and spend a considerable amount of time on surfing the web and
personal jobs, and discussed unauthorized persons with confidential information of
the organization (for measuring organizational CWBs).

Results
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the narcissism and CWBs.
The internal consistency reliabilities of both narcissism and CWBs exceeded the
level of Cronbachs coefficient alpha in previous studies. The trust scale
indicated 0.81 coefficient alphas for narcissism and 0.82 for CWBs. Content
validity was assessed by professors and experts. Construct validity of the
questionnaire was evaluated using both exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis. As mentioned earlier, the original CWB questionnaire had 28 questions of which three questions were dropped in the first step for low factor
loading. For overt and covert narcissism, no question was eliminated. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using LISREL 8.80. KMO index for
narcissism was 0.828 and for CWB was 0.812. The results showed that ratio
of chi-square to degrees of freedom (2/df) was 2.09 (lower than 3), GFI was
0.96, AGFI was 0.91 (more than 0.9), RMSEA was 0.002 (lower than 0.001),
and p value was 0.23 (more than 0.05). These indices indicated the high
validity of this research questionnaire.
As seen in Table 2, for both overt and covert narcissism, mean score among
managers is higher than nonmanagerial employees (3.37 vs. 2.87 for overt narcissism;
3.02 vs. 2.61 for covert narcissism). Hence, H1 and H2 were confirmed. It means that,

Table 2 Means and standard deviations of variables

Managers

Nonmanagerial employees

Variable

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Overt narcissism

196

3.37

0.64

221

2.87

0.95

Covert narcissism

196

3.02

0.58

221

2.61

0.65

Interpersonal CWBs

196

1.74

0.72

221

1.40

0.25

Organizational CWBs

196

1.73

0.57

221

1.69

0.17

CWBs counterproductive work behaviors

A. Aghaz et al.

according to this study, there is a significant relationship between managerial position

and both types of narcissism.
According to the results, CWBs (weather interpersonal or organizational) are at
lower-than-average level for both managerial and nonmanagerial employees. So, it
seems that for CWBs, there is no considerable difference between managers and
nonmanagerial employees. Hence, H6 (there is a significant relationship between
managerial position and CWBs) is not confirmed.
To examine the relationship between overt/covert narcissism and CWBs among
managers, Pearson correlation coefficients were used. As seen in Table 3, there is no
significant correlation between overt narcissism and CWBs, whether interpersonal or
organizational. While, covert narcissism was significantly correlated to both types of
CWBs, with a more strong relationship in the case of interpersonal CWBs.
Our findings also indicated a positive significant correlation between overt and
covert narcissism, meaning that managers with overt narcissism are more likely to
become covert narcissists (H5).
We also used mean difference test to compare respondents with different gender,
age, and level of education. The results indicated that gender was not significantly
correlated to both types of narcissism. However, in the case of CWBs, we found that
men are more prone to narcissism than women. This finding confirms the results of
previous studies (Fine et al. 2010). We also found that level of education was significantly correlated to covert and especially overt narcissism. However, our findings
demonstrated that level of education was not significantly correlated to CWBs, whether
interpersonal or organizational.
To test the impact of overt and covert narcissism on CWBs (H3 and H4), a linear
regression analysis was designed (covert/overt narcissism as independent variables and
CWBs as the dependant variable). As indicated in Table 4, covert narcissism among
managers significantly predicts CWBs (H1) (=0.267, t=4.0, p<0.05); however, overt
narcissism was not a significant predictor for CWBs (H2) among managers (=0.050,
t=4.0, p<0.05).
Therefore, according to this study, overt narcissism does not predict CWBs, whereas
covert narcissism predicts CWBs among managers.
Finally, regarding no significant relationship between managerial position and
CWBs (H6), a significant relationship between managerial position and covert narcissism (H2), and prediction of CWBs by managers covert narcissism (H5), we
Table 3 Correlations of variables (among managers)
Variable

1-Overt narcissism
2-Covert narcissism

0.486**

3-Interpersonal CWBs

0.113

0.192**

4-Organizational CWBs

0.055

0.223*

CWBs counterproductive work behaviors

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

0.501**

Narcissism and counterproductive workplace behaviors

Table 4 Results of linear regression analysis (among managers)
Variable

R2

Significance

1-Overt narcissism

0.050

0.0025

0.542

0.050

2-Covert narcissism

0.267

0.071

0.001

0.267*

*P<0.05 (two-tailed)

concluded that managerial position does not seem to have a direct effect on CWBs but
has an indirect effect mediated through covert narcissism.

Discussion
According to the theory of threatened egotism and aggression proposed by Penney and
Spector (2002) and Baumeister et al. (1996), high self-esteem associated with ego
threat usually leads to aggressive actions. Furthermore, many researchers believe that
the nature of managerial positions normally leads to narcissism due to the need for
acquiring dominance (Campbell et al. 2011). Nowadays, ethics has a considerable
impact on the business performance (Lindfelt and Tornroos 2006), and the value of
ethical issues in gaining power should not be disguised by managers. They are expected
to create ethical climate and trust based on relationships in the business world (Crosbie
2008).
So, regarding previous theories and research studies, this study aimed to empirically
examine the impact of managers narcissistic personality traits on occurring CWBs as
unethical behaviors. In addition, this research investigated the impact of managerial
position on both forms of narcissism, covert and overt.
The results of this study indicated a significant positive relationship between
managerial position and overt narcissism. For covert narcissism, yet, the difference
was not considerable. Our findings also showed that managers with overt narcissism
are more likely to become covert narcissists. Concisely speaking, according to the
current study, most of the Iranian managers show both types of narcissistic behaviors
specifically overt type, covert narcissism is stronger predictor of interpersonal and
organizational CWBs than overt narcissism, and managerial position does not seem to
have a direct effect on CWBs but has an indirect effect mediated through covert
narcissism.
Our results are consistent with the findings of the previous studies. A number of
studies suggest that although it is normal for managers to have some extent of
narcissism (Davis et al. 2008; Kramer 2003; Martinez et al. 2008) and narcissism can
serve as a motivation engine for many leaders (Goldman 2006), high levels of
narcissism, particularly in covert form, have negative impact on the managers performance. Like charisma, narcissism is a double-edged sword. A narcissistic leader would
be a great leader if he/she maintains other good characteristics such as self-esteem and
psychological health. On the other hand, a narcissist with more pathological traits can
easily harm the loyalty of his followers and exhibit counterproductive behaviors (Blair
et al. 2008). Certainly, it is difficult to work with narcissistic managers, particularly

A. Aghaz et al.

those who believe in no one but themselves. Therefore, efforts must be made to the
possible extent to control the powers of such managers. Mechanisms like 360
feedback may limit the powers of such managers to some extent. Promoting openness
to criticism within an organization while developing a code of conduct can be helpful in
preventing consequences of personal and organizational narcissism. As Appelbaum
et al. (2005) noted, organizations need to set positive ethical values to confront
employees engaging in deviant workplace behaviors. Organizations spending time
and energy to understand and define deviant and unethical workplace behaviors can
handle unethical dilemma more easily.

Limitations of the study and future directions

Several limitations restricted this study. While personality traits like narcissism can
result in CWBs, situational factors such as the conditions under which someone works
should be regarded. For example, Vardi (2001) and Avey et al. (2011) reported a
significant negative relationship between ethical climate and organizational misconduct
or deviant behavior. In the same vein, Wimbush and Shepard (1994) pointed out that
not only does ethical climate of an organization depend on the both ethical and
unethical behaviors of employees but also it can influence them as well.
As some scholars suggest, many studies focused on either personal antecedents or
situational antecedents of CWBs (Fine et al. 2010); so, further research is needed for
studying combined impact of personal and situational variables on CWBs. Examining
how work conditions moderate the relationship between narcissism and emergence of
CWBs can also be helpful.
Moreover, most studies on CWBs have focused on behaviors at personal level,
though CWBs may also occur at a group or organizational level. Some forms of CWBs
may go beyond the organizational level and spread into, for example, an entire industry
or national level (Bowling and Gruys 2010). They may even take the form of protests
used by groups and individuals to express their dissatisfaction with what happens
within an organization (Kelloway et al. 2010). Researchers are recommended to
consider CWBs at group or organizational level as topics for further studies.
Another limitation of this research refers to the studied sample. The population of
this study consisted of the employees in 10 relatively small Iranian firms. However, the
study can be replicated in the major companies and public sector organizations.
In spite of the limitations above, the main strength of the present study is the
examination of both types of narcissism impact on CWBs. Moreover, as mentioned
before, if managerial position causes covert narcissism, the possibility of exhibiting
CWBs will increase. Hence, this research addresses the mediating role of narcissism in
the relationship between managerial position and CWBs.
Our findings suggest that managers with covert narcissism are more likely to
exhibit CWBs. Furthermore, the results showed a significant relationship between
overt and covert narcissism. Hence, Iranian managers with high overt narcissism
may become covert narcissists over time and may express more CWBs. So, in
terms of future directions for practice, this study shows the requirement for
additional research on different types of narcissism and the ways to prevent raising
narcissistic behaviors.

Narcissism and counterproductive workplace behaviors

The results of present study indicated that mean score of overt narcissism was higher
for Iranian managers than nonmanagerial employees. According to Jorstad (1996),
narcissism among managers may even lead to organization-wide narcissism. A narcissistic organization blames any problem on external factors and portrays a distorted
image of realities. Hence, research should continue to address mechanisms to inhibit
organization-wide narcissism.
An important final point to note is the attribution of managers and their employees
behaviors to the cultural traits of a country. For instance, in this research, narcissistic
behaviors among managers can be attributed to the high degree of power distance and
low degree of disagreement allowance with managers in Iranian context. So, researchers are recommended to investigate the impact of cultural traits on exhibiting
narcissistic behaviors.

References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in social psychology (Vol.
2). New York: Academic Press.
Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of
Research in Personality, 40, 440450.
Andreassen, C. S., Ursin, H., Eriksen, H. R., & Pallesen, S. (2012). The relationship of narcissism with
workaholism, work engagement and professional position. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(6), 881
890.
Appelbaum, S. H., Deguire, K. J., & Lay, M. (2005). The relationship of ethical climate to deviant workplace
behavior. Corporate Governance, 5(4), 4355.
Aube, C., Rousseau, V., Mama, C., & Morin, E. M. (2009). Counterproductive behaviors and
psychological well-being: the moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Business
Psychology, 24, 351361.
Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). When leadership goes unnoticed: the moderating role
of follower self-esteem on the relationship between ethical leadership and follower behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics, 98, 573582.
Bar, SH. (2004). Iran: cultural values, self images and negotiation behavior. Paper presented at the Institute for
Policy and Strategy, The Launder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy IDC, Herzliya, Israel.
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/_Uploads/2614Iranianself.pdf.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and
aggression: the dark side of high self esteem. Psychological Review, 3, 533.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349360.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance,
and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
410424.
Blair, C. A., Hoffman, B. J., & Helland, K. R. (2008). Narcissism in organizations: a multisource appraisal
reflects different perspectives. Human Performance, 21, 254276.
Bolton, L. R., Becker, L. K., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Big five trait predictors of differential counterproductive
work behavior dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 537541.
Bowling, N. A., & Gruys, M. L. (2010). Overlooked issues in the conceptualization and measurement of
counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 5461.
Budhwar, P. S., & Mellahi, K. (2006). Managing human resources in the Middle East. Routledge.
Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: phenotypic description of
pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis.
Clinical Psychology Review, 28(4), 638656.
Campbell, W. K., & Campbell, S. M. (2009). On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the peculiar benefits
and costs of narcissism: a contextual reinforcement model and examination of leadership. Self and
Identity, 8, 214232.

A. Aghaz et al.
Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational
contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268284.
Chang, M. K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: a comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the
theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 18251834.
Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., & Turan, N. (2013). Predicting counterproductive work behavior from guilt
proneness. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 4553.
Crosbie, R. (2008). Who defines ethics in your organization? Journal of Industrial and Commercial Training,
40(4), 181187.
Davis, M., Wester, K., & King, B. (2008). Narcissism, entitlement and questionable research practice in
counseling: a pilot study. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86(2), 200210.
Dickinson, K., & Pincus, A. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 17(3), 188207.
Fine, F., Horowitz, I., Weigler, H., & Basis, L. (2010). Is good character good enough? The effects of
situational variables on the relationship between integrity and counterproductive work behaviors. Human
Resource Management Review, 20, 7384.
Foster, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2007). Are there such things as narcissists in social psychology? A
taxometric analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
13211332.
Fox, S. (2001). Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational
justice: some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
59, 291309.
Gabbard, G. O. (2009). Transference and counter transference, developments in the treatment of narcissistic
personality disorder. Psychiatric Annals, 39(3), 129136.
Gable, R. W. (1959). Culture and administration in Iran. Middle East Journal, 13(4), 407421.
Goldman, A. (2006). Personality disorders in leaders Implications of the DSM IV-TR in assessing dysfunctional organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(5), 392414.
Grijalva, E., & Newman, D. A. (2014). Narcissism and Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB): metaanalysis and consideration of collectivist culture, big five personality, and narcissisms facet structure.
Applied Psychology: An International Review. doi:10.1111/apps.12025.
Guo, X. W. (2012). Counterproductive work behaviors, Confucian values, and production deviance: the
mediating effect of job satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(6), 10451055.
Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: a reexamination of Murrays
narcissism scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(4), 588599.
Henle, C. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2005). The role of ethical ideology in workplace
deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 219230.
Ho, V. T. (2012). Interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors: distinguishing between person-focused
versus task-focused behaviors and their antecedents. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 467482.
Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R., & Lyons, B. D. (2011). Great man or great myth? A
quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(2), 347381.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Hoogervorst, N., De Cremer, D., & Dijke, M. (2010). Why leaders not always disapprove of unethical
follower behavior: it depends on the leaders self-interest and accountability. Journal of Business Ethics,
95, 2941.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and
organizations: the globe study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Jensen, J. M., & Patel, P. C. (2011). Predicting counterproductive work behavior from the interaction of
personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 466471.
Jorstad, J. (1996). Narcissistic and leadership: some differences in male and female leaders. Leadership and
Development Journal, 17(6), 1723.
Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., Prosser, M., & Cameron, J. E. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior as
protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 1825.
Kramer, R. M. (2003). The harder they fall. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 5866.
Lau, V. C. S., Au, W. T., & Ho, J. M. C. (2003). A qualitative and quantitative review of antecedents of
counterproductive behavior in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(1), 7399.
Lindfelt, L., & Tornroos, J. (2006). Ethics and value creation in business research: comparing two approaches.
European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 328351.
Luchner, A. F., Houston, J. M., Walker, C., & Houston, M. A. (2011). Exploring the relationship between two
forms of narcissism and competitiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 779782.

Narcissism and counterproductive workplace behaviors

MacLane, C. N., & Walmsley, P. T. (2010). Reducing counterproductive work behavior through employee
selection. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 6272.
Martinez, M. A., Zeichner, A., Reidy, D. E., & Miller, J. D. (2008). Narcissism and displaced aggression:
effects of positive, negative and delayed feedback. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 140
149.
Masterson, J. F. (1993). The emerging self: a developmental self and object relations approach to the
treatment of the closet narcissistic disorder of the self. New York: Routledge.
Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualization of
narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 449476.
Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Belmont: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: narcissism, Machiavellianism and
psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556563.
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(1/2), 126134.
Peterson, D. K. (2002). Deviant workplace behavior and the organizations ethical climate. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 17(1), 4761.
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G. C., & Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial
construction and validation of the pathological narcissism inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21(3),
365379.
Raskin, R. N., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory
and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890902.
Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). How dark are the dark triad traits? Examining the perceived
darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences,
53(7), 884889.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional
scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555572.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: dimensions, determinants, and dilemmas
in the study of workplace deviance. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational
behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 130). New York: Wiley.
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: dimensionality and relationships
with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1/2), 511.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H.
K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol.
1, pp. 145164). London: Sage.
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: a model and review of the literature. Personnel Psychology,
32, 815829.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of
counterproductivity: are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior,
68, 446460.
Stead, W. E., Worrell, D. L., & Stead, J. G. (1990). An integrative model for understanding and managing
ethical behavior in business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 233242.
Vardi, Y. (2001). The effects of organizational and ethical climates on misconduct at work. Journal of Business
Ethics, 29, 325337.
Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., & Miller, L. (19971998). Narcissism and the self as continuum: Correlations with
assertiveness and hypercompetitiveness. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 17(3), 249259.
Wei, F., & Steven, S. (2013). Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: the
moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
30(1), 281296.
Wimbush, J. C., & Shepard, J. M. (1994). Toward an understanding of ethical climate: its relationship to
ethical behavior and supervisory influence. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 637647.
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 590597.
Wink, P. (1996). Narcissism. In C. G. Costello (Ed.), Personality characteristics of the personality disordered
(pp. 146172). New York: Wiley.
Yang, L. Q., Johnson, R. E., Zhang, X., Spector, P. E., & Xu, S. (2013). Relations of interpersonal unfairness
with counterproductive work behavior: the moderating role of employee self-identity. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 28(2), 189202.
Yeganeh, H., & Su, Z. (2008). An examination of human resource management practices in Iranian public
sector. Personnel Review, 37(2), 203221.