Talk:Narcissism in the workplace

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rhys Christian Anderson, Slwx2d, Oldkingdoran. Peer reviewers: Mlt4k8, Bkeuss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LinCurran. Peer reviewers: Aewmnw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Psychopathy in the workplace
A sister psychopathy in the workplace article would be nice.--Penbat (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Managers and Team Members
This article appears to focus on narcissistic managers. It could benefit greatly from information about narcissism in team members and their effect on organizations and teams. Jasonbutz (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article may benefit from seeing narcissism from within a team structure viewpoint. It might be worth adding a paragraph discussing how narcissism affects those within teams not just on a corporate/managerial level. Zjt2n8 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Narcissism in the workplace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425093442/http://noworkplacebullies.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Bully_conference_abstract.160111428.doc to http://noworkplacebullies.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Bully_conference_abstract.160111428.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on Public good organizations
I am not sure if it is appropriate to use a blog post to discuss narcissism here. Even though the person blogging is a professor of business it would still fall more in line with the quality of the rest of these article to find a study done by this or another professor to talk about how narcissism can affect those issues such as public health, considering how board the subject of the public good is, Maybe even going so far as to make a new section on how narcissism is able to damage public good organizations or a government department such as health care might be appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldkingdoran (talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

the page really needs deep changes
The very first line shrieks
 * Narcissism in the workplace is a serious issue and may have a major detrimental impact on an entire organization.

so that red-flags the nonencyclopedic tone. Every word I've bolded is a fnord, a "trigger term" placed to make a statement (often unfounded) seem more credible by stimulating a reflex revulsion. For instance, it is never clearly established that it's an "issue," much less "serious," and neither of those words appears in the article proper.

The second paragraph read like an Amazon blurb for Oliver James; he also is not mentioned in the article, and plugging his Office Politics seems an unlikely coincidence; at very least, this does not belong in the lede. Unless someone can provide a credible and unbiased authority speaking up for the "Dark Triad" huggermugger, I'm gonna call it out as indicating self-promotion, and it looks like this page is here primarily for citogenesis. (Note that his article See Alsos to Psychopathy in the workplace and Machiavellianism in the workplace.)

I might as well note that Dark triad and Oliver James both deserve significant cuts for being loaded with unsubstantiated and self-important statements. Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oliver James just gets one sentence in the intro. He is a reputable psychologist and it is made clear that it is his view. I do not see any Amazon blurb or self-promotion here. It is cited and there are five other cites in the intro supporting the text. Dark triad is an important concept, has its own article and narcissism is firmly one of its three legs.--Penbat (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem being that your opinion is worth nothing in Wikipedia (and that includes my opinion as well). Whether you or I believe Oliver James is the next Carl Jung is entirely immaterial. Without a citation, the WP assumption is that it's imaginary; furthermore, potential bias of a supporting source is also open to question. Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The sentence by James just states that narcissism is one of the three legs of the dark triad which is undeniably the case.--Penbat (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Opening Paragraphs
Though I do feel that the opening 2 paragraphs are average, I believe that there is detail that could greatly improve these two paragraphs. I am focusing on these paragraphs because these are often the most viewed part of the article. Firstly, I question why the dark triadic personality traits are the only the only traits. This triad does not consist of traits necessarily, but more facets of the Big 5 traits. I found an article that discusses how narcissism relates to the big 5 traits. I believe that incorporating information about how narcissism relates to the big 5 will help dwindle any grey area the reader may have on the difference between a trait and a facet. Additionally, the article references NPI as the general tool used to assess narcissism. Though I agree that the NPI can be used for such assessment because of its wide acceptance for use in the workplace, I believe there are other assessments that could also be included. Such assessments could be the JPI and the HPI. Both assessments hold respectable levels of reliability and validity and also possess the ability to predict job performance. I feel that adding information about such assessments would benefit the article because it would allow for a section of possible ways to minimize narcissism in the work place. Swatsinator (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Swatsinator

Adding More Depth
I understand that the Productive narcissists paragraph was trying to show the possible positives of narcissism, however I feel it could go into a little more detail. I feel that it would be good to add facts based on positive aspects of narcissism that way it allows the reader to develop their own opinion on Narcissism in the workplace. It might also be wise to look into adding a more neutral view point on the other paragraphs so that the reader doesn't have to rely on only one paragraph to give a counter-viewpoint on why narcissism in the work place may be good or bad.

I also feel that a lot of the paragraphs just glaze over a couple of facts about narcissism and how it can effect the workplace. Such an example could be on the paragraph that discusses sexual harassment. That section was only three sentences, where I feel it can definitely be expanded on. This is the case for a lot of paragraphs here. I don't feel like the reader should have to jump to 15 other external links to find a base amount of information. I feel the links should be there in case the reader would like to focus more in depth on one aspect of narcissism and how it applies in the workplace. Zjt2n8 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

A few mistakes
I believe the use of, "is a serious issue that may have a major detrimental impact" in your article is too wordy. The sentence should be more concise. The first paragraph of the article should elaborate more on the vocabulary: dark triadic, honest-homily traits, and Machiavellianism, so the reader can understand the content further. Even though there are links to other articles that provide more information, I have noticed that most people would much rather be able to find all the information they need in one article, without having to research the contents of the article itself. Finally, in the section about job interviews, I think it would be more supporting to provide proof of knowledge about how people rate how favorable narcissists are during interviews, maybe even statistics. Calista.mccormack (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Calista.mccormack (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Just a few ways in which this article could be expanded upon or improved :)

- Intro 1st paragraph seems a little weak. I see in the talk page that this section was recently changed to be in a less biased tone. Maybe there could be a better general overview. The second paragraph, in my opinion, is a really good part of the intro.

- Job interviews seems like a weird first topic. I think the sub-categories could be ordered in a more intuitive and constructive manner

- Coping strategies section, if kept, needs expanded upon. Also the bullying category, if kept, should go before it.

- Talking about narcissism in a neutral tone seems difficult, but not impossible. Room for improvement.

- Lots of talk about leaders and corporate settings, but I would like to add more about other work environments and other roles.

- A more comprehensive lit review could be conducted with more recent articles. There isn't really much outside of the 2000s and 2010s. I'm sure there are some articles about narcissists in the workplace since then.

Amwvtp (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything in this article seems relevant to the topic of Narcissism in the Workplace. Something that distracted me from the main topic is the subsection "Organizational Design Preferences". I believe that this information could have been added in a different subsection. The information included in this section seems to be a little repetitive when reading it since it includes narcissist attributes that are already presented in the other subsections.

I was expecting the overview section to include more relevant information about narcissism in the workplace instead of this broad information about narcissism and what it means, how you can define it, etc. Along with this, this article talks a lot about the corporate and organizational settings, kind of leading us out of the way of the main important topic, which is Narcissism in the workplace. I would like to see more information about what their leadership style looks like, how to identify it, a deeper explanation on how to deal with narcissist bosses, etc

The article does not seem to be biased. There are no visible claims that fall toward a particular position. It is written by using numerous sources and from a neutral standpoint, with the purpose of explaining Narcissism in the Workplace, even though some topics are very vague.

I believe that the subsection "Impact on stress, absenteeism, and staff turnover" is unrepresented. This section is as important as "Job Interviews" and comparing one to another, "Impact on stress, absenteeism and staff turnover" is half of the length. There is a lot more information that can be included in this subsection. Also, I believe that the subsection "Coping strategies for dealing with workplace narcissists" could be added in this subsection or right below it. The placement of the subsections does not seem to be in the right places. There is not a lot of harmony in this article because it feels like the person is just throwing the information out there and just expecting the readers to catch it.

During the overview, they could have used more sources to prove the information that was provided. The links of the citations included in this article work and they do support the claims and information that was included in the article. When looking at the "References" subsection, we can see that the very last citations are not cited properly. Number 42, and 43 do not seem to be completed citations, creating confusion. Besides these issues, I believe they did great work with this because, after the overview section, almost every sentence is supported by a reliable source.

The information included in this article could be more up to date. There are a lot of citations from the 90s and not too many from the 2010s. I am certain that there are many articles from the last decade that are of importance for this topic. Laurarodguez (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)LauraRodriguezLaurarodguez (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Personality Theory
The initial comment in the section above about the tone of this article is spot on. The tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. It is vastly overblown, and should be significantly contracted, not expanded. It should also be merged with one or more of the myriad of closely-related and redundant articles. Also, the section on coping strategies should be stricken per WP:NOT. Banks Irk (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)