THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CORRECTED.

SEE LAST PAGE

Journal of Applied Psychology © 2015 American Psychological Association

2015, Vol. 100, No. 4, 1203–1213 0021-9010/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038698

RESEARCH REPORT

Leader Narcissism and Follower Outcomes: The Counterbalancing Effect

of Leader Humility

Bradley P. Owens Angela S. Wallace

Brigham Young University University at Buffalo, State University of New York
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

David A. Waldman
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Arizona State University

In response to recent calls to theorize and examine how multiple leader characteristics may work together in
their effects, the current research examines how leader narcissism and humility interact to predict perceived
leader effectiveness and follower (i.e., direct-report) job engagement and performance. Although an exami-
nation of leaders who are narcissistic yet humble may seem oxymoronic and even paradoxical, researchers
have suggested that seemingly contradictory personal attributes may exist simultaneously and may actually
work together to produce positive outcomes. Results from survey data from followers and leaders working for
a large health insurance organization showed that the interaction of leader narcissism and leader humility is
associated with perceptions of leader effectiveness, follower job engagement, and subjective and objective
follower job performance. Together, these results suggest that narcissistic leaders can have positive effects on
followers when their narcissism is tempered by humility.

Keywords: leader traits, narcissism, humility, job engagement, job performance

Steve Jobs was commonly seen as having a high level of
narcissism (Isaacson, 2011). However, Jobs’ second try as the
head of Apple was marked with a tempered management style
(Surowiecki, 2011). For example, he was described as more
open to others’ ideas (Beetz, 2005) and more willing to ac-
knowledge past mistakes, even referring to his earlier firing
from Apple as “awful tasting medicine . . . [that] the patient
needed” (Jobs, 2005). He expressed appreciation for the tal-
ented executives around him and was able to retain them
(Isaacson, 2011). Although Jobs was still seen as narcissistic,
his narcissism appeared to be counterbalanced or tempered with
a measure of humility, and it was this tempered narcissist who
This article was published Online First January 26, 2015.
Bradley P. Owens, Romney Institute of Public Management, Marriott
School of Management, Brigham Young University; Angela S. Wallace,
Department of Organization and Human Resources, School of Manage-
ment, University at Buffalo, State University of New York; David A.
Waldman, Department of Management, W. P. Carey School of Business,
Arizona State University.
This article was supported in part by a grant from the John Templeton
Foundation [Grant 29630] entitled “The Development, Validation, and
Dissemination of Measures of Intellectual Humility and Humility.” The
authors thank Deidra Schleicher and two anonymous reviewers for their
helpful feedback on this project.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bradley
P. Owens, Department of Romney Institute of Public Management, Mar-
riott School of Management, Brigham Young University; 760 TNRB
Provo, UT 84062. E-mail: bpo@byu.edu
1203
led Apple to be the most valuable company in the world during
his second attempt as company president.
Narcissism is defined as a “complex of personality traits and
processes that involve[s] a grandiose yet fragile sense of self as
well as a preoccupation with success and demands for admira-
tion” (Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006, p. 441) and has been
described as comprising an excessively self-centered perspec-
tive, self-absorption, extreme confidence or superiority, ex-
ploitiveness/entitlement, and a strong drive to lead (Emmons,
1987; Galvin, Waldman, & Balthazard, 2010; Raskin & Hall,
1979; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Despite the fact that nar-
cissism might seem intuitively anathema to leader success, it
actually has been shown to have mixed effects on outcomes. For
example, Judge, LePine, and Rich (2006) found that narcissism
was positively related to other-report assessments of leadership
effectiveness in one study and negatively related in another
study. The findings of Galvin et al. (2010) revealed that on the
one hand, narcissists are more likely to espouse the type of bold
vision that is necessary for organizations to achieve significant
change. However, on the other hand, narcissists may be negli-
gent in pursuing the type of socialized vision (i.e., stakeholder
oriented) that others may find to be inspiring (Brown &
Treviño, 2006; Sully de Luque, Washburn, Waldman, & House,
2008). In short, whether narcissism is good or bad for leader-
ship effectiveness has been “one of the longest running issues”
in the leader narcissism literature (Campbell, Hoffman, Camp-
bell, & Marchisio, 2011, p. 272).
Over the past decade, scholars have proposed that narcissism
can be “productive” in some cases because although narcissists
 1204 OWENS, WALLACE, AND WALDMAN
are often viewed as arrogant, haughty, and self-centered, they
also tend to be very confident in their abilities, willing to take
bold risks, and persistent in their pursuit of goals despite
adversity (Maccoby, 2000; Paulhus & Williams, 2002;
Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). In line with recent advances in
theory on workplace paradoxes (Smith & Lewis, 2011; Zhang,
Waldman, Han, & Li, 2014), we examine how humility inter-
acts with narcissism to help temper the potential negative
effects of narcissism and magnify the potential positive effects.
Leader humility is conceptualized as an interpersonal charac-
teristic enacted in a social context (Owens, 2009b; Owens,
Johnson, & Mitchell, 2013) and is manifested by admitting
mistakes and limitations, spotlighting the strengths and contri-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
butions of others, and modeling teachability (Owens & Hek-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
man, 2012).1 Although it may appear paradoxical that a leader
can be both narcissistic and humble at the same time, possess-
ing seemingly opposing characteristics is not in conflict with
competing values theory (Cameron & Quinn, 2011), trait affec-
tivity theory (Watson & Clark, 1984), and behavioral motives
research (Grant & Mayer, 2009; Konrath, Bushman, & Grove,
2009; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2006). For example, it is possible
to be both self- and others-focused, as well as agentic and
communal (Konrath, Bushman, & Grove, 2009). In the current
study, we advance theory suggesting that when a narcissistic
leader is also viewed as having humility, it helps to temper the
potential ill effects of narcissism, allowing potentially positive
or “constructive” (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985) effects to
manifest. Because narcissism and humility both have clear
relational implications (see Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Owens,
Rowatt, & Wilkins, 2011), we focus on the impact of this
interaction on leader effectiveness from the perspective of
followers and followers’ responses to the leader in terms of
follower job engagement and performance.
This research makes three contributions to the literature.
First, this effort is the first to examine how leader narcissism
and humility jointly influence indicators of leader effectiveness,
providing novel insight into the long-standing debate over
whether and when narcissism is good for effective leadership
(Campbell et al., 2011). Second, in response to calls to more
fully integrate leader characteristics, this research furthers the-
ory and empirical evidence about how leader characteristics can
interact to explain the leader-influence process by theorizing
how combinations of characteristics work together to foster
leader effectiveness rather than by studying characteristics in
isolation (for a review, see Zaccaro, 2007; Zaccaro, Kemp, &
Bader, 2004). Third, we further theory on leader humility, as the
current study represents the first empirical test of the humility-
temperance hypothesis (Park & Peterson, 2003), and the first
attempt, to our knowledge, to empirically examine how humil-
ity interacts with other leadership characteristics in the predic-
tion of leader effectiveness and follower outcomes.
Theoretical Background
Leader Narcissism
Narcissism plays an influential role in organizations (Lasch,
1979), as those who seek and ascend to leadership positions are
often found to have a moderate to high degree of narcissism
(Maccoby, 2000; Rosenthal, 2006; Vogel, 2006). Although
narcissism has been a strong predictor of leader emergence
(Campbell & Campbell, 2009), it has also been an inconsistent
predictor of leader effectiveness. For example, one recent meta-
analysis reported that correlations between leader narcissism
and other-report measures of leader effectiveness ranged from
r ⫽ ⫺.31 to .48 in studies using the Hogan Development
Survey-Bold (HDS-Bold) (Hogan & Hogan, 1997) and from
r ⫽ ⫺.27 to .25 in studies using the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (NPI) (Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis, & Fraley,
in press; Raskin & Terry, 1988). In trying to make sense of this
range of findings and explain how leader narcissism could yield
positive effects in some instances, leadership scholars have
emphasized that since narcissism is a complex of traits and
processes, some of narcissism’s properties could yield produc-
tive or positive results in a leadership role, such as confidence,
vision boldness, a fierce drive to succeed, and a strong desire to
lead (Deluga, 1997; Galvin et al., 2010; Khoo & Burch, 2008).
We theorize that one important factor relevant to the effects of
leader narcissism is humility, which captures specific interper-
sonal patterns that are interrelated and could create a foil or
buffer to the more toxic aspects of narcissism.
Leader Humility
Since the beginning of the new millennium, scholars have
increasingly argued that leaders will need “more humility and
less hubris” to successfully handle the unique and fast-changing
demands of the 21st century (Weick, 2000, p. 106; see also
Doty & Gerdes, 2000; Hughes, 2010; Ruggero, 2009). Indeed,
recent research has shown humility’s positive effects in orga-
nizational contexts (Ou, Tsui, Kinicki, Waldman, Xiao, &
Song, 2014; Owens & Hekman, 2012; Owens et al., 2013;
Owens & Hekman, in press). By defining humility as an inter-
personal quality that plays out in a social context (in line with
Owens et al., 2013), we take a behavioral view of humility as a
personality characteristic, which view suggests that consistent
“behavioral acts are the building blocks [and core indicators] of
traits, and the stronger an individual’s propensity toward a trait,
the more frequently and intensely the individual enacts a cor-
responding set of behaviors” (Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011,
p. 530; see also Buss & Craik, 1983; Fleeson, 2001). As
humility has qualitatively been shown to be a malleable attri-
bute that is subject to development or deterioration and that can
fluctuate according to life experience (Owens, 2009a; Vera &
Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004), humility is akin to what personality
psychologists call a “modifiable trait” that people can “increase
dramatically by practic[e]” (Dunning, 1995, p. 1302; see also
Duval & Silvia, 2002). This is in line with Dweck, Hong, and
Chiu’s (1993) conception of trait incrementalism, or the belief
that personal attributes are malleable. Individuals may proactively
choose to develop the trait of humility, and this malleable view of
1
These behavioral dimensions of humility have been found to co-occur
and foster each other (Owens & Hekman, 2012). This operationalization of
humility is empirically distinct from measures of the Big Five, modesty,
narcissism, honesty-humility, self-efficacy, learning goal-orientation, and
core self-evaluation (Owens et al., 2013) and from transformational, au-
thentic, servant, and charismatic leadership (Owens, Rowatt, & Wilkins,
2011).
 LEADER NARCISSISM AND HUMILITY
humility leaves open the possibility that narcissistic individuals may
self-regulate (Baumeister, 2014) their narcissism by practicing
humility, eventually inculcating this attribute into their character.2
Humility has been viewed as a metavirtue that undergirds other
virtues (Grenberg, 2005), in part because it helps to temper other
characteristics from going to extremes (Park & Peterson, 2003). In
past reviews, scholars have documented that the reasons why
leaders fail often entail an untempered or excessive expression of
otherwise important leadership characteristics (for review see
Burke, 2006). These include leader confidence swelling to arro-
gance, leader self-esteem inflating to hubris, leader charismatic or
innovative behavior ballooning to eccentricity, leader competitive-
ness leading to unethical behavior, and leader optimism turning
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
into dysfunctional strategic persistence. As power has been shown
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
to sometimes change individuals in negative ways (see Kipnis,
1972), when leaders are given power, the traits that helped them to
emerge as leaders in the first place may be the same traits that
cause them to derail if these traits go unchecked.
Leader Narcissism Combined With Humility
Paradox theory provides a theoretical lens for understanding
how narcissism and humility may interact to predict leader effec-
tiveness. As defined by Smith and Lewis (2011, p. 386), a paradox
entails seemingly “contradictory . . . elements that exist simulta-
neously and persist over time.” The management of paradoxes is
being increasingly recognized in theories pertaining to workplace
effectiveness (Lewis, 2000). An important element of the theory
put forth by Smith and Lewis is that although the two poles of a
paradox may seem incongruent or even negatively related, the
effective management of the paradox requires their harmonization
and integration. Such thinking follows from the yin-yang philos-
ophy, which purports that although the seemingly opposite poles of
a paradox may appear to oppose or even negate each other, they
can actually be interdependent and potentially complementary
(Chen, 2002; Chen, Xie, & Chang, 2011; Fang, 2012; Kaiser &
Overfield, 2010; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). We argue that although
the combination of narcissism and humility may seem like an
irreconcilable paradox, in reality, as shown by Ou et al. (2014), the
traits can occur simultaneously. Thus, we suggest that it is possible
for narcissism and humility to work together harmoniously to
predict leader effectiveness (see Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985;
Maccoby, 2000).
We propose that humility can enable narcissistic leaders to be
effective because the most self-focused, toxic dimensions of nar-
cissism are counteracted and mollified by the dimensions of hu-
mility. Thus, narcissistic tendencies toward exploiting others, be-
ing self-absorbed, and demanding admiration are offset by overtly
drawing attention to and promoting others’ strengths and contri-
butions. A sense of superiority is neutralized by the leader’s
admissions of limits and mistakes, and self-centered perspectives
are transcended or expanded by the leader’s being receptive to
others’ ideas and feedback. In addition, the effect of potentially
constructive aspects of narcissism may be enhanced by humility
by, for example, extreme confidence being tempered by the lead-
er’s acknowledgment of his or her faults and limitations, a preoc-
cupation with personal success being balanced with recognizing
others for success as well, and a strong desire to lead and have
authority over others being countered by a willingness to draw
1205
attention to others’ unique expertise so they can be accorded
authority and influence in those areas of expertise.
We propose that the tempering effect of humility on narcissism
described above will allow the leader to integrate a range of
seemingly diverse characteristics and role expectations associated
with implicit theories of leadership. Specifically, implicit leader-
ship research (Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1986; Offermann, Ken-
nedy, & Wirtz, 1994) would suggest that prototypical leaders are
strong, aggressive, confident, determined, directing, competitive,
and decisive. However, at the same time, they are also open-
minded, caring, understanding, compassionate, and cooperative.
Indeed, such an androgynous leader-characteristic balance has
been shown to be associated with leader effectiveness (Cann &
Siegfried, 1990; Kark, Waismel-Manor, & Shamir, 2012). Thus,
we expect the following:
Hypothesis 1: Narcissistic leaders with high humility will be
perceived by followers to be more effective than narcissistic
leaders with low humility.
In addition to perceived leader effectiveness, we propose the
combination of leader narcissism and leader humility will also
engender actual leader influence in terms of follower attitudinal
motivation (i.e., job engagement; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) and
behavioral motivation (i.e., job performance). Horowitz and Ar-
thur (1988) theorized that unbridled narcissism would be associ-
ated with followers becoming less motivated and engaged. Fol-
lower motivation is hampered when narcissistic leaders do not
heed follower ideas or share due credit for success. However, we
propose that humility will help to buffer the effects of the most
toxic, demotivating dimensions of narcissism, while allowing the
potentially constructive or motivating aspects of narcissism to
arouse employees, create perceptions of leader effectiveness (as
argued above), and foster a sense of supportiveness, all of which
have been shown to be important antecedents to followers’ will-
ingness to invest themselves fully in their work tasks (Dvir, Eden,
Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Kahn, 1990). We argue that the com-
bined effect of leader narcissism and humility will enhance fol-
lowers’ attitudinal and behavioral motivation to work hard at their
jobs. Thus, we expect the following:
Hypothesis 2: Narcissistic leaders with high humility will
have more engaged followers than narcissistic leaders with
low humility.
2
According to self-regulation theory, people will manage their behavior
through the use of specific self-controlled and integrated mechanisms
(Karoly, 1993) to maintain a positive view among others (a primary goal
of the self). Successful self-regulation requires resisting or overriding
natural impulses that might detract from achieving goals or lead to a
negative image (Baumeister & Vohs, 2012). Although we propose that this
is one reason why narcissists may display humility, we are not proposing
that all expressions of humility are necessarily instrumental. A narcissist
may choose to practice, develop, and in time, truly possess the character-
istic of humility out of an intrinsic desire for self-change (Dweck, 2001).
For our purposes to understand follower outcomes, the followers’ consen-
sual perceptions of humility are more important than the degree to which
the leader truly possesses the characteristic of humility or the leader’s
reasons for displaying humility.
 1206 OWENS, WALLACE, AND WALDMAN
Hypothesis 3: Narcissistic leaders with high humility will
have higher performing followers than narcissistic leaders
with low humility.
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 876 employees (76% female, 57%
White, average age 37, average tenure under current leader was
21.26 months) rating 138 leaders (61% female, 57% White) work-
ing in a Fortune 100 health insurance organization headquartered
in North America, with employees in the United States, Puerto
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Rico, and Western Europe. Of the leaders, 57% returned surveys
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
evaluating follower performance; thus, our list-wise sample for our
leader-rated performance criteria was 230 followers rated by 78
leaders. In addition, only 116 followers of 16 leaders had objective
archival performance data. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests
revealed no significant differences between these three groups on
any demographic variable. The data presented in this article were
part of a broader data collection effort.
Procedures
Study scales were included as part of a voluntary annual orga-
nizational assessment. The follower and leader forms of the survey
were administered online in two parts. Part 1 contained the pre-
dictor variables (i.e., follower ratings of leader humility, leader
self-ratings of narcissism). Approximately 1 month later, Part 2 of
the survey was administered with the follower form containing the
follower job engagement scale and the leader effectiveness scale
and with the leader form containing the leader-rated follower job
performance scale. The response rates for the follower survey for
Times 1 and 2 were 74% and 65%, respectively. One month after
the Time 2 survey was administered, we requested and received
archival performance data from the organization. Time 1 and Time
2 surveys were matched by follower email addresses. Leader
assessments of performance were matched to followers by super-
visor numbers provided by the organization.
Measures
Leader narcissism. Leader narcissism was measured using
the self-report NPI-16-item scale (Ames, Rose, & Anderson,
2006). This forced-choice scale captures subclinical or social nar-
cissism and has respondents choose which of two statements best
describes themselves. Sample items from this scale include the
following (the first item in each pairing reflects narcissism): “I am
an extraordinary person” or “I am much like everybody else” and
“People always seem to recognize my authority” or “Being an
authority doesn’t mean that much to me” (␣ ⫽ .71).
Leader humility. Leader humility was measured with a con-
sensus other-report scale that was developed and validated by
Owens et al. (2013), and adapted to assess a leader. This scale
captures the dimensions of willingness to view oneself accurately
(“My leader admits it when he or she doesn’t know how to do
something”), appreciation of others strengths and contributions
(“My leader acknowledges when others have more knowledge and
skills than him- or herself”), and openness to others ideas and
feedback (“My leader shows a willingness to learn from others”).
Two additional humility items were developed and tested, based
on qualitative research suggesting that in a leadership context
humble individuals admit their mistakes (“My leader admits it
when he or she makes mistakes”) and are aware of both their
strengths and their weaknesses (“My leader shows awareness of
personal strengths and weaknesses”) for a total of 11 humility
items.3 Items were anchored on a 5-point agreement scale (5 ⫽
strongly agree; ␣ ⫽ .98).
Perceived leader effectiveness. Participants were asked to
complete a 4-item leadership effectiveness scale from Colbert,
Kristof-Brown, Bradley, and Barrick (2008), designed to capture a
broad range of leadership effectiveness behaviors: communicating,
setting goals, leading change, and coaching. Sample items include
“My leader overcomes natural resistance to organizational change;
strives to behave in ways that are consistent with the change goals
and corporate strategy” and “My leader influences the perfor-
mance of others in achieving the goals of the organization; includ-
ing communicating goals to others, modeling appropriate behav-
iors, coaching others to help them attain goals, and providing
reinforcement upon the attainment of the goal.” Items were an-
chored on a 5-point agreement scale (5 ⫽ strongly agree; ␣ ⫽ .95).
Follower job engagement. Participants were asked to com-
plete a 9-item job engagement scale (Schaufeli, Bakker, &
Salanova, 2006). Sample items include “I am immersed in my
work,” “At my job, I feel strong and vigorous,” and “I am enthu-
siastic about my job.” Items were anchored on a 7-point agreement
scale (7 ⫽ strongly agree; ␣ ⫽ .93).
Follower subjective performance. Leader evaluation of fol-
lower performance was measured using a 4-item individual per-
formance scale developed by Walumbwa, Avolio, and Zhu (2008).
The anchors on this scale range from 1 ⫽ consistently performs
way below expectations to 5 ⫽ consistently performs way above
expectations. Sample items include “How would you judge the
overall quality of this employee’s work?” and “All in all, how
competently does this employee perform?” (␣ ⫽ .94).
Follower objective performance. As an additional measure
of follower performance, objective productivity data were re-
quested and received for the month after the survey administration.
These productivity data reflect how much of the followers’ time
was spent performing the core task of responding to customer-
service calls, as opposed to taking breaks, chatting with coworkers,
and using the Internet for nonwork-related purposes during work
hours. The company’s phone bank system produces a monthly
rating between 0 and 1000, with the higher number representing
more productive use of company time. According to the organi-
zation’s performance management team, these metrics signifi-
cantly influence decisions about follower merit pay increases,
bonuses, and promotions, and it is a core performance measure
within this context.
Controls. As we argue above that narcissism and humility
may capture a form of leader androgyny, we controlled for leader
and follower gender, because gender role stereotypes influence
expectations about leader behavior and styles (e.g., female leaders
3
Though we report results using the 11 item scale, the correlation
between the original 9 item and 11 item scale was r ⫽ .997; thus, results
were virtually identical when using either scale.
 LEADER NARCISSISM AND HUMILITY 1207

are expected to be more communal and male leaders more agentic) Table 2
and followers’ own gender may influence their receptiveness to Regression Analyses Testing the Interaction of Leader
those different styles (Eagly & Karau, 2002). In addition, we Narcissism and Leader Humility on Perceived
controlled for team size because leaders tend to behave differently Leader Effectiveness
toward large versus small teams (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Bass,
1990). Perceived leader effectiveness
Dependent variable Model 1 Model 2
Analysis Predictors
Leader narcissism ⫺.00 (.29) ⫺.05 (.28)
Other-report ratings of leader humility and leader effectiveness
Leader humility .59 (.08)ⴱⴱⴱ .56 (.08)ⴱⴱⴱ
were aggregated to the team level after computing within-group Interaction
interrater agreement (rwg; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993) and Leader narcissism ⫻ Leader humility 1.21 (.47)ⴱⴱ
ICC values to justify this aggregation. Leader humility had an F 26.00ⴱⴱⴱ 20.18
R2 .26 .29
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

average rwg value of .78 with ICC [1, 2] values of .13 and .49,
⌬R2 .03ⴱⴱ
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

respectively. Leader effectiveness had an average rwg value of .84

with ICC [1, 2] values of .15 and .68, respectively. To ensure
construct differentiation between follower ratings of leader humil-
ity and leader effectiveness, we conducted a confirmatory factor
analysis using structural equation modeling (AMOS 21; Arbuckle,
2012). The two-factor solution (␹2[79] ⫽ 358.22; RMSEA ⫽ .06;
CFI ⫽ .99; TLI ⫽ .98) fit the data much better than the one-factor
solution (␹2[80] ⫽ 1293.34; RMSEA ⫽ .12; CFI ⫽ .94; TLI ⫽
.92), suggesting these leadership constructs are distinct.
As all variables in Hypothesis 1 were on Level 2, we tested
Hypothesis 1 using regression (SPSS, 2012). Because Hypotheses
2 and 3 entail Level 2 predictors with a Level 1 outcome, we tested
these hypotheses using hierarchical linear modeling with robust
SEs (HLM 7; Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit,
2011). For all outcomes, we conducted line-slope analyses for
interaction effects (Aiken & West, 1991). As results were signif-
icant whether or not we included controls, we report the models
without controls. For our HLM analyses, a test of variance ex-
plained was calculated based on the following formula from Singer
(1998): pseudo R2 ⫽ (Level-2 unrestricted error—Level-2 re-
stricted error)/Level-2 unrestricted error.
Results
Table 1 displays descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations
for all study variables. The results of the regression analysis are
summarized in Table 2. In Model 2, the interaction of leader
Note. N ⫽ 138 teams. All regression values reflect unstandardized ␤
coefficients with SEs given in parentheses.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⱕ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
narcissism and leader humility predicted perceived leader effec-
tiveness beyond the main effects and study controls (b ⫽ 1.21,
SE ⫽ .47, p ⬍ .01; ⌬R2 ⫽ .03), providing support for Hypothesis
1. As displayed in Figure 1, leader narcissism positively predicted
perceived leader effectiveness, but only when the leader also had
higher humility (simple slope t ⫽ 3.20, p ⬍ .001). When the leader
was low in humility, leader narcissism did not significantly predict
leader effectiveness (simple slope: t ⫽ ⫺1.17, ns).
For Hypotheses 2 and 3, we proposed that higher leader narcis-
sism and humility would be positively associated with follower job
engagement and job performance. As shown in Models 2, 4, and 6
in Table 3, the interaction term was positively associated with
follower job engagement (b ⫽ .98, SE ⫽ .43, p ⬍ .05; pseudo
⌬R2 ⫽ .09), follower subjective (leader-rated) job performance
(b ⫽ 1.38, SE ⫽ .52, p ⬍ .01; pseudo ⌬R2 ⫽ .17), and follower
objective (archival) job performance (b ⫽ 3.82, SE ⫽ .98, p ⬍ .01;
pseudo ⌬R2 ⫽ .27). In Figure 2, high leader narcissism was
positively associated with higher follower job engagement when
leader humility was also high (simple slope t ⫽ 2.00, p ⬍ .05),
lending support for Hypothesis 2. In Figures 3 and 4, high leader
narcissism was positively associated with both higher follower

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
1. Leader gender .39 .49 .29 .04 .20 .12 .03 .04 .05 .29ⴱⴱ
2. Follower gender 1.24 .19 .16 ⫺.05 ⫺.03 .04 .02 .03 ⫺.06 ⫺.07
3. Team size 2.99 1.05 ⫺.01 ⫺.12 ⫺.23ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 ⫺.10 ⫺.10 .01 .08
4. Leader narcissism .39 .17 .25ⴱ ⫺.14 ⫺.20 .00 .03 .04 .05 .41ⴱⴱ
5. Leader humility 3.95 .60 .27ⴱⴱ .09 .03 ⫺.06 .66ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .12
6. Perceived leader effectiveness 4.10 .71 .07 ⫺.07 .04 ⫺.09 .52ⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ .14
7. Follower job engagement 5.02 .95 .03 .01 ⫺.31 .02 .33ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱ
8. Follower subjective performancea 3.71 .82 .04 ⫺.06 .01 .03 .37ⴱⴱ .25ⴱ .20ⴱ .31
9. Follower objective performanceb 137.66 129.46 .32 ⫺.24 .33 .36 .15 .02 .43 .33
Note. Values above the diagonal represent individual-level correlations and values below the diagonal, team-level correlations. N ⫽ 876 followers from
k ⫽ 138 teams. Gender coded as 1 ⫽ male, 0 ⫽ female. Race coded as 1 ⫽ White, 0 ⫽ non-White.
a
Denotes leader-rated follower job performance (n ⫽ 230 from k ⫽ 78 teams). b Denotes an archival performance measure of follower productivity (n ⫽
116 from k ⫽ 16 teams).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 1208 OWENS, WALLACE, AND WALDMAN
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 2. The interactive effect of leader narcissism and leader humility

Figure 1. The interactive effect of leader narcissism and leader humility
on follower job engagement.
on perceived leader effectiveness.

tially harmful effects of narcissism. We found that when leaders

subjective (simple slope t ⫽ 2.90, p ⬍ .01) and higher objective
(simple slope t ⫽ 4.29, p ⬍ .001) job performance when leader
humility was also high, lending support for Hypothesis 3. In each
case, the slopes for low humility were all nonsignificant (see
Figures 2, 3, and 4).
Discussion
In their review of narcissistic leader research, Rosenthal and
Pittinsky (2006, p. 618) suggested that counterproductive, harmful
effects of narcissism occur “when one is unable to integrate the
idealized beliefs one has about oneself with the realities of one’s
inadequacies.” As humility entails acknowledging inadequacies
and limits, the current study is the first of which we are aware to
empirically test the idea that humility can counteract the poten-
show humility, narcissism is associated with positive effects in
terms of leader effectiveness and follower outcomes. The impli-
cation of this study is that it is important to remember that
narcissistic leaders are not one-dimensional individuals; rather,
other characteristics may interact with the leaders’ narcissism to
determine its effects on followers. The results of this study suggest
that narcissists who practice humility may avoid derailment and be
effective as leaders because expressions of humility may mollify
the effects of the most toxic aspects of narcissism and temper the
potentially constructive aspects so their benefits can be realized.
Leader Trait Theory
The current research also contributes to evolving debates about
leader trait research. Since the resurgence of this theory, scholars

Table 3
HLM Analyses Testing the Interaction of Leader Narcissism and Leader Humility on Follower Job Engagement, Subjective
Performance, and Objective Performance

Follower subjective Follower objective

Follower job engagementa performanceb performancec
Dependent variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Intercept, ␥00 4.94 (.04) 4.94 (.04) 3.65 (.04) 3.65 (.05) .04 (.21) .00 (.15)
Predictors
Leader narcissism, ␥a0 .11 (.27) .05 (.27) .52 (.29)† .50 (.27)† 2.76 (1.10)ⴱ 3.65 (.88)ⴱⴱ
Leader humility, ␥b0 .05 (.08) .05 (.27) .36 (.07)ⴱⴱⴱ .29 (.08)ⴱⴱⴱ .28 (.38) .13 (.23)
Interaction
Leader narcissism ⫻ Leader humility, ␥c0 .98 (.43)ⴱ 1.38 (.52)ⴱⴱ 3.84 (1.16)ⴱⴱ
Log likelihood 2624.36 2617.96 561.33 551.93 298.99 294.09
⫺2 [L␤reduced – ␤full)] ⫺12.80 ⫺18.80 ⫺9.08
⌬ Pseudo R2 .09 .17 .27
Note. Predictor and interaction variables were modeled at Level 2. All regression values reflect unstandardized ␤ coefficients with SEs given in
parentheses.
a
N ⫽ 876 followers from k ⫽ 138 teams. b N ⫽ 230 followers from k ⫽ 78 teams. c N ⫽ 116 followers from k ⫽ 16 teams.
†
p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 LEADER NARCISSISM AND HUMILITY 1209

measure that can circumvent issues related to social desirability

(e.g., disguised-intent or forced-choice format) to examine whether
the level of agreement in self- and other-report humility assess-
ment is predictive of positive leadership outcomes.
Paradoxes in organizations. Our study could provide new
directions in the study of paradoxes facing leaders and organiza-
tions. Since the 1980s, paradoxes have been largely considered in
terms of macrolevel challenges that organizations often face. For
example, Smith and Lewis (2011) considered the organizational
learning paradox inherent in exploitation versus exploration, and
the performing paradox that can occur from the competing de-
mands of stakeholder groups. While Smith and Lewis considered
leader qualities (e.g., behavioral complexity) to best deal with the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

demands of organizational paradoxes, they did not consider how

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

such qualities themselves might be paradoxical in nature. Accord-

ingly, our contribution is to demonstrate that while the combina-
tion of leader narcissism and humility may seem like an irrecon-
cilable paradox, in reality, these traits can coexist in such a way as
to produce favorable outcomes. We see our research as advancing
thinking beyond a consideration of the paradoxes faced by orga-
Figure 3. The interactive effect of leader narcissism and leader humility nizations by revealing how leaders may need to harmonize para-
on follower subjective performance. doxes within themselves, such as integrating narcissism and hu-
mility.
Our study complements emerging research (e.g., Zhang et al.,
have suggested that there has been too much focus on examining 2014) that shows that paradoxes are also relevant to leader traits
a limited set of traits operating in isolation and too little focus on and behaviors per se as well as resulting follower outcomes.
incorporating patterns of traits into models of leader effectiveness, However, our research extends beyond work of Zhang et al. (2014)
as reflected by Zaccaro (2007, p. 12): “although many recent in three ways. First, their work was directed toward five dimen-
studies have taken a multivariate approach to maximize explained sions of what they referred to as paradoxical leadership in people
variance in leadership, few studies have taken an integrated ap- management, only one of which is along the lines of the current
proach to describe how multiple traits are combined in optimal research. Specifically, they conceived of self-centeredness com-
ways to jointly influence leadership.” As early as 1980, leadership bined with other-centeredness, which is narrower than our broader
scholars have proposed that leadership emergence would be best treatment of narcissism combined with humility. Second, Zhang et
captured by examining patterns of multiple leader traits (Holmes, al. relied on what they termed double-barreled items from a single
Sholley, & Walker, 1980). This idea was confirmed in research source (i.e., ratings by followers). The current study used measures
showing how individuals who are categorized in groups based on
patterns of traits are more likely to emerge as leaders (Smith &
Foti, 1998). However, the prediction of leader effectiveness, rather
than emergence, is a more controversial issue in leader trait re-
search (Zacarro, 2007). The current study provides evidence that
theory-based couplings of leader traits may enhance the prediction
of perceptions of leader effectiveness and actual indicators of
effectiveness—follower job engagement and performance.
Leader humility. Our research also contributes to leader hu-
mility theory as the first empirical test of the temperance-virtue
idea. As a virtue that is proposed to guard against excess (Park &
Peterson, 2003) and keep other characteristics from going to ex-
tremes (Owens & Hekman, 2012), humility has been argued to be
a complementary construct that facilitates greater effectiveness for
other traditional leadership approaches (such as transformational
leadership, Morris, Brotheridge, & Urbanski, 2005; and charis-
matic leadership, Nielsen, Marrone, & Slay, 2010). However, we
are aware of no prior research that has empirically examined how
humility interacts with other characteristics associated with lead-
ership. Thus, this study makes a theoretical contribution by testing
the temperance-virtue concept (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007).
As we relied on a consensus other-report measure to capture our
behavioral consistency view of humility as a trait, we recommend Figure 4. The interactive effect of leader narcissism and leader humility
that future research develop and use a self-reported, humility on follower objective performance.
 1210 OWENS, WALLACE, AND WALDMAN

from two sources (i.e., self-ratings and follower ratings) to tap
narcissism and humility, respectively. Third, Zhang et al. focused
more narrowly on performance ratings by supervisors for the
dependent variable. Outcome assessment in the current study came
from an additional source (i.e., followers) and involved an objec-
tive indicator of follower performance. In total, our study com-
bined with the work of Zhang et al. suggests that more research is
warranted to investigate the effects of paradoxical combinations of
leader characteristics.
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research
Our study has several methodological strengths that enhance
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
explore whether and when trait homogeneity between leaders and
followers is more predictive of leader effectiveness versus when
trait heterogeneity is more predictive of leader success. Lastly, we
suggested above that one reason why narcissists show humility is
out of a self-regulation motive. The self-regulation literature sug-
gests that depletion, stress, or fatigue may predict lapses into
unbridled narcissistic behavior for leaders who are trying to temper
these inclinations (Baumeister, 2002; Baumeister, Bratslavsky,
Muraven, & Tice, 1998). We recommend future research to ex-
amine this potential self-regulation mechanism by exploring
whether workplace stress, fatigue, and other forms of ego deple-
tion impact the degree to which narcissistic leaders display humil-
ity, which may ultimately impede the effectiveness of a narcissistic

confidence in our findings. First, compared with a cross- leader.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

organization study, our cross-unit study within the same organi-

zation better addresses causality issues by keeping particular Practical Implications and Conclusion
threats to internal validity constant (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell,
A key practical implication of this study is that narcissistic
2001) because industry, organizational culture, and reward struc-
leaders who behave humbly may help to prevent their narcissism
tures were consistent across units. Second, our study involved both
from damaging their leadership effectiveness. Narcissistic leaders
multisource measurement with interaction terms, which reduces
may not be “ultimately doomed to fail” (Rosenthal & Pittinsky,
concerns for common method variance (Siemsen, Roth, & Ol-
2006, p. 618) and may not necessarily need to abandon their strong
iveira, 2010), and multistage measurement, which enhances the
or agentic tendencies if they can instead allow these tendencies to
proposed causal order of our theory.
be tempered by counterbalancing characteristics. As new leaders
Our study also has limitations. First, although our cross-unit
engage in their in-role identity construction, they may hear advice
design has some strengths, it is limited in that the study sample
that reflects opposite approaches to leadership: “show no fear,”
came from the same industry (i.e., health services); thus, bringing
“assert yourself,” and “keep a strong front”; or conversely, “be
into question the study’s generalizability to other industry sectors.
humble,” “learn from your people,” and “give due credit to oth-
Industries as well as cultures have been shown to vary in norms or
ers.” Such advice might be confusing to leaders who view these
values that could potentially influence followers’ receptiveness to
approaches as incongruous. However, our study suggests that
narcissism and humility—values such as masculinity or feminin-
effective leaders are more likely to be those individuals who learn
ity, power centralization, collectivism, and power distance (Burns
to harmonize what may initially seem to be disparate leadership
& Stalker, 1961; Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Hofstede, 1984). We
qualities.
recommend that future research be done to explore whether these
In conclusion, scholars have generally viewed narcissism as a
industrial and national cultural differences influence our proposed
volatile characteristic that is likely to be detrimental to leader
interaction effects.
effectiveness. However, more-recent work also suggests the pos-
In addition, our study was limited in that it focused on whether
sibility of narcissism being constructive or productive (Galvin et
a leader displays humility but not why (or the underlying motive
al., 2010; Maccoby, 2000; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). We theo-
for displaying humility). It is conceivable that leaders have varying
rized and tested the idea that leader narcissism can have a positive
motives for displaying humility, upon which followers may dis-
effect on follower perception and motivation when it is tempered
cern. Although our results show clear support for the positive
by humility. As suggested by Zaccaro et al. (2004, p. 123),
benefits of leaders displaying humility even without accounting for
“Understanding leader traits and attributes will require a deeper
potential motive variability, exploring the motive question directly
conceptualization of how such traits . . . operate jointly to influence
in future research could yield additional theoretical insight about
different leadership outcomes.” Our examination of the interaction
these relationships. As assessing leader humility and perceived
of leader narcissism and humility furthers theory on paradoxes in
leader effectiveness from the same source is a limitation of our
organizations and on the role of humility in leadership. We hope
study, future research should also seek to replicate these findings
that this research spurs future work regarding novel examinations
using other indicators of leader effectiveness, such as ratings from
of how leader characteristics interact to predict leader success.
the leader’s boss or department performance metrics. Relatedly,
our Level 2 sample size for our objective job performance metric References
was relatively low. Although we sought to triangulate this effect on
performance with our leader-rated follower job performance out- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
come, future research should replicate the effect of our interaction interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
on objective follower performance. Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short
measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 440 –
Future research should also explore ways to help leaders en-
450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002
hance self-awareness of core values, personal characteristics, and Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External
assumptions that foster counterproductive behaviors and to help activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Sci-
narcissistic leaders identify practical methods for minimizing ence Quarterly, 37, 634 – 665. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393475
harmful behaviors commonly associated with this trait. It may also Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). IBM® SPSS® AmosTM 21 user’s guide. Chicago, IL:
be meaningful to include follower traits in future research and SPSS.
 LEADER NARCISSISM AND HUMILITY
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership:
Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19 –31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Ego depletion and self-control failure: An energy
model of the self’s executive function. Self and Identity, 1, 129 –136.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/152988602317319302
Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and inhibition.
Neuropsychologia, 65, 313–319.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998).
Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.74.5.1252
Baumeister, R. F. & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Self-Regulation and the executive
function of the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of self and identity (2nd ed., pp. 180 –197). New York: The Guilford
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Press.
Beetz, K. (2005). Steven Paul Jobs. In International dictionary of business
biographies. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/
Steven_Paul_Jobs.aspx#1
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and
future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595– 616. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
Burke, R. J. (2006). Why leaders fail: Exploring the dark side. Interna-
tional Journal of Manpower, 271, 91–100.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation.
London, United Kingdom: Tavistock.
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to
personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105–126. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-295X.90.2.105
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing orga-
nizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. San
Francisco, CA: Wiley.
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, 214 –232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860802505129
Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G.
(2011). The role of personality in human resource management. Human
Resource Management Review, 21, 268 –284.
Cann, A., & Siegfried, W. D. (1990). Gender stereotypes and dimensions
of effective leader behavior. Sex Roles, 23, 413– 419. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF00289229
Chen, M. J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese middle way
perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 179 –199. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016235517735
Chen, X. P., Xie, X. F., & Chang, S. Q. (2011). Cooperative and compet-
itive orientation among Chinese people: Scale development and valida-
tion. Management and Organization Review, 7, 353–379. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00215.x
Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R.
(2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance
congruence in top management teams. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 51, 81–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.30717744
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building
and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management
Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1281–1303. http://dx.doi
.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.28165855
Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charis-
matic leadership, narcissism, and rated performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 8, 49 – 65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90030-8
Doty, J., & Gerdes, D. (2000). Humility as a leadership attribute. Military
Review, 80, 89 –90.
Dunning, D. (1995). Trait importance and modifiability as factors influ-
encing self-assessment and self-enhancement motives. Personality and
1211
Social Psychology, 21, 1297–1306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
01461672952112007
Duval, T. S., & Silvia, P. J. (2002). Self-awareness, probability of im-
provement, and the self-serving bias. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 49 – 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.49
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of trans-
formational leadership on follower development and performance: A
field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069307
Dweck, C. S. (2001). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality,
and development (1st ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., Hong, Y. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (1993). Implicit theories:
Individual differences in the likelihood and meaning of dispositional
inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 644 – 656.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167293195015
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice
toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Emmons, R. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11–17.
Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management
and Organization Review, 8, 25–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-
8784.2011.00221.x
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of
personality: Traits as density distribution of states. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.80.6.1011
Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary
communication qualities as mediators of the relationship between nar-
cissism and attributions of leader charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63,
509 –537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01179.x
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extra-
verted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy
of Management Journal, 54, 528 –550. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ
.2011.61968043
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors:
Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors
of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
900 –912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013770
Grenberg, J. M. (2005). Kant and the ethics of humility: A story of
dependence, corruption and virtue. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627859
Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C.
(in press). Narcissism and leadership: A Meta-analytic review of linear
and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values (Vol. 5). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan development survey manual. Tulsa,
OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Holmes, C. M., Sholley, B. K., & Walker, W. E. (1980). Leader, follower,
and isolate personality patterns in black and white emergent leadership
groups. The Journal of Psychology, 105, 41– 46. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00223980.1980.9915130
Horowitz, M. J., & Arthur, R. J. (1988). Narcissistic rage in leaders: The
intersection of individual dynamics and group process. International
Journal of Social Psychiatry, 34, 135–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
002076408803400208
Hughes, L. W. (2010). Leadership under pressure: Tactics from the front
line. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31, 187–188.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731011024439
Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of
within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
306 –309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306
 1212 OWENS, WALLACE, AND WALDMAN
Jobs, S. (2005, June 14). You’ve got to find what you love. Stanford
Report. Retrieved from http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/
jobs-061505.html
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself
abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other
perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256287
Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2010). Assessing flexible leadership as
a mastery of opposites. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 62, 105–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019987
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Kark, R., Waismel-Manor, R., & Shamir, B. (2012). Does valuing androg-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
yny and femininity lead to a female advantage? The relationship be-
tween gender-role, transformational leadership and identification. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23, 620 – 640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua
.2011.12.012
Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual
Review of Psychology, 44, 23–52.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership:
An object relations perspective. Human Relations, 38, 583– 601. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872678503800606
Khoo, H. S., & Burch, G. S. J. (2008). The “dark side” of leadership
personality and transformational leadership: An exploratory study. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 44, 86 –97. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.018
Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 24, 33– 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033390
Konrath, S., Bushman, B. J., & Grove, T. (2009). Seeing my world in a
million little pieces: Narcissism, self-construal, and cognitive-perceptual
style. Journal of Personality, 77, 1197–1228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-6494.2009.00579.x
Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of
diminishing expectations. New York, NY: Norton Ltd.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive
guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25, 760 –776.
Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of
the relationship between personality traits and leadership perceptions:
An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 402– 410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3
.402
Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevi-
table cons. Harvard Business Review, 78, 68 –77.
Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2006). Considering situational and
dispositional approaches to rational self-interest: An extension and re-
sponse to de Dreu (2006). Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1253–
1259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1253
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcis-
sism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological In-
quiry, 12, 177–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1
Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing
humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humil-
ity. Human Relations, 58, 1323–1350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0018726705059929
Nielsen, R., Marrone, J. A., & Slay, H. S. (2010). A new look at humility:
Exploring the humility concept and its role in socialized charismatic
leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 33– 43.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350892
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., Jr., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit
leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The
Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-
9843(94)90005-1
Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song,
L. J. (2014). Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top man-
agement team integration and middle managers’ responses. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 59, 34 –72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0001839213520131
Owens, B. (2009a). Humility in organizational leadership. (Doctoral dis-
sertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.
(AAT 3370531).
Owens, B. (2009b, August). Humility in organizations: Establishing con-
struct, nomological, and predictive validity. Paper selected for best paper
proceedings at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
Anaheim, CA.
Owens, B., & Hekman, D. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive
examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 55, 787– 818. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5465/amj.2010.0441
Owens, B., & Hekman, D. (in press). How does leader humility influence
team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collec-
tive promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal.
Owens, B., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Humility in orga-
nizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organi-
zation Science, 24, 1517–1538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120
.0795
Owens, B., Rowatt, W. C., & Wilkins, A. L. (2011). Exploring the
relevance and implications of humility in organizations. In K. S. Cam-
eron & G. S. Spreitzer (Eds.), Handbook of positive organizational
scholarship (pp. 260 –272). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford Univer-
sity Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0020
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2003). Virtues and organizations. In K. S.
Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational
scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 33– 47). San Fran-
cisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality:
Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in
Personality, 36, 556 –563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566
(02)00505-6
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory.
Psychological Reports, 45, 590. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2
.590
Raskin, R., & 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, 890 –902.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & du Toit,
M. (2011). HLM7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincol-
nwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Rosenthal, S. A. (2006). Narcissism and leadership: A review and research
agenda. (Center for Public Leadership Working Paper Series No. 06 –
04). Cambridge, MA: Center for Public Leadership. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/55948
Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617– 633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua
.2006.10.005
Ruggero, E. (2009, November 2). Gary-Cooper style. The Washington
Post. Available from http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/
panelists/2009/11/gary-cooper-style.html
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and
their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement
of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
 LEADER NARCISSISM AND HUMILITY
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in
regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Orga-
nizational Research Methods, 13, 456 – 476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1094428109351241
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models,
hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educa-
tional and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
1165280
Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of
leadership emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 147–160. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90002-9
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A
dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. The Academy of Management
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Review, 36, 381– 403. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958
SPSS. (2012). IBM SPSS statistics version 21. Boston, MA: International
Business Machines Corp.
Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J.
(2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate
to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 53, 626 – 654. http://dx.doi.org/10.2189/
asqu.53.4.626
Surowiecki, J. (2011, October 17). How Steve Jobs changed. The New
Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/
10/17/111017ta_talk_surowiecki
Vera, D., & Rodriguez-Lopez, A. (2004). Humility as a source of com-
petitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 334, 393– 408. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.09.006
1213
Vogel, C. (2006). A field guide to narcissism. Psychology Today, 39,
68 –74.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to
experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 465–
490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational
leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role
of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61, 793–
825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00131.x
Weick, K. E. (2000). Emergent change as a universal in organizations. In
M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 223–242).
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American
Psychologist, 62, 6 –16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6
Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes.
In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of
leadership (pp. 101–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y., & Li, X. (2014). Paradoxical leader
behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. [Ad-
vance online publication]. Academy of Management Journal. http://dx
.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995
Received October 16, 2013
Revision received November 25, 2014
Accepted December 5, 2014 䡲
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Correction to Owens et al. (2015)

In the article “Leader Narcissism and Follower Outcomes: The Counterbalancing Effect of Leader
Humility,” by Bradley P. Owens, Angela S. Wallace, and David A. Waldman (Journal of Applied
Psychology, Advance online publication. January 26, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038698),
the last name of the second author was misspelled in the Online First version of the article.

All versions of this article have been corrected.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039149