4.5 Article

Loving or loathing? A power-dependency explanation for narcissists' social acceptance in the workplace

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Volume 43, Issue 5, Pages 783-800

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/job.2603

Keywords

expertise status; group goal interdependence; inclusion; narcissism; ostracism; popularity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research on the social consequences of narcissism reveals that narcissists can be both socially magnetic and socially aversive in the workplace. This study shows that others' dependency on narcissists plays a critical role in determining their social acceptance.
Research on the social consequences of narcissism points to an intriguing paradox: narcissists are socially aversive and destructive to healthy interpersonal relationships; yet, narcissists also have an ability to be socially magnetic and attractive. This raises the question we seek to answer in this paper: Are narcissists socially accepted by coworkers in the workplace, and if so, when? Drawing on the social-constructionist perspective and power-dependence theory, we propose that others' dependency on narcissists plays a critical role in determining narcissists' social acceptance in the workplace. Results from two time-lagged independent studies suggest that narcissists with a high level of expertise status experience less ostracism than non-narcissists, particularly in a group with high group goal interdependence; by contrast, narcissists who are perceived to lack expertise status experience greater ostracism than non-narcissists, particularly in a group with low group goal interdependence. In Study 2, in addition to ostracism, we also examined social inclusion and popularity of narcissists, and we found that narcissists with high expertise status are more likely to be social included and to become popular, particularly in a group with a high level of group goal interdependence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available