Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

SustainabilitySustainability
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

13 October 2026

19 Pages

Inclusive, Narcissistic, and Green Transformational Leadership Types in Construction Projects

Department of Transportation Services, Mus Alparslan University, Mus 49250, Turkey
Sustainability2026, 18(20), 10390;https://doi.org/10.3390/su182010390
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

The construction sector is significant due to its numerous stakeholders, high-cost inputs, and its role in meeting the basic needs of communities such as housing and roads. The success of construction projects, their environmental friendliness, and the minimization of workplace accidents are therefore extremely important. The leadership role and attitude of the employer are crucial in this regard. This study examines the associations among inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership, as well as differences in these leadership scores across groups defined by project success, environmental friendliness, and occupational health and safety (OHS) measures, as perceived by employees. Data obtained through convenience sampling in Turkey were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U Test and the Spearman Correlation Test. The study revealed that inclusive leadership and green transformational leadership are positively associated with project success, environmental friendliness, and the implementation of OHS measures as perceived by employees, while narcissistic leadership had a negative association.

1. Introduction

In the construction industry, projects are expected to proceed according to predetermined success criteria. For this reason, construction projects are meticulously examined from planning to completion. The successful completion of these projects depends on both tangible physical factors such as cost, quality, and duration, as well as other factors such as the project’s environmental impact and occupational safety. Even factors such as the employer’s trust and knowledge are investigated [1]. The role and attitude of the employer are crucial in achieving these project success factors. How the employer uses their leadership, their approach to climate change (such as green creativity and environmental sustainability), or their sensitivity to occupational safety is considered to play a significant role in project success. Environmental sustainability is extremely important in the context of climate change. It has been stated that environmental sustainability, rather than economic and social sustainability, provides the greatest benefit in achieving the ultimate success of construction projects [2]. A study showed that green dynamic capabilities and green transformational leadership positively impacted product development performance [3]. Green creativity and green innovation contribute to sustainability in both manufacturing and service sectors [4,5]. Some studies have investigated the relationships between green inclusive leadership, green human resource management, green policy, sustainability, and proactive environmentally friendly behavior [6,7]. In this respect, the attitude of employers, especially regarding green initiatives, becomes crucial. Factors such as the employer’s character, communication with employees, perspective on events, response to crises, and priorities in the project will play a significant role in achieving project success. This study will examine the relationship between inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership in construction projects and investigate differences in project success, green initiatives, and occupational health and safety (OHS) measures across groups based on employees’ perceptions.

1.1. Inclusive Leadership

Inclusive leadership has become a popular concept in recent times, addressed across various sectors. It has been particularly explored as a key facilitator for sustainability during times of change [8]. Generally, inclusive leadership is defined as a form of leadership that encourages innovation and creativity [9,10,11,12]. A study based on social change theory proposes inclusive leadership as a conceptual model encompassing environmentally oriented organizational citizenship behavior, climate, and green creativity for a green initiative [13]. The findings demonstrate that green inclusive leadership has a positive impact on green creativity [13]. A study based on theories of social change, social identity, social learning, and organizational support demonstrated that green inclusive leadership has a positive impact on employees’ green behaviors [14]. Inclusive leadership, especially during periods of change, can support sustainability by fostering creativity, increasing organizational effectiveness, and promoting social and environmental responsibility [8]. A study in Peru revealed that inclusive leadership modulates the relationships between entrepreneurship, green innovation intention, and sustainable development [5].
Inclusive leadership is considered to play a significant role in project success. One study showed that inclusive leadership, through its mediating roles of psychological empowerment and psychological safety, is directly and indirectly positively associated with project success [15]. Similarly, inclusive leadership (a leader’s openness, accessibility, and approachability) encourages employee creativity [9]. A study focusing on the direct effects of inclusive leadership on person-job fit, employee well-being, and innovative behaviors showed that inclusive leadership has a positive impact on all these determinants [16]. Finally, a study conducted among project employees examined the relationships between employee awareness, innovative work behavior, and the inclusive leadership style of the project employer; it was found that personality traits were effective in initiating these behaviors [17].

1.2. Narcissistic Leadership

Narcissism is a complex phenomenon addressed from the perspectives of many disciplines, both in its origins and expression [18]. While the concept’s origin lies in the mythological story of a person falling in love with their reflection on the surface of the water [19], it was first introduced into the field of psychiatry in the late 19th century by the psychiatrist Ellis. Ellis defined narcissism as an individual losing their sexuality and becoming almost entirely focused on self-admiration [20]. In modern psychology and psychiatry, narcissism is considered a disorder characterized by personality traits such as a lack of empathy, abusive behaviors, arrogant attitudes, and a sense of superiority over others [19]. These individuals often exhibit intolerance of criticism, a sense of psychological superiority, exploitative behavior, and intense self-admiration [21]. ‘Narcissism’ is also considered a unique personality trait representing individual differences [22]. Narcissistic individuals often need the approval of others [23]. The concept of “narcissistic supply,” developed to explain this situation, describes individuals’ tendency to reinforce their self-image, self-presentation, and the shortcomings of others [23]. Healthy narcissism, on the other hand, serves a developmental function in childhood; it encourages curiosity, critical thinking, and empathy [18]. However, in some individuals, this development, usually around the ages of 10–15, emotionally stalls, and this stagnation continues throughout life, negatively impacting the individual’s leadership qualities and relationships [18]. It is difficult to eliminate narcissistic traits over time; These traits, usually internalized during adolescence, are closely related to an individual’s self-esteem and their responses to external threats [18]. Narcissism also has a positive and significant relationship with organizational cynicism [24].
Narcissistic individuals often occupy leadership roles due to their strong desires for authority and social dominance [25]. In this context, the concept of narcissistic leadership was first introduced by Rosenthal and Pittinsky [26] who stated that narcissistic leaders prioritize personal interests over organizational interests [20]. Narcissistic leadership is defined as a leadership style in which the employer acts according to their egocentric beliefs and needs, putting the needs of the organization and employees second [26,27,28]. This type of leadership style leads to serious negative consequences for organizations in the long run. Narcissistic leaders undermine trust, exploit their followers, and hinder the development of feedback channels [29,30]. Furthermore, a lack of empathy, a sense of superiority, and unethical behavior disrupt social relationships [31,32]. The literature also highlights that narcissistic leaders often appropriate the success of others and deceive them [21,33]. This leadership style fosters toxic relationships in the workplace, spreading jealousy and harmful behaviors among employees [34]. It also triggers negative organizational behaviors such as gossip, disappointment, and stress [28,35,36]. In the context of project management, narcissistic leadership can negatively impact project success [22].
Narcissistic leadership is characterized by affectation, excessive self-esteem, a fondness for authority, a lack of empathy, and self-interest [37,38]. Narcissistic individuals in managerial positions are reported to exhibit dominant, attention-seeking, aggressive, and manipulative traits [39]. While Hogan and Kaiser [40] suggest that narcissistic leadership has both positive and negative aspects, the literature mostly focuses on negative effects (such as psychological distress, anxiety, negative emotions, interpersonal dominance, and interpersonal insecurity) [41,42,43,44]. In a workplace context, narcissistic leaders exhibit traits such as a sense of self-importance, excessive self-confidence, a desire for attention, and a feeling of superiority [45]. These leaders are often prone to exploiting their subordinates rather than empathizing with them [46]. They also expect high admiration, leaving a negative impact on employees [43,47]. Given the leader’s influence on information sharing, it is suggested that a narcissistic leader may negatively impact this process [48].
Although the concept of toxic leadership is relatively new in the literature, its negative effects on project success have been confirmed [49]. Both narcissistic and despotic leadership styles have been found to increase employee turnover by creating emotional exhaustion [50]. However, despotic leadership is considered to be more harmful than narcissistic leadership [50]. Narcissistic leaders may exert oppressive control over employees, emotionally exhaust them, and exhibit demoralizing behaviors [19]. This leadership style negatively impacts employees’ in-role performance and proactive behavior in customer service [51]. Traits such as a constant desire for power, a striving for superiority, and a lack of empathy lead to low employee performance, creativity, and productivity [52]. As a result, this leads to consequences such as burnout, turnover, and weakened organizational commitment [52].
Dimensions of narcissistic leadership include arrogance, authority, a desire for recognition, perfectionism, lack of empathy, moral weakness, and paranoia [52]. Therefore, narcissistic leadership poses significant risks to project success [20,53,54]. While some studies have not found a direct impact of narcissistic competition on project success, it is stated that the leader’s personal decision-making processes influence strategy and performance [23,54]. Furthermore, it is suggested that the leader’s narcissistic tendencies can also shape internationalization processes [23]. Finally, narcissistic leadership stands out as a motivating factor for negative behaviors such as bullying and abuse within organizational culture [53,55]. It can also tend to maintain its power and influence by fueling chaotic environments [18]. With these characteristics, narcissistic leadership is a leadership problem that can have effects not only at the individual and organizational levels, but also on global sustainable development goals and health systems [18].

1.3. Green Transformational Leadership

Green inclusive leadership, a relatively new concept in the literature, is a modern green leadership style characterized by openness to new green perspectives, willingness to discuss solutions to environmental problems, and transparency with employees on environmental issues [4]. Green inclusive leadership goes beyond traditional leadership approaches by adopting a holistic perspective that is sensitive to environmental concerns and solution-oriented [56]. Among many leadership models and theories, the green transformational leadership model is considered the most suitable leadership style for organizations aiming to protect the environment and reduce the impact of their activities on the ecosystem (environmental management) [57]. A study aiming to explore the fundamental role of green inclusive leadership in guiding sustainability efforts highlights the significant and positive impact of green inclusive leadership on employee green work engagement and green organizational identity [56]. Green inclusive leadership is positively and significantly linked to green creativity [58,59]. In the specific context of green transformational leadership, green creativity is a crucial factor. The concept of green transformational leadership is defined as “a manifestation of transformational leadership where the entire leadership content is focused on promoting pro-environmental and green initiatives” [60]. Green transformational leadership has a positive impact on both employee green behavior and job performance [14,57,61]. This is because individuals who dedicate time to fulfilling their environmental responsibilities are more likely to propose, encourage, and support new green initiatives and improve existing green practices [7]. One study suggests that green transformational leadership is an effective underlying mechanism in the link between green leadership and environmentally friendly behaviors [61].
Green transformational leaders fully embody the beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors of top management that directly impact business performance [62]. Encompassing green impact, green motivation, green intellectual stimulation, and green personalized thinking, green transformational leaders significantly contribute to shaping and motivating employees to achieve green goals [63]. Employees working under the leadership of green transformational leaders are motivated to improve their performance by feeling proud to be associated with responsible leaders [3,64]. At the same time, employees tend to perform better when they feel their leaders are approachable regarding green issues [14]. Because employees feel involved in environmental management due to their leader’s behavior, they are more likely to exhibit positive behavior [61]. Increased green behavior among employees will have many different positive aspects. A range of sustainable development-related factors, such as efficient resource use, waste reduction, environmental protection knowledge acquisition, energy conservation and recycling, and energy and water conservation, are related to employees’ green behavior [65,66,67]. Green behavior is defined as employees’ performance and intentional behaviors that contribute to or move away from behaviors that hinder environmental sustainability [67,68]. Employee green behavior not only improves sustainable development and environmental performance but also enhances the effectiveness and job satisfaction of leaders and employees [69]. In this context, human resources departments, which are directly connected to employees, are expected to increase activities aimed at raising employees’ awareness of green practices. Green human resources management has a significant and positive impact on sustainable performance [70]. This study proposes that inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership should be considered together in construction projects.

2. Materials and Methods

Ready-made scales related to inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership have been applied to employees in the construction industry. The inclusive leadership scale was developed by Carmeli et al. [9]. The 9-item scale developed by Carmeli et al. is generally used in the studies [4,7,9,13,14,59,61]. For the narcissistic leadership scale, a 10-item scale proposed by Hochwarter and Thompson [30] and Hendin and Cheek [71] was used. Specifically, the first six items were adapted from Hochwarter and Thompson [30], while the remaining four items were based on Hendin and Cheek [71]. For “Green Transformational Leadership,” proposed and used by Chen and Chang [3], a 6-item scale was employed. The items belonging to the scales used in this study are presented in Appendix B.
The survey questions were prepared to be answered using a 5-point Likert scale. In addition to these surveys, demographic information about the employees and questions about the project were also asked. A total of 295 employees participated in the survey from different working classes. The survey was administered via face-to-face sessions conducted by interviewers commissioned by the authors, Muş, in Türkiye. Ethical approval was obtained on 9 July 2026, and data were collected between 13 July 2026 and 7 August 2026 from various construction projects, primarily in the residential sector, without distinguishing among workers. Prior to administration, participants were informed that the study was conducted solely for academic purposes, that participation was voluntary, and that their responses would remain confidential and would not be shared with employers, managers, or any other parties. As shown in Table 1, hypotheses were developed within the scope of the study.
Table 1. Hypotheses of the Study.
Within the scope of this study, various analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel 2020 and SPSS 20.0. The distribution of the data was checked. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov significance level and kurtosis-skewness coefficients were examined for normal distribution. The Mann–Whitney U Test was used for the hypotheses put forward in the study. The Spearman Correlation Test was used to determine the relationships between inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership. To evaluate the reliability and validity of the measurement structures in greater detail, a PLS-SEM measurement model was estimated using SmartPLS 4 and item-level data. The evaluation process encompassed analyses of Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, average variance extracted (AVE), and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT). Additionally, the bootstrapping method was employed to obtain confidence intervals for the HTMT estimates.

3. Results

Demographic information for the 295 participants in the survey is shown in Table 2 below. Several conclusions can be drawn from Table 2. These are:
Table 2. Distribution of responding employees by their demographic characteristics.
  • A total of 68% of participants are under 35 years old. Since construction is a physically demanding job, it is expected that young adults will be employed.
  • A total of 14% of the employees surveyed are engineers, architects, or technicians. A total of 86% are workers engaged in tasks such as wall construction, plastering, rebar work, formwork, and tiling. This is an expected result in the construction sector. Therefore, in the construction sector, which is classified as very hazardous [72], factors such as OHS training or the leadership style of employers will be extremely important for workers.
  • A total of 69% of the employees surveyed have less than 10 years of work experience; 31% have 10 years or more of work experience. As with age, the sample group is mostly composed of young adults.
  • The information in Table 2 shows that 79% of the employees surveyed believe their employer takes OHS measures as perceived by employees; 73% believe their employer is environmentally friendly as perceived by employees; and 82% believe the current project is progressing successfully as perceived by employees.
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated to measure the reliability of the inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership scales. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient calculated for the inclusive leadership scale was 0.907; for the narcissistic leadership scale, it was 0.941; and for the green transformational leadership scale, it was 0.896. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was found to be above 0.7. The results indicate an acceptable level of internal consistency among the items measuring each construct because a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of at least 0.7 is required for a survey to be considered reliable [Nunnaly, as cited in [73]]. When the relevant scales were examined, the data groups did not conform to a normal distribution. As shown in Appendix A, although the kurtosis and skewness coefficients do not exceed the threshold values of [−2.00; +2.00], the Kolmogorov–Smirnov significance level being less than 0.05 indicates that the three scales in question do not follow a normal distribution [74]. Therefore, the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test was applied to test the hypotheses mentioned in Table 1. In the Mann–Whitney U test, absolute values for ‘Effect Size’ of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 are considered small, medium, and large effects, respectively; values below 0.10 are considered negligible effects [75,76]. The 95% confidence interval based on the Hodges–Lehmann estimate was reported to quantify the difference between the two groups [77,78].
Data were collected through employee self-assessments; this approach may entail the risk of common method bias (CMB) and the potential for systematic biases in employees’ perceptions of leadership styles. To address this concern, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted, and the results (with a value of 41.66% well below the critical threshold of 50%) confirmed that CMB did not significantly threaten the validity of our findings.
The results of the hypotheses formulated within the scope of this study are presented in Table 3. For these analyses, the average of each item on the scales was calculated and is shown in Appendix A. The raw dataset used in this study is provided in the Supplementary Materials (Table S1).
Table 3. Mann–Whitney U test results.
  • Hypothesis 1 holds: Employees who reported project success had significantly higher perceived inclusive leadership scores than those who did not. Studies have shown that inclusive leadership is positively associated with project success, directly or indirectly [15,79,80,81,82,83].
  • Hypothesis 2 holds: Employees who reported project success had significantly lower perceived narcissistic leadership scores than those who did not. In the context of project management, various studies have indicated that narcissistic leadership is negatively associated with project success and poses significant risks [20,22,49,52,53,84]. While some studies have not directly identified a direct impact of narcissistic leadership on project success, they suggest that the leader’s personal decision-making processes influence it [23,54].
  • Hypothesis 3 holds: Employees who reported project success had significantly higher perceived green transformational leadership scores than those who did not. Green transformational leadership is positively associated with both employee green behavior and project success [14,57,61]. Green transformational leaders fully embody the beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors of top management, which directly affect project success [62]. Green human resources management has a significant and positive impact on project success [70].
  • Hypothesis 4 holds: Employees who reported their employer had an environmentally friendly approach had significantly higher perceived inclusive leadership scores than those who did not. Studies on sustainable development goals have shown that inclusive leadership is positively associated with the green behaviors of both employers and employees [5,14].
  • Hypothesis 5 holds: Employees who reported their employer had an environmentally friendly approach had significantly lower perceived narcissistic leadership scores than those who did not. Narcissistic leadership is negatively associated with both the individual level and the level of global sustainable development goals [18].
  • Hypothesis 6 holds: Employees who reported their employer had an environmentally friendly approach had significantly higher perceived green transformational leadership scores than those who did not. Among many leadership models, green transformational leadership is considered the most suitable leadership style for organizations aiming to protect the environment [56,57]. It is stated that green transformational leadership is an important mechanism in the link between green leadership and environmentally friendly behaviors [58,59,61,85,86].
  • Hypothesis 7 holds: Employees who reported their employer had implemented OHS measures had significantly higher perceived inclusive leadership scores than those who did not. Studies focusing on the effects of inclusive leadership on person-job fit and innovative behaviors show that inclusive leadership is positively associated with these determinants [16,83,87]
  • Hypothesis 8 holds: Employees who reported their employer had implemented OHS measures had significantly lower perceived narcissistic leadership scores than those who did not. Narcissistic leadership is negatively associated with OHS-related practices [18,52]. This leadership style also triggers negative organizational behaviors such as the development of toxic relationships, stress, unsafe working conditions, and the spread of harmful behaviors [28,34,35,36].
  • Hypothesis 9 holds: Employees who reported their employer had implemented OHS measures had significantly higher perceived green transformational leadership scores than those who did not. Studies have shown that employers’ transformational leadership is positively associated with productivity by directly or indirectly enhancing organizational culture through the implementation of OHS measures [16,88,89]. One study stated that OHS considerations should be taken into account in the design, implementation, and selection of alternatives for green technologies [90].
Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership. Since the datasets did not exhibit a normal distribution, the Spearman correlation test was applied. The average of each participant’s responses to inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership was calculated and analyzed (given in Appendix A). Table 4 shows the results of the applied Spearman correlation test. As seen in Table 4, since the sig. values are less than 0.05, inclusive leadership has a significant and positive high correlation with green transformational leadership (correlation coefficient 0.708); narcissistic leadership has a significant and negative correlation with both inclusive leadership (correlation coefficient −0.491) and green transformational leadership (correlation coefficient −0.483).
Table 4. The relationship between inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership.
Given the strong correlation (ρ = 0.708) between inclusive leadership and green transformational leadership, a discriminant validity assessment was conducted to provide a more robust empirical evaluation. A PLS-SEM measurement model was estimated using SmartPLS 4 based on the available item-level data. For inclusive leadership, the Cronbach’s alpha value was found to be 0.907, the composite reliability value 0.908, and the average variance extracted (AVE) value 0.523. For green transformational leadership, the corresponding values were 0.896, 0.896, and 0.589, respectively. As the Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70, and the AVE values surpassed the 0.50 threshold, both constructs demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency and convergent validity [91,92]. Discriminant validity was assessed by calculating the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio. The HTMT value between IL and GTL was calculated as 0.807, with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval ranging from 0.723 to 0.872. The fact that the HTMT value remained below the recommended threshold of 0.85 and the confidence interval did not include the value of 1.00 provided evidence supporting the discriminant validity of these two constructs [93]. These findings indicate that, despite the presence of a relatively strong Spearman correlation (ρ = 0.708, p < 0.001) between IL and GTL, the two constructs are empirically distinguishable in the current sample.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Construction projects are critical projects due to their very high budgets and the unique risks inherent in each project. The successful completion of construction projects depends on the successful implementation of various factors. There are many studies on critical success factors such as cost, quality, and time. Minimizing the number of workplace accidents is also one of these success factors. This is because workplace accidents can lead to numerous negative consequences, including loss of life, interruption of operations, compensation claims, and loss of prestige. For example, Meyer et al. [94] discussed compensation claims following workplace accidents. Furthermore, employees may not return to work after an accident. In MacDonald et al.’s [95] study, only 43% of employees returned to their previous jobs with the employer who caused the accident. Environmental sustainability is also considered a success criterion in construction projects, and it has been stated that environmentally friendly projects provide significant benefits [2].
One of the key factors in the success of construction projects is the employer. The leadership role adopted by the employer significantly impacts the successful completion of these projects. Various leadership roles exist. This study examines differences in perceived inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership type scores across groups defined by project success, environmental friendliness, and OHS measures as perceived by employees. The literature lacks detailed studies that comprehensively address inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership types in the context of construction projects. This study aims to fill this gap. In this study, inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership, along with pre-prepared scales, were applied to 295 construction employees in the construction sector. Various statistical analyses were conducted on the collected data to support the hypotheses. The acceptance of all nine hypotheses highlights the importance of this study in examining the three leadership types. The study revealed differences in perceived inclusive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and green transformational leadership scores across groups defined by project success, the employer’s environmental friendliness, and the employer’s implementation of OHS measures as perceived by employees. Several studies in the literature also support these findings. For example, inclusive leadership is positively associated with project success [15]; inclusive leadership is positively associated with the employer’s commitment to environmental friendliness [96,97]; inclusive leadership is positively associated with the employer’s adoption of OHS measures [83]; narcissistic leadership is negatively associated with project success [22,98]; narcissistic leadership is negatively associated with the employer’s commitment to environmental friendliness [99,100]; narcissistic leadership is negatively associated with the employer’s adoption of OHS measures [52]; green transformational leadership is positively associated with project success [101,102]. The findings of this study are supported by the observation that green transformational leadership is positively associated with employers’ environmental friendliness [103,104,105] and that green transformational leadership is indirectly positively associated with employers’ adoption of OHS measures [88].
Correlation analysis was conducted to analyze the relationship between leadership types examined in construction projects. It was found that inclusive leadership has a high positive correlation with green transformational leadership, while narcissistic leadership has a negative correlation with both inclusive and green transformational leadership. Previous studies indicate that inclusive leadership is significantly and positively associated with environmental passion and green awareness, and green transformational leadership [97,106]. These studies support our research, suggesting that inclusive leadership and green transformational leadership are conceptually close and complementary structures. Academic studies have shown that narcissistic leadership weakens the fundamental elements of inclusive leadership, such as collaboration, integrity, empathy, and employee engagement, thus being inversely correlated with the core characteristics of this leadership approach [26,107]. In contrast, studies show that green transformational leadership encourages environmentally friendly behaviors among employees and strengthens their environmental passion; In this respect, it differs significantly from the short-term, self-centered, and self-interest-focused management approach that is prominent in narcissistic leadership [100,104,108]. Therefore, the different behavioral and motivational foundations on which these leadership approaches are based allow for a theoretical explanation of the negative relationships between narcissistic leadership and both inclusive leadership and green transformational leadership. In this context, the findings are consistent with the existing literature and suggest that narcissistic leadership exhibits a tendency that is not in line with, but rather opposed to, leadership approaches that prioritize elements such as inclusivity, employee participation, collective benefit, and environmental sustainability. A holistic approach is required in construction projects, both in terms of sustainability and project success. In this respect, the employer is expected to have an inclusive, green transformational, and non-narcissistic leadership role. From a practical standpoint, this indicates that construction firms need to translate leadership principles into observable practices at the project site level. Inclusive and green-transformational leadership stands in contrast to narcissistic leadership by empowering workers—through practices such as involving them in safety meetings, encouraging their participation, considering their suggestions in project-related decisions, and providing appropriate environmental training and resources.
Although this study achieved its objective, its limitations for future research should be highlighted. The first limitation is that the participants were construction employees; perhaps future studies could include employers as well. Future research should use larger samples from more construction sites to further generalize the results and increase the power of the estimates. It is suggested that a similar scale be developed for employers in future studies. Another limitation of this study relates to the measurement of project success, environmental friendliness, and the implementation of OHS measures. For example, project success is a multidimensional construct encompassing various dimensions, such as cost, time, quality, and occupational health and safety performance. In this study, project success, environmental friendliness, and the implementation of OHS measures were measured using a single, subjective binary item reflecting the participants’ general perception. Consequently, this measurement approach may limit the construct validity and comprehensiveness of the measurement of project success, environmental friendliness, and the implementation of OHS measures. Future research could address this limitation by reflecting the multidimensional nature of project success, environmental friendliness, and the implementation of OHS measures. Another limitation of this study concerns the inability to assess potential clustering among the participants. Although data were collected from 295 employees working on various construction projects, information regarding the specific company, construction site, or project to which the participants belonged was not recorded. Consequently, it is impossible to determine how many participants came from each company or project. This limitation should be taken into account when interpreting the findings and their generalizability. Finally, this study is specific to the construction sector in Turkey and focuses on employees. It is recommended that similar scales be applied in other countries. Perhaps cross-country comparisons could also be considered.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su182010390/s1, Table S1. Raw data used in the study.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Muş Alparslan University (protocol code No. 78, 9 July 2026).

Data Availability Statement

The anonymized respondent-level dataset comprising 295 observations and 35 variables used for the statistical analyses reported in this study is provided as a Supplementary Materials File. Appendix A contains descriptive statistics derived from the dataset. Appendix B contains the survey statements.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Descriptive Statistics.

Appendix B

Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements.
Inclusive LeadershipStrongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree
My employer is open to hearing new ideas.
My employer considers new opportunities for improving work processes.
My employer is open to discussing desired goals and new ways of achieving them.
My employer is open to discussing problems.
My employer is part of this team and is always approachable.
My employer is available when I want to consult them about professional questions.
My employer is willing to listen to my requests.
My employer encourages me to approach them about problems that arise.
My employer is open to discussing problems that arise.
Narcissistic LeadershipStrongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree
My employer is a very self-centered person.
My employer has an exaggerated opinion of themselves.
My employer brags about himself/herself in order to receive positive feedback from others.
My employer does a favor only when they receive two or more favors in return.
My employer does whatever it takes to hurt me in order to get ahead.
My employer must always be the center of attention, no matter what.
My employer does not enjoy being with a group unless they know that at least one person present appreciates him/her.
My employer does not like to share the credit for an accomplishment with others.
My employer easily becomes preoccupied with his/her own interests and forgets about the existence of others.
My employer usually interprets other people’s remarks personally.
Green Transformational LeadershipStrongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither Agree nor Disagree)AgreeStrongly Agree
My employer develops a clear green (environmentally friendly) vision for employees to follow.
My employer inspires team members with their green (environmentally friendly) plans.
My employer encourages employees to work together toward similar green (environmentally friendly) goals.
My employer encourages employees to achieve green (environmentally friendly) goals.
My employer acts by taking employees’ environmental beliefs into consideration.
My employer encourages employees to develop green (environmentally friendly) ideas

References

  1. Aslan, S.; Arditi, D.; Tantekin-Çelik, G. Factors That Affect the Level of Success of the Transaction between Home Buyers and Developers in Sell-Build Residential Projects. Buildings 2021, 11, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Tunji-Olayeni, P.F.; Mosaku, T.O.; Oyeyipo, O.O.; Afolabi, A.O. Sustainability strategies in the construction industry: Implications on Green Growth in Nigeria. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 146, 012004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. The Determinants of Green Product Development Performance: Green Dynamic Capabilities, Green Transformational Leadership, and Green Creativity. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 116, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Bhutto, T.A.; Farooq, R.; Talwar, S.; Awan, U.; Dhir, A. Green inclusive leadership and green creativity in the tourism and hospitality sector: Serial mediation of green psychological climate and work engagement. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1716–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Mamani, W.C.; Manrique, G.M.L.; Madrid, S.D.P.C.; Herrera, E.E.; Acosta, D.B.; Rivas-Diaz, R.R.; Arias-Gonzáles, J.L.; Maquera, Y.M.; Ramos, F.S.S. The Role of Entrepreneurship and Green Innovation Intention on Sustainable Development: Moderating Impact of Inclusive Leadership. AgBioForum 2022, 24, 134–143. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hu, K.; Chen, Y.; Mu, S.; Tan, Z. Green inclusive leadership, green policy, and pursuit of sustainability in natural resources: A firm-level analysis in context of Ukraine-Russia war. Resour. Policy 2024, 89, 104607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Patwary, A.K.; Mohd Yusof, M.F.; Bah Simpong, D.; Ab Ghaffar, S.F.; Rahman, M.K. Examining proactive pro-environmental behaviour through green inclusive leadership and green human resource management: An empirical investigation among Malaysian hotel employees. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2023, 6, 2012–2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Anane-Simon, R.; Olusegun Atiku, S. Inclusive leadership for sustainable development in times of change. Routledge Open Res. 2023, 2, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Carmeli, A.; Reiter-Palmon, R.; Ziv, E. Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creat. Res. J. 2010, 22, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Amabile, T.M.; Pratt, M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Res. Organ. Behav. 2016, 36, 157–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Choi, S.B.; Tran, T.B.H.; Park, B.I. Inclusive Leadership and Work Engagement: Mediating Roles of Affective Organizational Commitment and Creativity. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2015, 43, 931–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Javed, B.; Naqvi, S.M.M.R.; Khan, A.K.; Arjoon, S.; Tayyeb, H.H. Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety. J. Manag. Organ. 2019, 25, 117–136, Correction in J. Manag. Organ. 2017, 23, 472. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Sürücü, L. The influence of green inclusive leadership on green creativity: A moderated mediation model. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2024, 33, 678–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Aboramadan, M.; Crawford, J.; Türkmenoğlu, M.A.; Farao, C. Green inclusive leadership and employee green behaviors in the hotel industry: Does perceived green organizational support matter? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 107, 103330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Khan, J.; Jaafar, M.; Javed, B.; Mubarak, N.; Saudagar, T. Does inclusive leadership affect project success? The mediating role of perceived psychological empowerment and psychological safety. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2020, 13, 1077–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Nguyen, P.V.; Le, H.T.N.; Trinh, T.V.A.; Do, H.T.S. The effects of inclusive leadership on job performance through mediators. Asian Acad. Manag. J. 2019, 24, 63–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Khan, J.; Jaafar, M.; Mubarak, N.; Khan, A.K. Employee mindfulness, innovative work behaviour, and IT project success: The role of inclusive leadership. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2024, 25, 145–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Khorram-Manesh, A.; Goniewicz, K.; Burkle, F.M. The Impacts of Narcissistic Leadership on Achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals—A Scoping Review. Challenges 2024, 15, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Tiwari, M.; Jha, R. Narcissism, toxic work culture and abusive supervision: A double-edged sword escalating organizational deviance. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2022, 30, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Wang, H.; Jiao, R.; Li, F. Research on the Effect of Narcissistic Leadership on Employee Job Embeddedness. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 927529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  21. Asad, S.; Sadler-Smith, E. Differentiating leader hubris and narcissism on the basis of power. Leadership 2020, 16, 39–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Tahir, H.; Paracha, O.S.; Mukarram, S.S. Narcissistic Leadership and Project Success: The Role of Knowledge Sharing and Collectivism in IT Firms. Organizacija 2023, 56, 352–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Huang, X.; Chen, H.; Wang, L.; Zeng, S. How Does Leader Narcissism Influence Firm Internationalization? IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2020, 67, 683–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Sabir, I.; Hussain, S.; Majid, M.B.; Rehman, A.; Sarwar, A.; Nawaz, F. Impact of narcissistic personality disorder on cognitive organizational cynicism with mediating role of psychological capital in selected hospitals of Punjab Pakistan. Futur. Bus. J. 2020, 6, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. ALnaggar, H.A.; Ali, A.; Jones, A. Leadership From Dark Triad Perspective in Multiple Types of Organization: A Discovery of Nature and Style of Leaders in Government, Semi Government and Private Sector. Int. J. Manag. 2021, 12, 628–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rosenthal, S.A.; Pittinsky, T.L. Narcissistic leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2006, 17, 617–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Ouimet, G. Dynamics of narcissistic leadership in organizations: Towards an integrated research model. J. Manag. Psychol. 2010, 25, 713–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. O’Reilly, C.A.; Chatman, J.A. Transformational Leader or Narcissist? How Grandiose Narcissists Can Create and Destroy Organizations and Institutions. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2020, 62, 5–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Fatfouta, R. Facets of narcissism and leadership: A tale of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2019, 29, 100669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Hochwarter, W.A.; Thompson, K.W. Mirror, mirror on my boss’s wall: Engaged enactment’s moderating role on the relationship between perceived narcissistic supervision and work outcomes. Hum. Relat. 2012, 65, 335–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. O’Reilly, C.A.; Doerr, B. Conceit and deceit: Lying, cheating, and stealing among grandiose narcissists. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2020, 154, 109627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. El Akremi, A.; Vandenberghe, C.; Camerman, J. The role of justice and social exchange relationships in workplace deviance: Test of a mediated model. Hum. Relat. 2010, 63, 1687–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Braun, S.; Aydin, N.; Frey, D.; Peus, C. Leader Narcissism Predicts Malicious Envy and Supervisor-Targeted Counterproductive Work Behavior: Evidence from Field and Experimental Research. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 151, 725–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Braun, S. Leader Narcissism and Outcomes in Organizations: A Review at Multiple Levels of Analysis and Implications for Future Research. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Kuo, C.C.; Chang, K.; Quinton, S.; Lu, C.Y.; Lee, I. Gossip in the workplace and the implications for HR management: A study of gossip and its relationship to employee cynicism. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 26, 2288–2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Aboramadan, M.; Turkmenoglu, M.A.; Dahleez, K.A.; Cicek, B. Narcissistic leadership and behavioral cynicism in the hotel industry: The role of employee silence and negative workplace gossiping. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 428–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Ames, D.R.; Rose, P.; Anderson, C.P. The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. J. Res. Pers. 2006, 40, 440–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Campbell, W.K.; Hoffman, B.J.; Campbell, S.M.; Marchisio, G. Narcissism in organizational contexts. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2011, 21, 268–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Ham, C.; Seybert, N.; Wang, S. Narcissism is a bad sign: CEO signature size, investment, and performance. Rev. Account. Stud. 2018, 23, 234–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Hogan, R.; Kaiser, R.B. What we know about Leadership. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2005, 9, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Wang, H.; Han, X.; Li, J. Supervisor Narcissism and Employee Performance: A Moderated Mediation Model of Affective Organizational Commitment and Power Distance Orientation. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 2021, 43, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Kaufman, S.B.; Weiss, B.; Miller, J.D.; Campbell, W.K. Clinical Correlates of Vulnerable and Grandiose Narcissism: A Personality Perspective. J. Pers. Disord. 2020, 34, 107–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  43. Gauglitz, I.K. Explaining Abusive Supervision via Leader Narcissism: The Role of Narcissistic Leaders’ Internal Processes and Follower Behaviors; Otto-Friedrich-Universität: Bamberg, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  44. Neumann, C.S.; Jones, D.N.; Paulhus, D.L. Examining the Short Dark Tetrad (SD4) Across Models, Correlates, and Gender. Assessment 2022, 29, 651–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  45. Chatterjee, A.; Hambrick, D.C. It’s All about Me: Narcissistic Chief Executive Officers and Their Effects on Company Strategy and Performance. Adm. Sci. Q. 2007, 52, 351–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Norouzinik, Y.; Rahimnia, F.; Maharati, Y.; Eslami, G. Narcissistic leadership and employees’ innovative behaviour: Mediating roles of job embeddedness and job engagement. Innov. Organ. Manag. 2022, 24, 355–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Carnevale, J.B.; Huang, L.; Harms, P.D. Leader consultation mitigates the harmful effects of leader narcissism: A belongingness perspective. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2018, 146, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Khalid, M.; Bashir, S.; Khan, A.K.; Abbas, N. When and how abusive supervision leads to knowledge hiding behaviors: An Islamic work ethics perspective. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2018, 39, 794–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Zaman, U.; Florez-Perez, L.; Anjam, M.; Ghani Khwaja, M.; Ul-Huda, N. At the end of the world, turn left: Examining toxic leadership, team silence and success in mega construction projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2023, 30, 2436–2462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Badar, K.; Aboramadan, M.; Plimmer, G. Despotic vs narcissistic leadership: Differences in their relationship to emotional exhaustion and turnover intentions. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2023, 34, 818–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Li, K.; Sun, X.; Cheng, J. How does leaders’ narcissistic rivalry impact employees’ service outcomes in the hospitality industry? A conservation of resources perspective. Kybernetes 2025, 54, 2111–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Yousif, M.B.Z.; Loukil, T.M. Determining the Effect of Narcissistic Leadership on Employee Performance: An applied Study in a Private College in Iraq. Acad. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2022, 11, 182–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Moon, H.C.; Kim, W. The effect of leadership type on follower performance in Asian technology industries: The moderating effects of narcissism. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2023, 31, 503–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Ali, T.; Akbar, W.; Wachani, J.U. Narcissistic Leadership and Project Success in IT Industry: Moderating the role of Risk Management Technology. J. Entrep. Manag. Innov. 2021, 3, 385–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Keyes-Pretlow, C. The Correlation Between Workplace Bullying, Leader Narcissistic Tendencies, and the Organizational Culture Within the Financial Sector. Doctoral Dissertation, Grand Canyon University, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  56. Abdou, A.H.; Al Abdulathim, M.A.; Hussni Hasan, N.R.; Salah, M.H.A.; Ali, H.S.A.M.; Kamel, N.J. From Green Inclusive Leadership to Green Organizational Citizenship: Exploring the Mediating Role of Green Work Engagement and Green Organizational Identification in the Hotel Industry Context. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Tuna, Ö.; Yıldız, M. ÇalişaninYeşil Davranişi VeIş PerformansindaYeşil DönüştürüLiderliğin Rolü. Uluslar. İktisadi İdari İncelemeler Derg. 2023, 2023, 61–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Dinibutun, S.R. From green inclusive leadership to green creativity: The mediating role of green passion and green absorptive capacity. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2024, 10, 100272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Asghar, M.; Ullah, I.; Bangash, A.H. Green inclusive leadership and green creativity in the manufacturing industry: Do green human capital and employee voice matter? Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2025, 17, 419–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Farrukh, M.; Ansari, N.; Raza, A.; Wu, Y.; Wang, H. Fostering employee’s pro-environmental behavior through green transformational leadership, green human resource management and environmental knowledge. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 179, 121643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Thabet, W.M.; Badar, K.; Aboramadan, M.; Abualigah, A. Does green inclusive leadership promote hospitality employees’ pro-environmental behaviors? The mediating role of climate for green initiative. Serv. Ind. J. 2023, 43, 43–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Koohang, A.; Paliszkiewicz, J.; Goluchowski, J. The impact of leadership on trust, knowledge management, and organizational performance: A research model. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 521–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Du, Y.; Yan, M. Green Transformational Leadership and Employees’ Taking Charge Behavior: The Mediating Role of Personal Initiative and the Moderating Role of Green Organizational Identity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  64. Liu, X.; Jie, X. Can Manager’s Environmentally Specific Transformational Leadership Improve Environmental Performance? In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 730–742. [Google Scholar]
  65. Zhang, B.; Yang, L.; Cheng, X.; Chen, F. How Does Employee Green Behavior Impact Employee Well-Being? An Empirical Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  66. Sobaih, A.E.E.; Hasanein, A.; Gharbi, H.; Abu Elnasr, A.E. Going Green Together: Effects of Green Transformational Leadership on Employee Green Behaviour and Environmental Performance in the Saudi Food Industry. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Norton, T.A.; Parker, S.L.; Zacher, H.; Ashkanasy, N.M. Employee Green Behavior. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 103–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Jackson, S.E.; Ones, D.S.; Dilchert, S.; Kraiger, K. Managing Human Resources for Environmental Sustainability; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012; Chapter five; Volume 32, J-B SIOP Professional Practice Series. [Google Scholar]
  69. Saleem, M.; Qadeer, F.; Mahmood, F.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Han, H. Ethical Leadership and Employee Green Behavior: A Multilevel Moderated Mediation Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Amjad, F.; Rao, Y.; Rahman, A.U.; Mohsin, M.; Sarfraz, M. Fostering sustainability through the Green HRM and green inclusive leadership: The dual mediating role of creative self-efficacy and green skill competency. Curr. Psychol. 2024, 43, 22181–22199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Hendin, H.M.; Cheek, J.M. Assessing Hypersensitive Narcissism: A Reexamination of Murray’s Narcism Scale. J. Res. Pers. 1997, 31, 588–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  72. Carter, G.; Smith, S.D. Safety Hazard Identification on Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Santos, J.R.A. Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J. Ext. 1999, 37, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Kalaycı, Ş. SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Degiskenli İstatistik Teknikleri, 3rd ed.; Asil Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti: Ankara, Turkey, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  75. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  76. Fritz, C.O.; Morris, P.E.; Richler, J.J. Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2012, 141, 2–18, Correction in J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2012, 141, 30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  77. Hodges, J.L.; Lehmann, E.L. Estimates of location based on rank tests. Ann. Math. Stat. 1963, 34, 598–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Perme, M.P.; Manevski, D. Confidence intervals for the Mann–Whitney test. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 2019, 28, 3753–3767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  79. Rehman, S.U. Impact of Inclusive Leadership on Project Success. J. Eng. Proj. Prod. Manag. 2020, 10, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  80. Khan Marri, M.Y.; Azeem, M.; Nadeem, S. The effect of inclusive leadership on project success: The mediating role of psychological safety and job meaningfulness. PalArch’s J. Archaeol. Egypt/Egyptol. 2021, 18, 4300–4325. [Google Scholar]
  81. Nawaz, M.J.; Qayyum, A. The Impact Of Inclusive Leadership On Project Success: Mediating Role Of Employee Engagement And Moderating Role Of Leader Self-Sacrifice. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 2022, 6, 2577–2602. [Google Scholar]
  82. Javed, A.; Ibrahim, M.Y.; Hafaz Ngah, A.; Zafar, M.J.; Hammad, M.; Khan, A.Z.; Mir, F. Impact of inclusive leadership on project success- with mediating role of organizational commitment and top management support as moderator: A systematic literature review. Multidiscip. Rev. 2025, 8, 2025250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Kipara, J.K. Inclusive leadership as a catalyst for employee and team performance: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Afr. Q. Soc. Sci. Rev. 2025, 2, 545–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Schmid, E.A.; Knipfer, K.; Peus, C.V. Narcissistic Leaders–Promise or Peril? The Patterns of Narcissistic Leaders’ Behaviors and Their Relation to Team Performance. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 660452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  85. Orgun, E.; Solunoglu, A.; Kutlu, D.; Kasalak, M.A.; Unal, A.; Celen, O.; Gozen, E. The Effect of Green Leadership Perception on Environmental Commitment, Awareness, and Employees’ Green Behavior in Hotel Businesses: Research from a Generation Cohort Theory Perspective. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  86. Kaya, N.; Atsan, N. How green transformational leadership influences employee green behavior: The mediating role of green intrinsic motivation. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 396, 128020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  87. Li, T.; Tang, N. Inclusive Leadership and Innovative Performance: A Multi-Level Mediation Model of Psychological Safety. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 934831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  88. Katou, A.A.; Gianni, M. Green leadership’s role in developing organizational sustainability: A multilevel structural equations model. Strateg. Bus. Res. 2026, 2, 100051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  89. Moda, H.M.; Mahmoud, F.O.; Kozhiparambath, L.; Abdelrahim, R.A. The impact of leadership on workplace safety climate and employees’ well-being with particular focus on transformational leadership. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2025, 31, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  90. Schulte, P.A.; McKernan, L.T.; Heidel, D.S.; Okun, A.H.; Dotson, G.S.; Lentz, T.J.; Geraci, C.L.; Heckel, P.E.; Branche, C.M. Occupational safety and health, green chemistry, and sustainability: A review of areas of convergence. Environ. Health 2013, 12, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  91. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  92. Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F.; Pick, M.; Liengaard, B.D.; Radomir, L.; Ringle, C.M. Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychol. Mark. 2022, 39, 1035–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  93. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  94. Meyer, B.D.; Viscusi, W.K.; Durbin, D.L. Workers’ Compensation and Injury Duration: Evidence from a Natural Experiment; NBER Working Paper No. 3494; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  95. Macdonald, H.A.; Colotla, V.; Flamer, S.; Karlinsky, H. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the Workplace: A Descriptive Study of Workers Experiencing PTSD Resulting From Work Injury. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2003, 13, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  96. Quan, D.; Tian, L.; Qiu, W. The Study on the Influence of Green Inclusive Leadership on Employee Green Behaviour. J. Environ. Public Health 2022, 2022, 5292184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  97. Yan, W.; Zixuan, D.; Libin, Z.; Rafiq, M. From leadership to action: How green inclusive leadership drives pro-environmental behaviour. Work A J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2026, 83, 392–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  98. Al-Abrrow, H.; Alnoor, A.; Abbas, S. The Effect of Organizational Resilience and CEO’s Narcissism on Project Success: Organizational Risk as Mediating Variable. Organ. Manag. J. 2019, 16, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  99. Vianello, D.; Marrucci, A.; Ciappei, C. Leading With Contrast: How CEO Narcissism and Humility Shape Environmental Performance. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2026, 35, 4495–4509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  100. Abdullah, M.; Wali Ullah, G.M.; Turner, J. 50 shades of dark green: The nexus of narcissistic leadership and corporate greenwashing. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2025, 104, 104220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  101. Apostu, S. study among green transformational leadership, green learning, government regulation and sustainable project success across renewable energy investments. J. Innov. Sustain. RISUS 2024, 15, 42–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  102. Le, T.T.; Chau, T.L.Q.; Ngoc, L.T.T.; Tieu, T.T. How green transformational leadership drives environmental performance and firm performance? Empirical evidence from an emerging economy. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2024, 31, 5504–5523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  103. Alkandi, I. Green transformational leadership and its impact on employee environmental performance through internal environmental orientation and green rewards and incentives. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  104. Cao, J.; Sun, H.; Cao, X.; Ma, H. Green transformational leadership and employees’ green behavior: A cross-level moderated mediation study. Front. Psychol. 2026, 17, 1720404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  105. Haider, S.A.; Akbar, A.; Aman-Ullah, A.; Poulova, P.; Tehseen, S. Green transformational leadership as a catalyst for sustainable environmental performance through green HRM and innovation. Discov. Sustain. 2026, 7, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  106. Fu, L.; Tang, J.; Zhou, H.; Zeng, G. Inclusive climate or innovative climate? The mechanism of green transformational leadership motivating green mindfulness. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 378, 124750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  107. O’Reilly, C.A.; Chatman, J.A.; Doerr, B. When “Me” Trumps “We”: Narcissistic Leaders and the Cultures They Create. Acad. Manag. Discov. 2021, 7, 419–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  108. Onay, Ö.A.; Latif, H. Çalışanlar Perspektifinden Liderlik Stilleri ile Narsisizm Arasındaki İlişki Üzerine Bir Araştırma. J. Bus. Trade 2023, 4, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Exchange Rate Volatility and the Resilience of Agricultural Export Earnings: Does Financial Depth Provide Insulation?
Previous
Tackling Pressure Through Collaboration: Green Innovation Strategies of Firms in Response to Climate Risks
Next