Self-esteem - the appraisal of a person’s self-worth (Leary and Baumeister, 2000) – has been theorized to be a personality trait which increases individuals’ susceptibility to leaders’ toxicity (Padilla et al., 2007; Thoroughgood et al., 2012). This suggests that self-esteem may moderate how followers perceive destructive leaders such as narcissistic leaders. We propose two main theoretical reasons why followers with low self-esteem (rather than high self-esteem) would perceive leaders as more abusive the more narcissistic they are, namely because of followers’: (1) greater sensitivity to narcissistic leaders’ negative characteristics and (2) greater likelihood to actually encounter narcissists’ abusive behavior.

Firstly, behavioral plasticity hypothesis contends that self-esteem moderates the extent to which individuals react to external cues (Brockner, 1988). Because they are uncertain of the appropriateness of their attitudes and behavior, individuals with low self-esteem are more sensitive and reactive to external social cues. In the organizational context, a leader would constitute an important contextual cue as the leader provides direction, evaluates the employee and has the power to reward or punish. Low self-esteem followers are therefore likely to be more perceptive of external cues such as their leader’s traits, than followers high on self-esteem (Elangovan and Xie, 1999; Avey et al., 2011).

In addition, low self-esteem individuals are more likely to interpret leaders’ toxic characteristics as stressful and threatening and they would be less able to cope with them (Smith and Petty, 1995). This does not mean that high self-esteem individuals would be completely oblivious to the toxic side of narcissistic individuals. Rather, they would be better equipped to deal with such leaders because of their better coping strategies in general, rely less on their leaders for direction and support, and would generally discern the negative characteristics of narcissistic leaders as less threatening to them (Leary and Baumeister, 2000) and thus as less abusive. For example, a follower low on self-esteem might see a leader taking all the credit for the follower’s success as unfair and abusive, while someone high on self-esteem might interpret this as a signal that they did well and expect that the leader will eventually reciprocate and thus might not always interpret this behavior as being abusive.

Secondly, because of their insecurities about their abilities, low self-esteem individuals, also dubbed as ‘lost souls’ (West and Sweeting, 1997), look toward their leaders for approval and validation and they especially seek charismatic high-power individuals who can help them increase their own self-esteem and offer them direction and clarity (Hayes, 2014; Padilla et al., 2007; Thoroughgood et al., 2012). Narcissistic leaders who tend to exude visionary charisma and come across as confident and dominant (Galvin et al., 2010) would nicely fit that template. This stronger dependence on their (narcissistic) leaders, however, also makes low self-esteem followers more vulnerable to actually becoming victims of abusive behavior. Prior research indeed shows that individuals with low self-esteem are less able to defend themselves against aggression (Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2001) and are more likely to become targets of workplace bullying (e.g., Harvey and Keashly, 2003; Bowling and Beehr, 2006; Aquino and Thau, 2009). They are also more likely to avoid confrontation and to conform to social norms (Leary and Baumeister, 2000), have poorer conflict resolution skills (Zapf, 1999), and are susceptible to manipulation especially from authoritarian figures (Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson, 2003; Aquino and Thau, 2009).

Additionally, individuals with low self-esteem might even accept derogatory or aggressive behavior toward them because of their own low perceptions of their self-worth (Padilla et al., 2007; Thoroughgood et al., 2012) and because negative feedback is more consistent with their cognitive structures and expectations (Shrauger, 1975). For instance, low self-esteem individuals are less likely to retaliate against abusive leaders (Tepper, 2007) than those with high self-esteem. Thus, low self-esteem followers’ high need for approval, their tendency to conform to social norms, their dependence on their leader for clarity, direction and validation, their reticence to challenge authority figures and their low self-worth all make followers with low self-esteem “easy targets” for narcissistic leaders’ abuse. Abusive leadership often entails displaced aggression especially toward “safe” targets who are unwilling or unable to defend themselves (Tepper, 2007). Given narcissists’ proclivity to aggress against innocent others when provoked (Martinez et al., 2008), their tendencies for proactive aggression, which constitutes an instrumental use of aggression to exploit others for personal gain (Lobbestael et al., 2014), and their preference for confident others over less confident individuals (e.g., Burton et al., 2017), narcissistic leaders would be more likely to show negative of hostile behavior toward followers with low rather than high self-esteem. Consequently, since followers with low self-esteem are more likely to be affected by narcissistic leaders’ negative characteristics, and also more likely to become chosen as targets of abuse by narcissistic leaders, we expect the following:

We will test this hypothesis in Study 1, a multi-source empirical field study. In Study 2, we will test the same hypothesis using the broader construct of followers’ core self-evaluations, while also examining the consequences of abusive supervision for followers. We will return to this after discussing Study 1 and its results in detail.

The research presented here will make several contributions. Firstly, in focusing on the role of follower personality (i.e., follower self-esteem) in followers’ perceptions of narcissistic leaders, it proposes an important moderator to reconcile previously inconsistent findings. Secondly, this research focuses on which followers are especially vulnerable to suffer from the toxic side of narcissistic leaders and who are thus most likely to perceive these leaders as abusive. We thereby further extend the literature on susceptible followers and destructive leaders in general (Padilla et al., 2007; Thoroughgood et al., 2012).

We used a multi-source field study to test the proposed research model. The sample consisted of 128 followers matched with 85 leaders who worked in different organizations and across different industries (e.g., hospitality, healthcare, and business). Leaders were first approached through Business School graduate student contacts. If they agreed to participate they were then sent a survey link to complete the survey online. The leaders were asked to nominate up to three followers and to provide their email addresses, after which the followers were then forwarded a separate survey link. Surveys could be completed either in English (74% of respondents) or in Dutch (26% of respondents).

The voluntary nature of participation and confidentially was stressed in the accompanying letter for each respondent. The study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Ethics Review Board of the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences of the University of Amsterdam, who approved the protocol for the study. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

The questionnaires were completed anonymously. A unique code was used to match the surveys. To increase the response rate, participants were sent several reminders and leader-follower pairs were offered a small incentive — three pairs would be randomly selected to win a voucher worth 40 euros. Out of 128 leaders who were sent the survey links, 97 completed the survey (response rate 75.8%). In total leaders nominated 203 followers, out of which 128 completed the survey (response rate 63.1%). Leaders (M_age = 38.38 years, SD = 11.09; 69.4% men) had an average tenure of 5.53 (SD = 1.90) years and had 34.38 (SD = 74.60) followers on average. There were on average 1.51 followers per leader in this sample (observed range 1–3). Followers (M_age = 35.48 years, SD = 12.28; 39.8% men) had an average tenure of 5.79 (SD = 7.70) years and had worked with their leader for 2.53 (SD = 2.83) years.

Leaders filled in the Narcissism personality inventory. Followers filled in the self-esteem personality questionnaire and rated the abusive supervision of the leader.

Core self-evaluations is a more general higher order construct which, in addition to self-esteem, comprises of self-efficacy, locus of control and emotional stability and refers to “basic conclusions or bottom-line evaluations that individuals hold about themselves” (Judge and Bono, 2001, p. 81). Individuals with more positive CSEs like themselves and think of themselves as capable, worthy, and competent in dealing with issues in different contexts (Judge et al., 2003). Conversely, individuals with more negative CSEs dislike themselves and are not confident in their capabilities, competence, or worthiness. Having lower or more negative self-evaluations, similarly as with followers with low self-esteem, makes such followers more susceptible to suffer from abusive or destructive leaders (Luthans et al., 1998; Padilla et al., 2007; Thoroughgood et al., 2012). For instance, having low expectations of one’s ability to perform well (i.e., low self-efficacy) increases the followers’ dependence on their leaders because these individuals are more likely to feel they need the leaders to provide them with clarity and direction (Thoroughgood et al., 2012). Similarly, having a belief that outcomes are the result of external events (i.e., external locus of control) instead of one’s own actions makes individuals easier to manipulate, and also makes them more likely to seek out powerful others who can take care of them and to whom they can defer responsibility (Padilla et al., 2007). Thus, we expect that we can extend the construct of vulnerable followers from low self-esteem to include those individuals who have more general negative views regarding not only their self-worth, but also their competencies and feelings of control over outcomes (i.e., those followers with low CSEs). This leads us to the following hypothesis:

Abusive supervision has been shown to have many detrimental consequences for followers, such as psychological distress (e.g., strain, emotional exhaustion, and depression), lower family well-being, and higher turnover intentions (Tepper, 2000, 2007; Aryee et al., 2008; Wu and Hu, 2009; Carlson et al., 2012; Schyns and Schilling, 2013). Abusive supervision has also been linked to lower follower job performance, both with respect to reduced core task performance as well as reduced organizational citizenship behavior (Zellars et al., 2002; Aryee et al., 2007; Harris et al., 2007; Tepper, 2007; Xu et al., 2012; Schyns and Schilling, 2013).

In Study 2 we include the consequences of abusive supervision and test whether perceptions of abusive supervision relate to distress and job performance. Specifically, we focus on followers’ self-rated emotional exhaustion, as being reflective of their experienced psychological distress, as well as their task performance as rated by their leaders. Given the argumentation presented above we expect that leader narcissism, through greater perceived abusive supervision, will be associated with greater emotional exhaustion and worse performance, especially for followers with low CSEs. Combining the arguments presented above in the development of Hypothesis 2 we thus propose a moderated mediation model and argue that leader narcissism has an indirect negative effect on follower performance and emotional exhaustion, via perceptions of abusive supervision, and that this indirect effect is contingent on followers’ CSEs.

To sum up, we propose, in replication of the findings of Study 1 that because of their greater reliance on external cues and dependence on narcissistic leaders, followers with low general CSEs will be more likely to perceive narcissistic leaders as abusive. Furthermore, as a consequence, low CSE followers are more likely to suffer negative outcomes in terms of psychological distress as well as lower performance as a result of leader narcissism. Figure 2 presents the full proposed model.

The main strength of our research lies in the replication of findings across two heterogeneous samples as well as an extension of our moderator from self-esteem to the more general higher order construct of CSEs. This consistent pattern of findings is noteworthy given the acknowledged difficulty in detecting moderation within field settings (McClelland and Judd, 1993). Furthermore, given that the samples were drawn from diverse workplace settings and industries, this lends strength to the generalizability and robustness of the results.

Another methodological strength was the use of multi-source measurement which reduces concerns regarding common source variance with respect to inflating the main effects found between predictors and the dependent variables as well as regarding the attenuation of the interaction effects (Siemsen et al., 2010).

Although our two studies show consistent results and enhance our understanding regarding the interplay of leader and follower dispositional characteristics on perceived abusive leadership by followers, they are not without limitations. Firstly, while our theory provides a strong indication as to the direction of the proposed relationships, the cross-sectional nature of our data prevents assertions of causality. For example, an alternative explanation to our findings in Study 2 could be that followers with low self-esteem and low CSEs receive abusive supervision from narcissistic leaders because they are perceived to be performing less well than followers with high self-esteem and high CSEs. Narcissists are overly critical of others and demand perfectionism (Stoeber et al., 2015), thus, insofar as narcissistic leaders feel that the performance of their followers is reflective of their own success, they may indeed wish to punish low performing followers. Future studies could employ a longitudinal design and measure follower job performance over time to examine how lower or higher follower job performance ratings or evaluations subsequently influence different followers’ perceptions of abuse from narcissistic leaders.

Secondly, because abusive supervision as it was measured in our studies concerns followers’ subjective perceptions regarding a leader’s mistreatment, it may not reflect the actual levels of mistreatment. Thus, narcissistic leaders could be actually behaving more abusively toward those with low self-esteem and low CSEs, or these followers may simply be more attuned to potential victimization (Aquino and Thau, 2009) and as such experience narcissists’ dominance, lack of empathy and egocentrism as abusive. Nonetheless, researchers have argued that follower perceptions are critical to include in measures of abusive supervision because leader behavior can only have an effect on followers if it is also perceived by them (Schyns and Schilling, 2013). Future research could further disentangle perceptions of abuse and actual abuse by asking leaders to report on their abusive behavior in relation to specific followers. Another possibility would be to use an experimental paradigm in which actual abusive behavior is observed and contrasted with perceptions of abusive behavior. Given our argumentation that narcissistic leaders would perceive followers with low self-esteem and low CSEs as easy targets, we would expect leader narcissism to be positively related to more actual reported abusive behavior toward these vulnerable followers.

Thirdly, in order to obtain multiple followers, in Study 1 the leaders were asked to nominate followers who would fill out the questionnaire. This might have inadvertently led to a selection bias as leaders might have chosen only those followers with whom they had a good relationship. However, given the consistent findings across both of our studies, it does not appear that this potential bias overrode or influenced the found results.

Finally, because the focus of our research was solely on narcissistic leaders, we did not measure the other two Dark Triad traits (Machiavellianism and psychopathy; Paulhus and Williams, 2002). Therefore, it was not possible to control for these constructs to isolate the unique effects of leader narcissism. Future research should consider measuring all three of the dark triad traits simultaneously to examine whether our findings generalize uniformly or differentially to the other two dark triad traits.

Our research focused on the impact of leader narcissism on followers’ emotional exhaustion and task performance (Study 2). Future studies could test our model using other important outcome variables that are known to be affected by abusive supervision, such as followers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job stress, vitality, turnover intentions and organizational citizenship behavior (Tepper, 2007; Martinko et al., 2013; Schyns and Schilling, 2013; Mackey et al., 2015). Prior research has shown that due to the sense of injustice that they feel, followers tend to retaliate in response to abusive supervision in the form of deviant behavior such as aggression, theft and sabotage (e.g., Tepper et al., 2008, 2009; Liu et al., 2010; Burton and Hoobler, 2011). Thus, another interesting avenue of research would be to examine whether or not vulnerable followers (i.e., those with low self-esteem and low CSEs) would show such retaliation toward narcissistic leaders. Because individuals with low self-esteem are in general reluctant to engage in confrontation (Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson, 2003) particularly with authority figures, and because their feelings of low self-worth may lead them to believe that abusive behavior is justified (Padilla et al., 2007; Thoroughgood et al., 2012), such vulnerable individuals might be less likely to retaliate against narcissistic leaders, at least in an overt manner. Moreover, prior research shows that it is individuals with high (unstable) self-esteem who are more likely to react aggressively to threats to their ego rather than those with low self-esteem (Bushman and Baumeister, 1998; Bushman et al., 2009). The reason is that low self-esteem individuals tend to be more cautious and risk-averse in their responses, which makes them unlikely to react aggressively (Baumeister et al., 2000).

A final fruitful direction for future research would be to more closely examine the formation of dependence between susceptible followers and destructive leaders, such as narcissistic leaders. Because of their strong need for affirmation, desire for clarity, direction and higher self-esteem, the so-called ‘lost souls’ seek out charismatic and powerful leaders and thereby make themselves vulnerable to abuse by such leaders (Hayes, 2014; Padilla et al., 2007; Thoroughgood et al., 2012). Their high psychological need for such leaders also makes it likely that they will become dependent on such leaders. We know for instance that followers’ personal identification with their transformational leaders (i.e., extent to which an individual’s belief about the leader is self-referential) fosters greater dependence on those leaders rather than empowerment (Kark et al., 2003). It would be interesting to examine whether followers with low self-esteem and negative CSEs show greater dependence on (narcissistic) leaders, and what effects this has, for example in terms of stifling employee voice.

This research has several practical implications for organizations. First, given the negative impact of narcissistic leaders on vulnerable followers, organizations could consider obtaining narcissism ratings of job applicants and restricting narcissists’ entry to leadership functions, or getting rid of narcissistic leaders altogether. In light of the current findings, avoiding narcissistic individuals in leadership positions might appear to be an attractive alternative, however, narcissistic individuals also have positive characteristics which could make them useful for organizations in certain contexts (Sedikides and Campbell, 2017). For example, narcissists promote bold visions and are charismatic, they tend to persist in the face of failure, and they are good in crisis management (Galvin et al., 2010; Watts et al., 2013). Thus, a more fruitful alternative might be for organizations to attempt to find the best fit between managers and their subordinates. For example, if project teams are being formed then organizations should consider allocating subordinates with lower self-esteem or negative CSEs to project leaders who are lower on narcissism. Additionally, because vulnerable followers are more likely to perceive abusive behavior from narcissistic leaders and might be reluctant to speak out about this, it is important for such employees to be provided with support networks and means of voicing their concerns and feelings. Organizations could, for example, provide these employees with support groups, or a mentor that they could safely talk to when in need. From a preventative perspective, trainings on increasing self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-efficacy could be initiated to help these employees become more resilient to narcissistic leaders.

To conclude, we show that despite having many negative characteristics such as egocentrism, aggression, exploitativeness and lack of empathy, narcissistic leaders do not indiscriminately negatively affect all people they lead. In fact, the toxic effects of narcissistic leaders in terms of perceived abusive supervision, seem to be only experienced by vulnerable followers who have low self-esteem or low core self-evaluations. This research thus helps shed light on the consequences of narcissistic leaders for those they lead and identify which followers are more or less susceptible to experiencing the dark side of these leaders.