Because of the current dynamism and uncertainty of the business environment, managers cannot forecast all potential functioning problems within organizations (Oliver, & Parrett, 2018). Similarly, they cannot predict all potential turnarounds and trends for the company; thus, they are increasingly relying on their employees to challenge the status quo, advance innovation, and promote strategic change to keep up with change and quickly implement the best management strategies for the business (Dysvik et al., 2016). Therefore, the position and role of employees’ proactive behavior is becoming more prominent than it was in the past (Burnett et al., 2015). Within the domain of employees’ proactivity, taking charge has gained increasing research attention (Fuller & Marler, 2009). Morrison and Phelps (1999) defined taking charge as individual employees making voluntary and constructive efforts to effect organizationally functional change to work execution within the context of their job, work unit, or organization. As taking charge is inherently change-oriented and risky, employees who perform such behaviors must consider not only the possibility of success, but also the subsequent consequences of failure.

However, taking charge plays a role in the functional reform of companies, which inevitably encounters resistance from inside and outside the organization. To date, scholars have largely neglected to examine the negative influence of leaders’ dark personality traits, such as narcissism, which might hinder employees taking charge. Leader narcissism is a unique personality trait that exists in one’s inner personality and manifests itself in behavior, and it has detrimental effects on employee behavior in an organizational environment (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Previous researchers have stated that narcissistic leaders may be perceived as leading in an autocratic, inconsiderate, exploitative, and self-serving or even authoritarian manner by their employees (Grijalva et al., 2015). Taking charge requires employees to be confident in using taking-charge behaviors and in addressing difficulties (S.-L. Li et al., 2015). However, narcissistic leaders can be detrimental to employee confidence (Liao et al., 2019). Extending this discussion, we contended that leader narcissism may have an impact on the taking-charge behaviors of employees.

Furthermore, the underlying mechanisms by which leader narcissism affects employees’ taking-charge behaviors remain to be determined. Thus, we investigated how perceived leader narcissism influences subordinates’ work attitudes and behaviors, by applying affect events theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and proposing a moderated mediation model of leader narcissism and employees taking charge.

Theory and Development of Hypotheses

Leader Narcissism and Employees’ Taking-Charge Behavior

Narcissism mainly refers to a personality trait, with typical characteristics including inflated self-view, dysfunctional interpersonal relationships, self-interested motivation, strong psychological superiority, and reluctance to accept others’ criticisms and opinions (Ames et al., 2006). Khoo and Burch (2008) pointed out that narcissistic leaders exercise power primarily for personal purposes and self-interested motives by using all available resources to help them to win the respect and recognition of others and to build a strong sense of superiority (Resick et al., 2009). Employees’ taking-charge behavior is an action aimed at improving the status of the organization, and has a clear prosocial and pro-organizational motivation (Burnett et al., 2015). Because of their different interests, narcissistic leaders often show a strongly negative attitude toward the taking-charge behaviors of employees (Liao et al., 2019). According to the norm of reciprocity, narcissistic leaders are unlikely to provide subordinates with task-relevant resources (Gouldner, 1960; Grijalva et al., 2015). Thus, subordinates do not sense concern, support, or trust from these leaders, thereby reducing subordinates’ confidence in displaying taking-charge behaviors.

As the aim of the employee when taking charge is to influence and improve current working methods and the organizational environment (Dysvik et al., 2016), they will inevitably challenge the organizational status quo and even threaten the authority and prestige of the leader. Narcissistic leaders not only react hostilely to negative feedback, but also tend to view this type of feedback as a threat and challenge to their self-integrity (Horvath & Morf, 2009). In addition, there is empirical evidence demonstrating that leader narcissism decreases employees’ job satisfaction and psychological well-being (Hochwarter & Thompson, 2012), and increases the incidence of employees’ counterproductive work behaviors (Ouimet, 2010). Therefore, we formed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Leader narcissism will be negatively related to employees’ taking charge.

Mediating Role of Work Engagement

Work engagement refers to a positive work-related state of fulfillment characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Previous studies have shown that employees’ work engagement is an important link between leadership behaviors (e.g., Ghadi et al., 2013) and positive employee behaviors (e.g., Shantz et al. 2016). Parker and colleagues (2010) proposed that there are three important motivational states to prompt an individual’s proactive behavior: Can-do motivation results from perceptions of self-efficacy, control, and (low) cost; reason-to motivation has to do with why someone is proactive; and energized-to motivation refers to activated, positively affective states that advance proactive goal processes (Parker et al., 2010). Given that there is an inherent risk in performing taking-charge behaviors, prior researchers have explored the motivational states of proactivity, such as can-do motivation (e.g., role-breadth self-efficacy; S.-L. Li et al., 2015) and reason-to motivation (e.g., flexible role orientation; Parker et al., 2006). Further, Parker et al. (2010) found that greater affective experience helps individuals achieve more challenging goals and engage with future problems, thereby enhancing the likelihood that these individuals will set proactive goals. However, the role of affective experience in proactive behavior has not received much research attention (Grant & Ashford, 2008).

In our study we regarded taking charge as a judgment-driven behavior. According to AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), experiencing a negative work event will trigger an individual’s negative emotions and further affect their attitude and behavior. Because narcissistic leaders usually blame, threaten, and demotivate their subordinates (Grijalva et al., 2015), we anticipated that leader narcissism would decrease subordinates’ work engagement. Liu and colleagues (2017) also found that narcissistic leaders fulfill their entitlement by exploiting subordinates and engaging in self-interested behaviors, which hampers employees’ work engagement. When employees show low-level work engagement, they rarely notice the need for change, much less seek to bring about constructive change within organizations. Previous empirical studies have demonstrated that when employees are strongly engaged in their work, they tend to be more proactive (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). Moreover, the more engaged employees are in their jobs, the more energized they are to take the initiative to bring about changes to their current circumstances (Sonnentag, 2003). Thus, we assumed that leader narcissism would hinder employees’ work engagement and, in turn, would decrease employees’ willingness to adopt taking-charge behaviors:
Hypothesis 2: Work engagement will mediate the relationship between leader narcissism and employees’ taking-charge behaviors.

Proactive Personality as a Contingent Factor

Proactive personality is a stable personality trait and refers to the behavioral tendency of individuals to actively change their surroundings; proactive employees seek to control their environment and find new information and ways to improve their performance (Bateman & Crant, 1993). People with a proactive personality are relatively unconstrained by environmental pressures and can influence environmental changes (Fuller & Marler, 2009). As Seibert et al. (2001) suggested, proactive people try to improve their career prospects rather than passively adapting to existing work situations, and are also more likely to propose new ways to accomplish tasks to achieve their goals. Additionally, scholars have stated that proactive personality influences employees’ proactive behavior (Tornau & Frese, 2013), and that employees with a proactive personality are likely to have a positive, engaged, and absorbed approach to their work (Shin & Jeung, 2019).

According to AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), the personality of individuals is an important contingent factor when work events influence their affective state. Thus, we anticipated that employees’ proactive personality would be a contingent factor when leader narcissism is in effect. First, leader narcissism could be regarded as an interfering event in the workplace that leads to followers’ unpleasant mental experience. However, proactive followers might be an exception, because proactive individuals are more prone to taking initiative to change or shape the environment (Fuller & Marler, 2009). Moreover, proactive people excel at taking opportunities to bring about meaningful changes that benefit their career success (Seibert et al., 1999). In contrast, individuals who are less proactive usually respond passively to the external environment, making them easily affected.

Leader narcissism creates a microenvironment in an organization. As already described, narcissistic leaders usually create unpleasant affect for their followers. Proactive employees will always act to make changes; therefore, leader narcissism might not cause much interference to their work. However, this is not the case for employees who are less proactive, because they are easily influenced by the external environment. Thus, leader narcissism might cause more discomfort for employees who are less proactive because they must adapt to the narcissism of the leader in the process of attempting to engage with their work. Therefore, we formed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Proactive personality will moderate the negative relationship between leader narcissism and employees’ work engagement, such that this relationship will be stronger when employees’ proactive personality is low rather than high.

Following the method recommended by Edwards and Lambert (2007), we combined Hypotheses 2 and 3 to propose a moderated mediation hypothesis. We believed that proactive personality might weaken the indirect relationship between leader narcissism and employees’ taking charge (see Figure 1):
Hypothesis 4: Proactive personality will moderate the indirect effect of employees’ work engagement on leader narcissism and employees’ taking charge, such that the indirect effect will be stronger when employees’ proactive personality is low rather than high.

Method

Participants

We received ethical approval for this study from the Ethics Committee of Yangtze University. We collected data from nine companies in Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China, which operate in fields including telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and real estate. Participants were employees and their immediate supervisors in these companies. In the final sample, 50.8% were women and 49.2% were men, and the average age was 29.26 years (SD = 5.68). As regards educational qualifications, 26.7% had a level of education of high school or below, 31.8% had a vocational qualification, 32.8% had a bachelor’s degree, and 8.7% had a master’s degree or postgraduate qualification. Regarding amount of work experience, 54.4% had between 1 and 3 years and 45.6% had more than 3 years. In terms of tenure with their immediate supervisor, 64.6% had between 1 and 3 years and 35.4% had more than 3 years.

Procedure

With the assistance of the human resources department of each of the participating companies, we collected data through email over the company’s intranet. All participants gave informed consent and took part in the research voluntarily. To avoid common method variance, we accessed multiple sources and used a multiple-wave research design by collecting supervisor–employee dyadic data at three different time points. At Time 1, 300 employees participated, and we asked them to rate their supervisor’s level of narcissism and their own level of proactive personality. We received completed survey forms from 253 employees (valid return rate = 84.3%). Two weeks later (Time 2) we collected data about the level of work engagement of employees by sending survey forms to the 253 employees who had returned completed forms at Time 1. We received 216 completed survey forms. Finally, 1 month later (Time 3), we asked the immediate supervisors of the 216 employees from Time 2 to report the frequency of the taking-charge behaviors of their subordinates. We received 195 survey forms from the supervisors, and eliminated unpaired data or survey forms that were incomplete. Thus, a sample of 195 three-stage leadership and employee pairings was formed for data analysis.

Measures

We used back-translation (Brislin, 1986) to ensure the validity of all measures in the Chinese context. First, the original English items were translated into Chinese by an expert qualified in the fields of organizational behavior and linguistics. Then, another expert who had the same qualifications translated the items back into English. Unless otherwise noted, all measures were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree.

Perceived Leader Narcissism
Perceived leader narcissism was measured with the six-item version of the supervisor narcissism instrument developed by Hochwarter and Thompson (2012). A sample item is “My boss always has to be the center of attention, no matter what.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .93.

Work Engagement
We measured work engagement with the shortened nine-item version of the Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2002), which was revised by Schaufeli and colleagues (2006). This measure comprises three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption, and each dimension has three items. Example items are “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” (vigor), “I am immersed in my work” (absorption), and “I am enthusiastic about my job” (dedication). Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .89.

Proactive Personality
In line with Parker (1998), we adopted the proactive personality scale developed by Bateman and Crant (1993). A sample item is “I am always looking for better ways to do things.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .92.

Taking-Charge Behavior
We measured employees’ taking-charge behavior with the three-item scale developed by Parker and colleagues (2010). A sample item is “This employee often tries to bring about improved procedures for the work unit or department.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .92.

Control Variables
In accordance with previous research (S.-L. Li et al., 2015), we controlled for employees’ gender, age, level of education, tenure with their immediate supervisor, and work experience. Gender was dummy coded as 1 = male, 2 = female; level of education was dummy coded as 1 = high school or below, 2 = vocational qualification, 3 = bachelor’s degree, and 4 master’s degree or above; and age, tenure with the supervisor, and length of work experience were measured in number of years.

Data Analysis

We used SPSS 23.0 and Mplus 7.4 to process and analyze our data.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The measures of leader narcissism, work engagement, and proactive personality comprised many items; thus, to improve the model fit, we used the methods suggested by Mathieu and Farr (1991). According to the results of an exploratory factor analysis, we used an item parceling method to simplify the three variables to three display indicators before validating the factor analysis.

To check for the convergent and discriminant validity of each scale, we used Mplus 7.4 to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis in which we measured the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). As shown in Table 1, the fit of the four-factor model to the data was superior to that of all other alternative models. Thus, good discriminant validity was established. In addition, the standardized factor loadings for all four variables reached significance (p < .001), which demonstrates that all our constructs had acceptable convergent validity.

Correlation Analysis Results

We used SPSS 23 to carry out a correlation analysis of the study variables, and the results are shown in Table 2. As illustrated in the table, leader narcissism had a significantly negative correlation with employee work engagement and taking charge, whereas employee work engagement was significantly and positively correlated with employees’ taking charge. These results provide preliminary support for Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis Tests

We adopted the bootstrapping analysis procedure of Preacher and colleagues (2010), using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to analyze the mediation effect via Mplus 7.4. Results show that leader narcissism had a significantly negative effect on employee taking-charge behaviors, β = −.22, 95% CI [−0.36, −0.07]. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. In addition, the indirect effect of employee work engagement was significant, indirect effect = −0.15, 95% CI [−0.28, −0.04]. In sum, employee work engagement played a mediating role in the relationship between leader narcissism and employees’ taking-charge behavior. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Then, we used hierarchical multiple regression to check the moderation effect via SPSS 23.0. To reduce the impact of multicollinearity on our results, we centered the variables of leader narcissism and employee proactive personality. As shown in Table 3, the effect of the interaction term of leader narcissism and employee proactive personality on employee work engagement was significant.

In addition, we conducted a simple slope analysis following Aiken and West’s (1991) approach. Figure 2 illustrates the interaction effect. The relationship between leader narcissism and employees’ work engagement was negative, and this link was stronger when employees were low in proactive personality. Hence, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

To verify Hypothesis 4 we used Edwards and Lambert’s (2007) recommended method via Mplus 7.4, taking a high value (+ 1 SD) and a low value (− 1 SD) based on the mean value of proactive personality. As shown in Table 4, when there was a high value for proactive personality, the indirect effect of employees’ work engagement was significant and the confidence interval did not include zero. Further, when there was a low value for proactive personality (− 1 SD), the indirect effect of employees’ work engagement was significant and the confidence interval did not include zero. Moreover, the conditional indirect effect of work engagement according to the level of proactivity of the employees’ personality was also significant and the confidence interval did not include zero. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was also supported.

Discussion

We applied the framework of AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) to conceptualize a moderated mediation model explaining why employees are reluctant to engage in taking-charge behaviors when faced with narcissistic leadership. Our findings show that leader narcissism had a negative effect on employees taking charge via their work engagement. Specifically, leader narcissism decreased employees’ work engagement, and this, in turn, hindered employees’ taking-charge behavior, especially when employees were low in proactive personality.

There are four main theoretical contributions of this study: First, we have advanced understanding of why employees are resistant to taking charge. By applying the perspective of leadership personality traits, we have broadened the interpretation path of employees’ taking-charge behaviors. Specifically, in the existing literature, scholars have paid more attention to individual characteristics (e.g., proactive personality; Fuller & Marler, 2009) and situational factors (e.g., transformational leadership; N. Li et al., 2013) when discussing the factors affecting employees’ taking charge. We believe many leader-related factors may influence employees’ taking-charge behavior, such as the dark personality trait of narcissism (Ding et al., 2018). Therefore, in this study we have provided a novel way to explain findings in the extant literature on employees’ taking-charge behaviors.

Second, our study enriches the literature on the outcomes of leader narcissism. Whereas the focus in many review studies has been on the effects of leader narcissism on aspects such as employees’ task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, counterproductive work behaviors, turnover intention, and empowerment (Campbell et al., 2011), much less attention has been devoted to employees’ proactivity, especially taking charge, which that requires employees to make voluntary and constructive efforts.

Third, our research findings provide evidence for the model of motivational states proposed by Parker et al. (2010) in regard to proactive (energized-to) motivation, because we have verified the mediating effect of employee work engagement. Previous studies have illustrated the mechanism between leader narcissism and its outcome variables from the perspectives of leaders (e.g., leader impression management; Liao et al., 2019) and relationship quality (e.g., leader–member exchange; Liao et al., 2019); however, relatively little is known about the perspective of employees. Our findings show that employee work engagement is an important bridge between work resources and positive behavior. Leader narcissism can have an increasing negative effect on subordinates, which further decreases subordinates’ work engagement, and thereby reduces their taking-charge behaviors.

Last, our research enriches knowledge about the contingent factors of the outcomes of leader narcissism by identifying employee proactive personality as an important boundary condition. Previous scholars have stated that relationship quality (e.g., leader–member exchange; Liao et al., 2019) and employees’ belief about their leader (e.g., leader identification; Liao et al., 2019) play important moderating roles in the relationships between leader narcissism and its outcome variables; however, there has been a lack of research into the role of employees’ personality traits. More important, researchers have pointed out that personality traits play an important role in influencing employees’ job performance and career success (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2014; Thompson, 2005). Our study results reveal the moderating role of employee proactive personality, thereby enriching the extant literature.

This study also has several practical implications. First, because we found that leader narcissism had a negative effect on employees’ taking-charge behavior, leaders first need to undertake a full introspection, reflecting on their level of narcissism and examining the values it brings and the problems that may be lurking. Second, leaders should actively explore the needs of subordinates, to understand clearly their perception of and feelings about leadership, and adopt appropriate management methods. This will help to increase the work engagement of subordinates, thus promoting their engagement in taking-charge behaviors. Last, proactive personality has been shown in many ways to bring positive and beneficial results to individuals and organizations. Correspondingly, organizations could test for proactive personality traits when selecting new employees.

Our study has some limitations. First, we utilized a cross-sectional research design, which weakens the ability to draw causal inferences on the basis of our results. Future researchers could employ an experimental design to test the causality of associations in this study. In addition, we focused only on the impact of the employees’ perception of leader narcissism on their work attitudes and behaviors (an individual-level variable), and did not consider the impact of team-level or organizational-level variables on employee taking-charge behavior, which might also have weakened the causal inference of our results. This could be further explored in the future. Second, we adopted measurement scales developed in the context of Western cultures, which may have some differences when used in Eastern cultural contexts. Therefore, in future studies scales that are suitable for the Chinese cultural background could be developed. Last, we found that employee work engagement played a partial mediating role in the relationship between leader narcissism and employees’ taking charge. Parker and colleagues (2010) recommended exploring other motivational states. For example, leader narcissism might influence employees’ self-concept; thus, scholars could explore the impact of leader narcissism from an employee self-concept perspective, for example, the impact on organizational-based self-esteem.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications.

Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 440–450.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cross-cultural research and methodology series, Vol. 8. Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Sage Publications.

Burnett, M. F., Chiaburu, D. S., Shapiro, D. L., & Li, N. (2015). Revisiting how and when perceived organizational support enhances taking charge: An inverted U-shaped perspective. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1805–1826.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313493324

Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268–284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.007

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 194–202.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024903

Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014). Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 174–178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.024

Ding, Z., Liu, W., Zhang, G., & Wang, H. (2018). Supervisor narcissism and time theft: Investigating the mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and the moderating roles of attachment style. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2215.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02215

Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B., & Buch, R. (2016). Perceived investment in employee development and taking charge. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(1), 50–60.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-04-2013-0117

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1

Fuller, B., Jr., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329–345.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.008

Ghadi, M. Y., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2013). Transformational leadership and work engagement: The mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(6), 532–550.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002

Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1–47.
https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12072

Hochwarter, W. A., & Thompson, K. W. (2012). Mirror, mirror on my boss’s wall: Engaged enactment’s moderating role on the relationship between perceived narcissistic supervision and work outcomes. Human Relations, 65(3), 335–366.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711430003

Horvath, S., & Morf, C. C. (2009). Narcissistic defensiveness: Hypervigilance and avoidance of worthlessness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1252–1258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.07.011

Khoo, H. S., & Burch, G. St. J. (2008). The ‘dark side’ of leadership personality and transformational leadership: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 86–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.018

Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., Kirkman, B. L., & Xie, Z. (2013). Spotlight on the followers: An examination of moderators of relationships between transformational leadership and subordinates’ citizenship and taking charge. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 225–260.
https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12014

Li, S.-L., He, W., Yam, K. C., & Long, L.-R. (2015). When and why empowering leadership increases followers’ taking charge: A multilevel examination in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(3), 645–670.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9424-1

Liao, S., Van der Heijden, B., Liu, Y., Zhou, X., & Guo, Z. (2019). The effects of perceived leader narcissism on employee proactive behavior: Examining the moderating roles of LMX quality and leader identification. Sustainability, 11(23), Article 6597.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236597

Liao, S., Zhou, X., Guo, Z., & Li, Z. (2019). How does leader narcissism influence employee voice: The attribution of leader impression management and leader-member exchange. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(10), Article 1819.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101819

Liu, H., Chiang, J. T.-J., Fehr, R., Xu, M., & Wang, S. (2017). How do leaders react when treated unfairly? Leader narcissism and self-interested behavior in response to unfair treatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(11), 1590–1599.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000237

Mathieu, J. E., & Farr, J. L. (1991). Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 127–133.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.1.127

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419.
https://doi.org/10.5465/257011

Oliver, J. J., & Parrett, E. (2018). Managing future uncertainty: Reevaluating the role of scenario planning. Business Horizons, 61(2), 339–352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.11.013

Ouimet, G. (2010). Dynamics of narcissistic leadership in organizations: Towards an integrated research model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(7), 713–726.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011075265

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835–852.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732

Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636

Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141

Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365–1381.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016238

Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617–633.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005

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(4), 701–716.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845–874.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x

Shantz, A., Alfes, K., & Latham, G. P. (2016). The buffering effect of perceived organizational support on the relationship between work engagement and behavioral outcomes. Human Resource Management, 55(1), 25–38.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21653

Shin, I., & Jeung, C.-W. (2019). Uncovering the turnover intention of proactive employees: The mediating role of work engagement and the moderated mediating role of job autonomy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5), Article 843.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050843

Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518–528.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518

Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1011–1017.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.1011

Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology, 62(1), 44–96.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.x

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). JAI Press.

This research was supported by the Program for Young Scientific and Technological Talents Growth of the Education Department of Guizhou Province

China ([2018]164)

the Program for 2018 First-Class Discipline Business Administration Construction of Guizhou Province

China

the Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China (19YJC630020

19YJC630165)

and the Doctoral Fund of Hubei University of Economics (XJ17BS11).

Huaqiang Wang, Economics and Management School of Yangtze University, No. 1 Nanhuan Road, Jingzhou 434023, Hubei, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]