From Narcissism to Work Engagement: Investigating the Role of Organizational Culture in Shaping University Teachers’ Work Outcomes

This research examines the relationship between narcissism, counterproductive work behavior, and work engagement among university teachers, with a focus on the moderating role of organizational culture. A cross-sectional research design was used, involving a sample of 350 university teachers aged 25 to 60 from government, semi-government, and private institutions. Purposive sampling was used for data collection, utilizing four research questionnaires: The Short Dark Triad (SD3), Counterproductive Work Behavior, Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, and Organizational Culture Survey. The data was analyzed using SPSS and SmartPLS. Correlation analysis revealed a significant positive association between narcissism and counterproductive work behavior among university teachers. Additionally, narcissism and counterproductive work behavior were negatively associated with organizational culture and work engagement among university teachers. Organizational culture was positively related to work engagement among university teachers. Moderation analysis showed that both narcissism and organizational culture were significant predictors of counterproductive work behavior and work engagement, with organizational culture significantly moderating the relationship between narcissism and counterproductive work behavior. Future research should explore interventions to mitigate narcissism's negative effects on organizational behavior in academic settings.

This study investigated the associations between narcissism, counterproductive work behavior, and work engagement among university teachers, and examined the moderating role of organizational culture. Data was collected from 350 teachers recruited through purposive sampling from government, semi-government, and private universities in Islamabad and Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Standardized measures including the Short Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014), Counterproductive Work Behavior Scale (Spector et al., 2006), Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2002), and Organizational Culture Survey (Glaser et al., 1987) were administered. Results indicated that narcissism and counterproductive work behavior were negatively related to organizational culture and work engagement, whereas organizational culture showed a positive association with work engagement. Organizational culture also significantly moderates the relationship between narcissism and counterproductive work behavior for the sample. The findings highlight the importance of strengthening organizational culture to mitigate the adverse effects of narcissistic tendencies in academic settings.

Narcissism has become an increasingly important construct in organizational and educational research due to its potential influence on employee behavior, motivation, and interpersonal functioning. Trait narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, entitlement, superiority, and a persistent need for admiration (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Although narcissism may initially appear advantageous such as through confidence or self-promotion in early interactions (Paulhus, 1998), its long-term effects tend to be more problematic. Research highlights that narcissistic individuals often show limited empathy, exploitative tendencies, and hostile interpersonal styles, which may impair workplace relationships and organizational functioning (Krizan & Herlache, 2018). In academic settings, where collaboration, mentorship, classroom management, and ethical behavior are central, these traits may carry meaningful consequences for faculty performance and collegiality.

Narcissism's relationships with both positive and negative work outcomes highlight its complex, multifaceted nature. Despite this, there is limited research connecting different aspects of narcissism to employees' organizational functioning (Christian et al., 2011), with recent advancements in organizational psychology shedding new light on this topic (Böhm & Blickle, 2024; Wirtz & Rigotti, 2020). Narcissistic individuals often exclude others from decision-making processes, which can negatively impact organizational commitment and creativity. Over the past decade, research has increasingly focused on how leaders' narcissism affects followers' attitudes and behaviors, including organizational citizenship behaviors and Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB) (Campbell, 1990). Narcissistic personality of teacher effects the student’s teacher relation as narcissistic teacher likes to be praised and followed his/her values and if students do not show interest in the values, he/she became upset and hostile towards the students (Welbourne et al., 1998). Research shows that personality has systematically predictively role on educational outcomes (Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008). One important behavioral outcome associated with narcissism is CWB. CWBs are intentional acts that violate organizational norms and harm the organization or its members (Carpenter et al., 2021). Examples include aggression, withdrawal, policy violations, misuse of resources, and interpersonal deviance (Fox et al., 2001). CWB has been linked to decreased productivity, poor morale, turnover intentions, and emotional strain (Muris et al., 2017). Existing research consistently indicates that narcissism is positively related to CWB because narcissistic individuals tend to react strongly to ego threats, prioritize personal gain, and disregard organizational norms (Banks et al., 2016). Meta-analytic findings further show that among the Dark Triad (DT) traits, narcissism demonstrates one of the strongest associations with deviant workplace behaviors (O’Boyle et al., 2012). This suggests that narcissistic tendencies among university teachers may manifest in behaviors such as academic incivility, resistance to departmental procedures, or dysfunctional.

CWB refer to deviant actions by employees intended to harm their organization or fellow employees (Carpenter et al., 2021). These behaviors are detrimental to organizations and their stakeholders, leading to issues such as dissatisfaction, reduced productivity, anxiety, depression, and increased turnover (Cohen, 2018; Sypniewska, 2020). Recently, there has been growing interest among researchers in understanding and addressing CWBs in the workplace (Spector & Fox, 2005) Although various theoretical frameworks have been used to explain and manage CWB (Asif et al., 2024) researchers agree that these behaviors are harmful not only to organizations but also to the individuals associated with them (Bowling & Burns, 2015). While many studies have examined personality traits in relation to CWB, research focusing specifically on narcissism remains limited. A narcissist is typically characterized by selfishness, a lack of empathy, and a strong need for self-admiration. According to the literature, a single narcissistic employee can negatively impact the entire organizational atmosphere (Chambers et al., 2024). Consistent with previous studies, a quantitative analysis has explored the link between narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy, collectively known as the DT traits and organizational outcomes. One key finding from this research indicated a significantly positive relationship between narcissism and CWB (Banks et al., 2016). Among the DT traits, narcissism appears to have the strongest association with CWB (Chambers et al., 2024). Beyond behavioral deviance, narcissism may also influence teachers’ work engagement (WE). WE is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Engaged faculty tend to show enthusiasm for teaching, commitment to students, and dedication to scholarly responsibilities. WE is strongly associated with job satisfaction, productivity, and institutional effectiveness (Andrew & Sofian, 2012). However, narcissistic individuals are often motivated by external validation rather than intrinsic commitment to (Andreassen et al., 2012). Research suggests that when job tasks do not provide immediate admiration or self-enhancement opportunities, narcissistic employees may withdraw or show reduced engagement (Falco et al., 2020; Wirtz & Rigotti, 2020). In academic contexts, this may translate into inconsistent teaching efforts, low involvement in departmental activities, or diminished passion for student development.

Gallup (2006) classifies employees into three categories: Committed, unengaged, and actively unengaged. Committed employees are passionate and deeply connected to their organization, driving innovation and progress; unengaged employees are disconnected, contributing time but not energy or enthusiasm; actively unengaged employees, in contrast, not only feel dissatisfied but actively undermine the efforts of engaged employees. Several factors influence WE. Based on a review of existing literature, Christian et al. (2011) identified three main antecedents of WE: Job characteristics, social environment support, and physical demands; leadership, which influences how an individual perceives their work; and dispositional traits, particularly personality.

WE lead to numerous positive outcomes. It plays a crucial role in enhancing work performance, productivity, and overall work (Andrew & Sofian, 2012). A survey also found that WE positively affect job satisfaction, quality of life, and is a vital indicator of occupational well-being for both individuals and organizations. According Wirtz and Rigotti, (2020) vulnerable narcissism is positively linked to emotional exhaustion in followers and negatively correlated with WE. Moreover, the grandiose narcissism of leaders intensifies the negative relationship between followers' vulnerable narcissism and their WE.

The term culture originated from the German word kultur in the 18th century, used to describe achievements in civilization (Ashley & Parumasur, 2024). According to Eldor and Harpaz (2016), Organizational Culture (OC) refers to the set of beliefs, values, and ideologies that shape a company's management style, practices, and behaviors that reflect these core principles. Szydło and Grześ-Bukłaho, (2020) suggest that OC stems from various sources, with one of the primary influences being the beliefs of the founders. Founders typically establish a vision and direction for the organization in its early stages, and their influence significantly shapes the organization's operations. According to Quinn and Rohrbaugh, (1983) competing values framework, OC typologies serve as dynamic moderators affecting employee behaviors and outcomes. This suggests that the influence of narcissistic traits on WE and counterproductive behaviors may vary meaningfully depending on the dominant cultural characteristics within an organization. The competing values framework developed by Quinn and Rohrburgh (1993), states the role of OC types as dynamic moderating variables.

Numerous studies have highlighted the relationship between OC and employee engagement (Dasgupta & Dey, 2021; Di Stefano et al., 2019). This connection can be understood through the lens of social exchange theory. When employees align with the organizational culture, it fosters positive relationships with colleagues, providing the necessary support for them to perform well, remain committed, and stay engaged (Brenyah & Darko, 2017). Panjaitan et al., (2023) assert that OC is a powerful driver of employee behavior and plays a key role in promoting employee engagement.

OC also has links to DT traits in various ways. Research by Duarte and Silva (2023) and Cesinger et al. (2023) found that senior managers exhibiting DT traits, including narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, positively influenced employees’ continuance and normative commitment to the organization Rizvi and Danish Ahmed Siddiqui, (2023) demonstrated that the DT negatively impacted perceived organizational fairness, which subsequently affected CWB and organizational citizenship behavior. Additionally, López-Cabarcos et al. (2022) observed that DT traits in students varied across different specializations within the Economics and Management field, indicating the need for a tailored approach to shaping organizational behavior models. These findings emphasize the importance of understanding the moderating role of OC in the relationship between narcissism, CWB, and WE.

One of the factors that impact CWB is OC (Asif et al., 2024). OC is a system of shared meanings created by individuals within an organization, which distinguishes one organization from another (Robbins & Smith, 1993). Research by Khaw et al. (2023) suggests that the effective or ineffective implementation of OC can influence CWB. Based on this, OC (as an external factor) affects both CWB and WE. Recent studies suggest that OC may act as a moderator in personality-behavior relationships. Strong cultures with clear expectations can reduce opportunities for narcissistic individuals to engage in deviant behaviors or exploit organizational systems (Khaw et al., 2023). Within academic institutions, a well-established culture emphasizing collegiality, ethics, and student-centered values may help buffer the negative effects of narcissism on teachers’ behavior and motivation.

Recent academic research in South Asia offers only limited evidence directly examining the joint relationships among narcissism, CWB, and WE in higher education. For instance,Asif et al. (2024) conducted a study on administrative staff in Pakistani universities and found that narcissism significantly predicted CWB, with work stressors partially mediating this link. Similarly, Chughtai et al. (2022) explored adverse outcomes of narcissistic and psychopathic personalities in public-sector Pakistani organizations, showing that personality-driven incivility mediated effects on negative outcomes. Furthermore, Wang et al. (2022) studied faculty members in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, and revealed a joint effect of narcissism and sadism on workplace incivility via paranoia and antagonism, although they did not explicitly measure engagement or full CWB. In a related study, Karim (2022) examined faculty in Bangladeshi public universities and found that DT traits, including narcissism, predicted knowledge hiding behavior mediated by psychological entitlement. However, there is limited research that specifically examines the role of OC as a moderator in the relationship between narcissism, CWB, and WE among university teachers. Therefore, this research posits the following hypotheses.

1. Narcissism would be a significant positive relationship with CWB among university teachers.
2. Narcissism would be a significant negative relationship with WE among university teachers.
3. OC will significantly moderate the relationship between narcissism and WE among university teachers, such that a strong and positive OC will weaken the negative association between narcissism and WE.
4. OC will significantly moderate the relationship between narcissism and CWB among university teachers, such that a strong and positive OC will weaken the positive association between narcissism and CWB.

Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 350 university teachers (N=350) aged between 25 and 60 years, employed at universities across various sectors: government, semi-government, and private institutions. Their experience in the university ranged from 1 to 20 years. A purposive sampling method was employed. Initially, 700 university teachers were approached; however, 168 did not respond, and 132 agreed to participate after discussion but were unable to complete the survey. The demographic data collected included age, gender, marital status, university sector, leadership position, weekly working hours, flexibility in working hours, and the freedom to design teaching methods and courses.

Inclusion Criteria

1. University teachers currently serving at the designation of Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor.
2. Minimum two years of university-level teaching experience.
3. Minimum Master/MPhil degree or above, as required for university teaching positions.

The criterion of five years of teaching experience was adopted based on expert consultation, who suggested that faculty members with at least five years in service demonstrate stable teaching identity and work-role adaptation.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Faculty members with less than two years of university teaching experience.
2. Teachers who reported any diagnosed physical or psychological condition requiring ongoing medication at the time of data collection.
3. Visiting faculty hired on a per-course basis.

Measures
All scales have been used in their original language English and prior permission has been taken from the authors. Moreover, slight changes were made with the permission of the author in terms of adaptation with reference to the culture and population.

The Short Dark Triad (SD3)
Narcissism was assessed using the narcissism subscale of the 27-item Dark Triad of Personality developed by Jones and Paulhus, (2014), which is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). The mean scores for the narcissism subscale (comprising 9 items) were calculated, with higher scores indicating a higher level of narcissistic traits. Paulhus and Jones (2014) reported that Cronbach’s alpha for the narcissism subscale of the SD3 ranged from .68 to .78.

Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB)
CWB was assessed using the Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) developed by Spector et al. (2006). The checklist contains 32 items, with responses rated on a 5-point Likert scale (Never, 1-2 Times, 1-2 Times Per Week, 1-2 Times Per Month, and Every Day). This version is a shortened form of the measure recommended by Spector et al. (2006). The 32 items are grouped into five categories: Abuse Toward Others, Production Deviance, Sabotage, Theft, And Withdrawal. A key strength of the CWB-C is that its subscales are well-defined, allowing them to be treated independently. Each specific behavior is assigned to a single category, with no overlap between categories. Spector et al. (2006) reported excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alphas typically between α = .85 and .96 for the total scale, and α = .70 - .90 for subscales.

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)
WE was measured using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002). The UWES is a 17-item inventory where respondents rate each statement on a 7-point Likert scale (0 = Never; 6 = Always). The items are divided into three subscales that capture different dimensions of engagement: Vigor (6 items), Dedication (5 items), and Absorption (6 items). The subscales have demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, with reported alpha coefficients of Vigor = .80, Dedication = .91, and Absorption = .75 (Schaufeli et al., 2002). The UWES is widely used across various settings and is recognized for its strong construct validity (Sepahvand & Bagherzadeh Khodashahri, 2020).

Organizational Culture Survey (OCS)
OC was assessed using the Organizational Culture Survey (OCS) developed by Glaser et al. (1987). The OCS is a 5-point Likert scale, where (1) indicates Strongly Disagree and (5) indicates Strongly Agree. It consists of 31 items across six subscales: Teamwork, Morale, Supervision, Involvement, Information Flow, and Meetings. These subscales and items reflect the communication dimension of OC. To interpret the scores, two key measures are considered: The mean score, which indicates the average rating by employees for each item, and the standard deviation, which shows the level of agreement or disagreement among employees regarding their ratings. Schneider et al. (2013) reported Cronbach’s alpha values for OCS subscales ranging from .60 to .91 across dimensions.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from universities located in various cities including Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Multan, Peshawar, Bhawalpur, Karachi, Faisalabad, and Sargodha. The sample included teachers from both Social Sciences and Natural/Applied Sciences departments. To ensure diversity in employment status, faculty employed on permanent, contractual, and tenure-track positions were included in the sample government and semi-government and private educational sectors on their official email id’s and upon agreeing to participate on research they were sent an online link of the questionnaires. They were approached directly in-person and telephone upon agreeing they were told about the nature of four hundred participants were recruited for the main study. After initially accessing the online survey participants completed an informed consent process. At the completion of the survey, participants were presented with a debriefing page and thanked. To reduce the prospective issue of common method bias, the study followed the guidelines of Podsakoff et al., (2003). Firstly, the researcher will explain the main objective of the survey and guaranteed the privacy of the respondents. It will also be clarified that there were no specified answers considering right or wrong and they can express their answer based on impartiality.

Results

After the data collection, analysis was done using SPSS (26.0) and SmartPLS 4. The frequency distribution, descriptive analysis and reliability analysis were measured before hypotheses testing. While the analysis of bivariate correlation and moderation analysis through SmartPLS was considered to test the hypotheses.

The internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The results presented in Table 1 indicate that all instruments demonstrated acceptable reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values for each scale as follows: Narcissism Scale (α = .73), Organizational Culture Scale (α = .79), Counterproductive Work Behavior Scale (α = .70), and WE Scale (α = .74). According to Cortina (1993), a Cronbach’s alpha above .70 is considered acceptable for reliability, meaning that all scales in the current study meet the recommended threshold for internal consistency

The relationships among variables were assessed using Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Analysis. The results presented in Table 1 indicated that narcissism had a significant positive association with CWB (r = .36, p < .01) and significant negative associations with OC (r = -.28, p < .01) and WE (r = -.32, p < .01). Additionally, OC showed a significant positive relationship with WE (r = .38, p < .01) and a significant negative association with CWB (r = -.20, p < .01). Finally, CWB had a significant negative relationship with WE (r = -.28, p < .01).

Table 1:

The Relationship Between Narcissism, Organizational Culture, Counterproductive Work Behavior Among University Teachers of Pakistan (N = 350)

Variables	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4
1. Narcissism	23.25	7.16	0.74	-	-.29**	.36**	-.33**
2. Organizational Culture	30.41	10.95	0.79		-	-.21**	.39**
3. Counterproductive Work Behavior	92.06	13.62	0.7			-	-.28**
4. Work Engagement	47.29	13.91	0.74				-

The structural equation modeling was conducted using Smart-PLS 4.0.9.6 to examine the moderating role of OC in the relationship between narcissism and CWB, as well as narcissism and WE. Specifically, the overall model explained a significant 16.0% (R² = 0.16) of the variance in CWB, while it explained a significant 14.9% (R² = 0.15) of the variance in WE. Table 2 and Figures 1-2 present the results of the moderation analysis.

Table 2:

Moderation of Organizational Culture Between Narcissism, Work Engagement and Counterproductive Work Behaviour (N = 350)

				CI 95%
Causal Path	Β	t	p	LL	UL	Hypothesis
Narcissism → Counterproductive Work Behavior	0.34	6.25	0	0.23	0.44	Supported
Narcissism → Work Engagement	-0.27	4.99	0	-0.37	-0.16	Supported
Organizational Culture → Counterproductive Work Behavior	-0.14	2.78	0.01	-0.24	-0.04	Supported
Organizational Culture → Work Engagement	0.22	4.06	0	0.11	0.32	Supported
Narcissism X Organizational Culture → Counterproductive Work Behavior	0.13	2.16	0.03	0.01	0.25	Supported
Narcissism X Organizational Culture → Work Engagement	-0.02	0.31	0.76	-0.14	0.1	Unsupported
Note. CI = Confidence Interval; LL = Lower Limit; UL = Upper Limit.

Table 2 exhibited the moderating role of OC in the relationship between narcissism, CWB, and WE. The results indicated that narcissism was a significant positive predictor of CWB (β = .34, p < .01). Additionally, narcissism was a significant negative predictor of WE (β = -0.27, p < .01). OC, on the other hand, was a significant negative predictor of CWB (β = -0.14, p < .05) and a significant positive predictor of WE (β = 0.22, p < .01). The interaction between narcissism and OC was significant for CWB (β = .13, p < .05), indicating that OC significantly moderates the relationship between narcissism and CWB. However, the interaction between narcissism and OC was insignificant for WE (β = -0.02, p > .05), suggesting that OC does not moderate the relationship between narcissism and WE. Figure 2 illustrates the results of the significant interaction.

Fig. 1: Moderating Effects of Organizational Culture

Fig. 2: Interaction Between Narcissism and Organizational Culture with Counterproductive Work Behavior

Figure 2 revealed the nature of the relationship between narcissism and OC in relation to CWB. Interestingly, low OC combined with low narcissism leads to more CWB compared to a high OC with low narcissism. This is because low narcissism and high OC combination results in lower CWB. However, both low and high OC with high narcissism are associated with higher CWB.

Discussion

The present research aims to explore the relationship of trait narcissism and two important workplace outcomes: WE and CWB. It also highlights the moderating role of OC. The findings of the current research support Hypothesis 1, showing a significant positive relationship between narcissism and CWB among university teachers. Previous studies have also reported similar findings, indicating that narcissism is often associated with arrogant behavior, a lack of empathy, and negative feelings toward others. Individuals displaying narcissistic traits are often self-centered, manipulative, and demanding (Weidmann et al., 2023). Such behaviors can lead to negative emotions, fostering counterproductive behaviors in the workplace (Duarte & Silva, 2023). The strong relationship between grandiose narcissism and counterproductive behaviors is well-documented. The results of the present research support Hypothesis 2, showing a significant negative relationship between narcissism and WE among university teachers. Previous studies have found similar results, suggesting that vulnerable narcissism, characterized by feelings of inadequacy, incompetence, shame, distress, and negative affect (Miller & Lee, 2001) may lead to less favorable work outcomes. Specifically, followers with vulnerable narcissism, who tend to set unattainably high-performance standards for themselves and rely on external validation, have been shown to experience lower WE and higher emotional exhaustion (Wirtz & Rigotti, 2020). This study expected a similar inverse relationship between vulnerable narcissism and WE.

On the other hand, some contradictory research suggests that narcissism may have a positive association with WE, viewing it as a "positive" form of intense work investment (Schaufeli, 2016). Narcissistic individuals, driven by a need for power and admiration, may be highly focused on achieving success at work, where they can publicly demonstrate their abilities (Clark, 2010). They tend to be competitive and strive to assert their superiority over others (Luchner et al., 2011). The findings of the current study support Hypothesis 3, indicating that OC significantly moderates the relationship between narcissism and CWB among university teachers. In a supportive, collegial OC, university teachers with narcissistic traits may find their self-serving behaviors (such as manipulation and self-promotion) to be less effective or even counterproductive over time (Braun, 2017). In such an environment, values like cooperation, mentorship, and idea-sharing are emphasized, and narcissistic behaviors are likely to be restrained by social norms, peer pressure, or direct feedback. This reduces the likelihood of narcissists engaging in CWB (Braun et al., 2024). If narcissistic teachers perceive that they can avoid scrutiny or consequences for their actions (for example, by exploiting their position or manipulating situations for personal gain), they are likely to engage in harmful or disruptive behaviors. However, in cultures that emphasize accountability, transparency, and ethical standards, narcissists may be less inclined to participate in such behaviors due to the greater risk of consequences (Choi & Phan, 2022). In conclusion, the literature underscores the importance of OC as a key moderator in the relationship between narcissism and CWB.

The findings of the current study indicate that Hypothesis 4, which proposed that OC moderates the relationship between narcissism and CWB among university teachers, is not supported. The results suggest that OC has an insignificant moderating effect on this relationship. This could be attributed to several factors, such as the deeply ingrained nature of narcissistic traits, which may drive individual behavior regardless of the broader OC. University teachers with high levels of narcissism may be primarily motivated by personal recognition, status, and achievement rather than being influenced by external factors such as cultural norms or institutional values (McLarty et al., 2023). For these individuals, WE is likely to focus on self-serving goals (e.g., advancing personal research agendas or gaining prestige) rather than on the collaborative or ethical aspects of the university's culture and Konrath et al. (2016). Their intrinsic motivation, stemming from personal ambition or self-importance, may overshadow the impact of OC (Judge & Bono, 2001).

In some instances, the OC may not be strong or clear enough to influence individual behavior, especially when the culture is neutral or lacks strong norms around engagement or collaboration (Schein, 1990). For instance, if the university culture is inconsistent or ambiguous, narcissistic individuals may not feel compelled to conform to cultural norms, reducing the moderating role of culture (O’Reilly et al., 1991). Furthermore, if the OC emphasizes individual achievement over collective engagement, it may not significantly affect the relationship between narcissism and WE, as narcissistic individuals may remain unaffected by broader cultural expectations.

In conclusion, OC appears to be an insignificant moderator between narcissism and WE among university teachers. Narcissistic individuals may prioritize personal goals over cultural norms or expectations, and when the OC is unclear, ambiguous, or weak, it may fail to influence the relationship between narcissism and WE. As a result, the findings of this study do not support Hypothesis 4, and therefore, it is rejected.

Suggestions and Implication of Research

The present research highlighted that individuals with narcissistic traits are more likely to engage in negative behaviors at work, such as being unproductive or disruptive. The research is useful as it highlighted the narcissistic trait in university teachers, yet it has fewer limitations. First of all, self-reported measures in order to study dark personality traits are not always useful and it require other measures. The population can be of different sectors and fields to increase its generalizability. Also, future study should focus on different types of narcissism to gauge which has the darker and brighter side. The present study has future implications. Interestingly, the research showed that the OC can change how narcissistic traits affect negative behaviors. In workplaces with a strong, positive culture (as moderator), narcissistic people might be less likely to act out in negative ways. The organizations can work on their culture to mitigate the negative effect of these dark traits.

References

1. Andreassen, C. S., Ursin, H., Eriksen, H. R., & Pallesen, S. (2012). The relationship of narcissism with workaholism, work engagement, and professional position. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(6), 881-890. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.6.881
2. Andrew, O. C., & Sofian, S. (2012). Individual factors and work outcomes of employee engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 498-508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.222
3. Ashley, N., & Parumasur, S. B. (2024). The relationship between organizational culture and employee engagement in private hospitals. Corporate Governance and Organizational Behavior Review, 8(1), 68-82. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgobrv8i1p6
4. Asif, M., Murtaza, A., & Jiskani, U. K. (2024). Workplace ostracism as a trigger for counterproductive behaviors: Examining the mediating role of depressed mood in academic institutions. Contemporary Issues in Social Sciences and Management Practices, 3(2), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.615 03/cissmp.v3i2.190
5. Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634-652. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006
6. Brenyah, R. S., & Obuobisa-Darko, T. (2017). Organizational culture and employee engagement within the Ghanaian public sector. Review of Public Administration and Management, 5(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4172/2315-7844.1000233
7. Böhm, F., & Blickle, G. (2024). Why a lot of grandiose narcissism can be a good thing for leadership effectiveness: Political skill as game changer. Personality and Individual Differences, 223, 112618. https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.paid.2024.112618
8. Bowling, N. A., & Burns, G. N. (2015). Sex as a moderator of the relationships between predictor variables and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(1), 193-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s108 69-013-9342-5
9. Braun, S. (2017). Leader narcissism and outcomes in organizations: A review at multiple levels of analysis and implications for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 773. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00773
10. Braun, S., Schyns, B., Zheng, Y., & Lord, R. G. (2024). When vulnerable narcissists take the lead: The role of internal attribution of failure and shame for abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05805-w
11. Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(3), 538-549. https://doi.org/10.10 37/0022-3514.59.3.538
12. Carpenter, N. C., Whitman, D. S., & Amrhein, R. (2021). Unit-level counterproductive work behavior (CWB): A conceptual review and quantitative summary. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1498-1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320978812
13. Cesinger, B., Gundolf, K., Hughes, M., Khedhaouria, A., & Montani, F. (2023). The bright and dark sides of the Dark Triad traits among senior managers: Effects on organizational commitment. Review of Managerial Science, 17(5), 1731–1763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00571-3
14. Chambers, V. A., Hayes, M. J., & Reckers, P. M. J. (2024). The interactive effect of individual and co-worker narcissism on counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 11(4), 930-947. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-04-2023-01 40
15. Choi, Y., & Phan, W. M. J. (2022). Narcissistic leaders: The good, the bad, and recommendations. Organizational Dynamics, 51(3), 100868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100868
16. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89-136. https://doi.org/10.11 11/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
17. Chughtai, M. S., Akram, H., Razzaq, T., Rasheed, A., & Shah, R. (2022). Impact of psychopathy and narcissism on employees’ adverse outcomes: A perspective of Ethical Climate Theory and Threatened-Egotism Model. Management & Economics Research Journal, 4(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.48100/merj.2022.190
18. Clark, L. (2010). Decision-making during gambling: An integration of cognitive and psychobiological approaches. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1538), 319-330. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0147
19. Cohen, A. (2018). Counterproductive Work behaviors: Understanding the dark side of personalities in organizational life (1^st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315454818
20. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
21. Dasgupta, M., & Dey, A. K. (2021). Mediating role of job crafting in the relationship between organisational culture and employee engagement. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 22(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJICBM.2021.112588
22. Di Stefano, G., Scrima, F., & Parry, E. (2019). The effect of organizational culture on deviant behaviors in the workplace. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(17), 2482-2503. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09585192.2017.1326393
23. Duarte, A. P., & Silva, V. H. (2023). Satisfaction with internal communication and hospitality employees’ turnover intention: Exploring the mediating role of organizational support and job satisfaction. Administrative Sciences, 13(10), 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13100216
24. Eldor, L., & Harpaz, I. (2016). A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate and its relationship with extra-role performance behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 213-235. https://doi.org/10.10 02/job.2037
25. Falco, A., Girardi, D., Di Sipio, A., Calvo, V., Marogna, C., & Snir, R. (2020). Is narcissism associated with heavy work investment? The moderating role of workload in the relationship between narcissism, workaholism, and work engagement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13), 4750. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134750
26. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (cwb) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001. 1803
27. Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 613-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.023
28. Gallup. (2006). What is employee engagement, and how do you improve it? https://www.gallup.com/workplace/285674/improve-employee-engageme nt-workplace.aspx
29. Glaser, S. R., Zamanou, S., & Hacker, K. (1987). Measuring and interpreting organizational culture.Management Communication Quarterly,1(2), 173-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318987001002003
30. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
31. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105
32. Karim, D. N. (2022). Linking dark triad traits, psychological entitlement, and knowledge hiding behavior. Heliyon, 8(7), e09815. https://doi.org/10.10 16/j.heliyon.2022.e09815
33. Khaw, K. W., Alnoor, A., AL-Abrrow, H., Tiberius, V., Ganesan, Y., & Atshan, N. A. (2023). Reactions towards organizational change: A systematic literature review. Current Psychology, 42(22), 19137-19160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03070-6
34. Konrath, S., Ho, M. H., & Zarins, S. (2016). The strategic helper: Narcissism and prosocial motives and behaviors. Current Psychology, 35(2), 182-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9417-3
35. Krizan, Z., & Herlache, A. D. (2018). The Narcissism Spectrum Model: A synthetic view of narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683166850 18
36. Luchner, A. F., Houston, J. M., Walker, C., & Alex Houston, M. (2011). Exploring the relationship between two forms of narcissism and competitiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(6), 779-782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.033
37. López-Cabarcos, M. Á., Vázquez-Rodríguez, P., & Quiñoá-Piñeiro, L. M. (2022). An approach to employees’ job performance through work environmental variables and leadership behaviours. Journal of Business Research, 140, 361-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.006
38. McLarty, B. D., Skorodziyevskiy, V., & Muldoon, J. (2023). The Dark Triad’s incremental influence on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(4), 2097–2125. https://doi.org/10.1080/004727 78.2021.1883042
39. Miller, D., & Lee, J. (2001). The people make the process: Commitment to employees, decision making, and performance. Journal of Management, 27(2), 163-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700203
40. Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1
41. Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1 177/1745691616666070
42. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557-579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679
43. O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516.
44. Panjaitan, J. M., Bastian, I., Unggara, I., Susanto, E. A., & Sumiyana, S. (2023). Diagnosing the voids of knowledge in the transformation process in managing and standardizing smart city development: The case of the government of Indonesia. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 5, 1288714. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2023.1288714
45. Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197-1208. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1 197
46. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)005 05-6
47. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
48. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational Analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.3. 363
49. Rizvi, S. U. K., & Danish Ahmed Siddiqui. (2023). Dark Triad and counterproductive work behavior in Pakistan: The mediatory role of perceived organizational fairness complemented by organizational climate. International Journal of Social Science & Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 545-568. https://doi.org/10.58661/ijsse.v3i2.161
50. Robbins, S. B., & Smith, L. C. (1993). Enhancement programs for entering university majority and minority freshmen. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71(5), 510-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1993.t b02233.x
51. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
52. Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109
53. Sepahvand, R., & Bagherzadeh Khodashahri, R. (2020). Strategic human resource management practices and employee retention: A study of the moderating role of job engagement. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, Online First.
54. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809
55. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The Stressor-Emotion Model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. (pp. 151-174). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.10 37/10893-007
56. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jvb.2005.10.005
57. Sypniewska, B. (2020). Counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 16(4), 321-328.
58. Szydło, J., & Grześ-Bukłaho, J. (2020). Relations between national and organisational culture—case study. Sustainability, 12(4), 1522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041522
59. Wang, B., Fiaz, M., Hayat Mughal, Y., Kiran, A., Ullah, I., & Wisetsri, W. (2022). Gazing the dusty mirror: Joint effect of narcissism and sadism on workplace incivility via indirect effect of paranoia, antagonism, and emotional intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 944174. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.944174
60. Weidmann, R., Chopik, W. J., Ackerman, R. A., Allroggen, M., Bianchi, E. C., Brecheen, C., Campbell, W. K., Gerlach, T. M., Geukes, K., Grijalva, E., Grossmann, I., Hopwood, C. J., Hutteman, R., Konrath, S., Küfner, A. C. P., Leckelt, M., Miller, J. D., Penke, L., Pincus, A. L., … Back, M. D. (2023). Age and gender differences in narcissism: A comprehensive study across eight measures and over 250,000 participants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(6), 1277-1298. https://doi.org/10. 1037/pspp0000463
61. Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540-555.
62. Wirtz, N., & Rigotti, T. (2020). When grandiose meets vulnerable: Narcissism and well-being in the organizational context. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(4), 556-569.