When Does a Narcissistic Leader Force You Out? The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses a timely and relatively underexplored topic by examining how psychological capital (PsyCap)—including optimism, resilience, self-efficacy, and hope—mediates the relationship between the desire to leave and the perception of narcissistic leadership. This is a highly original and relevant research question, and the authors have done a commendable job in presenting their work.

1. Strengths of the Manuscript
   Overall, the manuscript is well-written, clearly structured, and methodologically sound. The hypotheses are logically derived and grounded in relevant theoretical frameworks. The procedure and variables are clearly explained, and the results are presented in an organized and accessible manner. These strengths contribute to the clarity and rigor of the study.
2. Terminology Consistency
   One issue that should be addressed is the inconsistent use of terminology throughout the manuscript. While the abstract correctly refers to the "perception of narcissistic leadership," other parts of the manuscript—including the title, the main text, and the measurement section—frequently use the term "narcissistic leader." For the sake of conceptual clarity and consistency, the authors are encouraged to use a single term across the manuscript. Given that the perception of leadership style is being measured rather than actual leader traits, “perceived narcissistic leadership” would be the more accurate and consistent term to use throughout.
3. Consideration of PsyCap as a Composite Score
   Another point worth considering is the analytical treatment of psychological capital. The study focuses on the sub-dimensions of PsyCap, which is certainly informative; however, it may also be beneficial to analyze PsyCap as a total composite score. Doing so could offer a more holistic view of the construct’s mediating role and potentially simplify the interpretation of results. The authors may consider presenting both total and subscale-level analyses to strengthen the empirical contribution.
4. Conclusion and Contribution
   The conclusion section could be expanded to better articulate the broader implications and contributions of the study. While the findings are well summarized, a more in-depth discussion of the theoretical and practical significance—particularly regarding leadership development, employee retention, and organizational well-being—would increase the impact and visibility of the work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for recognizing the valuable contribution of our manuscript. We thank you for the constructive comments and clear recommendations.  We have submitted a second version of the paper where the changes are tracked and highlighted in green. Moreover, the responses to the questions raised are written in bold.  

General considerations: The study addresses a timely and relatively underexplored topic by examining how psychological capital (PsyCap)—including optimism, resilience, self-efficacy, and hope—mediates the relationship between the desire to leave and the perception of narcissistic leadership. This is a highly original and relevant research question, and the authors have done a commendable job

Comments 1 Strengths of the Manuscript

Overall, the manuscript is well-written, clearly structured, and methodologically sound. The hypotheses are logically derived and grounded in relevant theoretical frameworks. The procedure and variables are clearly explained, and the results are presented in an organized and accessible manner. These strengths contribute to the clarity and rigor of the study. in presenting their work.

 

Response 1: Thank you for recognizing the valuable contribution of our manuscript.

 

Comments 2 Terminology Consistency

One issue that should be addressed is the inconsistent use of terminology throughout the manuscript. While the abstract correctly refers to the "perception of narcissistic leadership," other parts of the manuscript—including the title, the main text, and the measurement section—frequently use the term "narcissistic leader." For the sake of conceptual clarity and consistency, the authors are encouraged to use a single term across the manuscript. Given that the perception of leadership style is being measured rather than actual leader traits, “perceived narcissistic leadership” would be the more accurate and consistent term to use throughout.

Response 2:

We appreciate your insightful comment regarding terminological consistency. We value your point of view and agree that conceptual clarity is fundamental to the quality of the manuscript. However, we have chosen to maintain the distinction between the conceptual definition and the measurement of the construct. Throughout the manuscript, the term "narcissistic leader" is used to refer to central theoretical construction, as it is the standard terminology in the leadership literature. Our approach aims to maintain consistency with this established body of work. To ensure that the distinction between the theoretical construct and the measurement method is clear, we performed a careful review of the Measures section. In this section, we explicitly clarified that our instrument assesses employees' perceptions of narcissistic leadership. We believe this more targeted approach addresses your point about methodological precision without compromising the conceptual integrity of our work.

 

Comments 3: Consideration of PsyCap as a Composite Score

Another point worth considering is the analytical treatment of psychological capital. The study focuses on the sub-dimensions of PsyCap, which is certainly informative; however, it may also be beneficial to analyze PsyCap as a total composite score. Doing so could offer a more holistic view of the construct’s mediating role and potentially simplify the interpretation of results. The authors may consider presenting both total and subscale-level analyses to strengthen the empirical contribution.

Response 3:

We appreciate your valuable feedback and suggestions to analyze Psychological Capital as a composite score. We agree that this approach offers a holistic perspective. However, our primary goal was to understand the unique influence of each dimension of Psychological Capital (Self-Efficacy, Hope, Resilience, and Optimism). Given that the original version of the measure was multidimensional (Luthans et al., 2007), this approach is widely regarded as valid and consistent (e.g., Luthans et al., 2007). Analyzing the subdimensions separately allows us to identify which specific components of PsyCap are most critical in mediating the relationship between narcissistic leadership and turnover intention. We believe this approach offers a more granular view for intervention, as it allows us to target development efforts toward specific dimensions rather than a general construct. And the results of our study have shown contrasting mediating effects of self-efficacy and optimism in turnover intention. For this reason, we chose to keep our analysis focused on the subdimensions, as we believe it better aligns with the original objectives of the study. Furthermore, incorporating both total and subscale scores in the multiple regression analysis may introduce collinearity issues, potentially compromising the validity of the results.

Comments 4: Conclusion and Contribution

The conclusion section could be expanded to better articulate the broader implications and contributions of the study. While the findings are well summarized, a more in-depth discussion of the theoretical and practical significance—particularly regarding leadership development, employee retention, and organizational well-being—would increase the impact and visibility of the work.

Response 4:

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestion to expand the Conclusions section. These changes have been highlighted in green in the revised document for your convenience. We are confident that these additions address your concerns and improve the quality of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: It would be important for the authors to consider making some changes in order to clarify the content and contributions of the work.

Tentative Title: Evaluating the mediating impact of psychological capital in coping with adverse influences

Abstract and keywords:  The abstract and keywords reflect the content of the manuscript well.

Introduction: The introduction is well developed by using relevant empirical literature that allows to clearly detach the hypotheses and the model to be contrasted.

 

Materials and methods:

In the participants section, it would be important to specify the statistical sampling error. If the criterion used was maximum variation, the statistical error of sample selection is 0.06, which is slightly above the expected limit. In order to reduce this error to 0.05, it would be important to point out in the discussion that the sample size should be 385. If the criterion used was another, it would be important to specify it.

In turn, the name of the research design is not mentioned in the procedure section.

Results:

In the results section (between lines 302-315), the text preceding Table 1 reiterates numerical information (redundancy), which makes it difficult to clearly visualize the statistical information.

In this regard, given that 18 of the 21, or 85.71%, of the reported relationships analyzed are statistically significant, perhaps the authors of this paper could consider that in metric studies, explained variance is essential for gauging the extent to which variables are mutually influencing each other.

In this context, on the one hand, a third of the relationships analyzed account for 50% or more of the variance. Specifically, 3 of the 18 (16.67%) relationships accounted for 75% or more of the variance explained (i.e., 0.87; 0.88; 0.91), while the other three accounted for between 50% and 74% of the variance (0.78; 0.82; 0.85). Furthermore, two-thirds of the relationships analyzed accounted for 50% or less of the variance.

In other words, these results do not detract from the work, but rather help to explain (in part) why the regression coefficients predicting narcissism on psychological capital had rather low (albeit significant) R-squared values.

 

Related to the above, it would be important for the table titles to include information about whether the reported statistics correspond to a descriptive or inferential analysis and include the sample.

Likewise, it is important for Tables 1 and 2 to include the acronyms they contain in the legend.

Regarding the information in points 3.3 and the discussion section, the information would be well-oriented.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for recognizing the valuable contribution of our manuscript. We thank for the constructive comments and clear recommendations.  We have submitted a second version of the paper where the changes are marked with green highlighting. The response to the suggestion made is presented below the Reviewer’s comment and it is written in bold.  

Comments 1: Title: It would be important for the authors to consider making some changes in order to clarify the content and contributions of the work.

Tentative Title: Evaluating the mediating impact of psychological capital in coping with adverse influences

Response 1:

Thank you for your suggestion regarding the title. After careful consideration, we have decided to keep our original title. We believe this title more accurately and directly reflects our study's unique contribution by clearly identifying the specific variables of narcissistic leadership and employee turnover. We tried to present a title that is both clear and suggestive.

 Comments 2: Abstract and keywords: The abstract and keywords reflect the content of the manuscript well.

Introduction: The introduction is well developed by using relevant empirical literature that allows to clearly detach the hypotheses and the model to be contrasted.

Response 2:

We are grateful for your positive evaluation and your comments on the quality of our abstract, keywords, and introduction. We are pleased that our foundational work in contextualizing and developing literature allowed for the clear formulation of our hypotheses and the model. Your feedback is very valuable as it confirms that the initial structure of the manuscript is well-defined.

 Comments 3: Materials and methods:

Comments 3a:

In the participants section, it would be important to specify the statistical sampling error. If the criterion used was maximum variation, the statistical error of sample selection is 0.06, which is slightly above the expected limit. In order to reduce this error to 0.05, it would be important to point out in the discussion that the sample size should be 385. If the criterion used was another, it would be important to specify it.

Response 3a:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Sample size is a crucial issue when planning an empirical study. We recognize that the procedure based on statistical sampling error calculation is a valid method to ensure precision and we recognize that a bigger sample could lead to more valid conclusions. Even though the current sample (N = 266) has a statistical sampling error of 0.06, slightly above the ideal 0.05, which could reduce precision of population estimates, this level of error could be generally acceptable, particularly given the practical constraints of sampling organizational employees.

 In addition, we have conducted a statistical power analysis for the multiple regression test conducted, using the G*Power program (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner & Lang, 2009). Based on the obtained model’s R² (0.39), the global effect size was 0.639, indicating a large effect. With six predictors, a sample of 266 participants, and α = 0.05, the corresponding F-statistic exceeds the critical value, yielding an estimated statistical power > 0.99. This confirms that the study has an adequate sample size detect the overall effect of the predictors.

References cited (not in the manuscript):

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.

 

Comments 3b: In turn, the name of the research design is not mentioned in the procedure section.

Response 3b: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added This study used a quantitative, cross-sectional research design

 

Comments 4: Results:

In the results section (between lines 302-315), the text preceding Table 1 reiterates numerical information (redundancy), which makes it difficult to clearly visualize the statistical information.

In this regard, given that 18 of the 21, or 85.71%, of the reported relationships analyzed are statistically significant, perhaps the authors of this paper could consider that in metric studies, explained variance is essential for gauging the extent to which variables are mutually influencing each other.

In this context, on the one hand, a third of the relationships analyzed account for 50% or more of the variance. Specifically, 3 of the 18 (16.67%) relationships accounted for 75% or more of the variance explained (i.e., 0.87; 0.88; 0.91), while the other three accounted for between 50% and 74% of the variance (0.78; 0.82; 0.85). Furthermore, two-thirds of the relationships analyzed accounted for 50% or less of the variance.

In other words, these results do not detract from the work, but rather help to explain (in part) why the regression coefficients predicting narcissism on psychological capital had rather low (albeit significant) R-squared values.

Response 4:

As suggested, we have revised the results section (lines 302-315) allowing for a clearer presentation of the statistical data. The revised text now focuses on summarizing the key findings, while the full statistical details are presented in the table.

We agree with the reviewer’s observation. In fact, while many of the bivariate relationships are statistically significant, the proportion of variance explained varies considerably across them, which could contribute for explaining the obtained the relatively low R² values, despite significant coefficients. However, although this is a relevant statistical point, it may not be particularly meaningful in the context of the study and therefore was not added to the manuscript. In our opinion, all the results obtained are clearly presented and discussed in the paper.

 Comments 5: Related to the above, it would be important for the table titles to include information about whether the reported statistics correspond to a descriptive or inferential analysis and include the sample.

Likewise, it is important for Tables 1 and 2 to include the acronyms they contain in the legend.

Response 5:

We appreciate your valuable feedback. All the changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general terms, the authors respond to the observations.
However, in specific terms, there are stylistic issues that could be improved, such as the title of Table 1 and the legend of Table 2 (specifying the acronyms for the statistical indices related to the regression analysis).

If possible, the path diagram for the second hypothesis should have some further description in the discussion or conclusions section, given that it is the model the research is attempting to test. Specifically, if possible, it is recommended to specify information on whether the model has a good fit or not.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments. They were valuable and were incorporated into the revision. The response to the suggestion made is presented below the Reviewer’s comment and it is written in bold.  

Comments 1: However, in specific terms, there are stylistic issues that could be improved, such as the title of Table 1 and the legend of Table 2 (specifying the acronyms for the statistical indices related to the regression analysis).

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. The requested revisions have been implemented.

 

Comments 2: If possible, the path diagram for the second hypothesis should have some further description in the discussion or conclusions section, given that it is the model the research is attempting to test. Specifically, if possible, it is recommended to specify information on whether the model has a good fit or not.

Response 2:  The path diagram is included only to illustrate the conceptual model and the hypotheses, not to test the structural model. However, we think that the figure becomes clearer by indicating the hypotheses to be tested (H1 and H2). Since our study employed OLS regression-based analysis rather than SEM, model fit indices were not applicable. We believe the hypotheses are clearly described and appropriately discussed in the Results and Discussion sections, but we appreciate the reviewer’s comment and hope this clarification is helpful.