Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite extensive research on organizational crises, there is a need for deeper insight into the personalities of managers involved in crisis management and the interplay of personality traits in crisis preparedness. Crisis management (CM) is pivotal in today’s complex and rapidly changing world, involving the strategic process of anticipating, preparing for, and effectively responding to crises that can potentially disrupt an organization. Recent surges in business failures and related corporate crises, along with the varied consequences of COVID-19, emphasize the acute need for effective CM, particularly crisis preparedness (CP). Given that CP in organizations is influenced by various factors, we aimed to develop a model that accurately assesses the impact of individual and situational aspects on CP, drawing on crisis management theory and trait theory as the overarching theoretical basis. Based on a sample of 314 executives and utilizing moderation-mediation analysis, our main findings reveal that narcissistic rivalry fully mediates the positive relationship between conscientiousness and CP. Additionally, Escalation of Commitment (EoC) moderated the relationship between conscientiousness and narcissistic rivalry, such that managers with high conscientiousness disposed to EoC show a desirable low level of rivalry. In conclusion, while EoC is typically viewed as a negative organizational trait, organizations are advised to prioritize hiring conscientious managers who exhibit a propensity for EoC, provided that the organization can effectively manage this tendency. By taking the proper steps, organizations can benefit from the advantages of managers disposed to EoC while reducing crisis risks.

Plain Language Summary

How personality traits affect crisis readiness: The interplay of narcissism, conscientiousness and escalation of commitment

Research on organizational crises often overlooks the personalities of managers who handle these situations. Effective crisis management is essential in today’s unpredictable world, involving planning for and responding to potential disruptions. With recent increases in business failures and crises, especially due to COVID-19, the need for strong crisis preparedness is clear. Our study focuses on how individual personality traits and situational factors influence crisis preparedness. We analyzed data from 314 executives and found a positive interplay of narcissistic rivalry and conscientiousness on crisis preparedness. We also discovered that highly conscientious managers who tend to escalation have lower levels of rivalry. Despite escalation generally being seen as negative, we suggest that organizations should hire conscientious managers with a tendency for escalation, as long as they can manage this trait effectively. This approach can help organizations harness the benefits of these managers while minimizing crisis risks.

Keywords

crisis management crisis preparedness personality conscientiousness narcissistic rivalry escalation of commitment

Introduction

A crisis constitutes a significant threat to organizations with potentially adverse repercussions to organizational goals and relationships with stakeholders (Bundy et al., 2017). Crisis preparedness is essential to effective crisis management (henceforth CM). Even so, management often neglects this task (Hussmann & Schippert, 2019). The current research is based on CM theory, which, along with trait theory, serves as the overarching framework. CM is an ongoing systematic organizational endeavor to identify, prevent, contain, and tackle potential risks (Santana, 2004). Turbulent business environments amplify crises’ prevalence and severity (Sheaffer & Brender-Ilan, 2016).

According to Karabag (2020), the COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in a crisis at multiple levels, including global, regional, national, political, societal, economic, and commercial. As such, coping with the financial consequences of COVID-19 has become a significant challenge for governments, institutions, and the international system (Lucchese & Pianta, 2020). Multinationals such as Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, Sequoia Capital, or Silicon Valley Bank experienced at least one major crisis in 2020 to 2023 (e.g., Barlow et al., 2020; Sweeney, 2022). Since crises are inevitable, the question is not if they will occur, but when (Argenti, 2012). No organization or individual is immune to crisis—only the magnitudes differ (John-Eke & Eke, 2020). Therefore, organizations must anticipate and prepare for potentially disruptive events that can undermine essential processes and organizational viability (Abdalla et al., 2021). The recent increase in business failures and corporate crises, coupled with the diverse effects of COVID-19, underscores the urgent need for effective crisis management, especially crisis preparedness.

Despite the likelihood of crises, many organizations are unprepared to manage such incidents effectively (Melé & Sanchez-Runde, 2011). Crises lead to substantial costs, most of which could be prevented or significantly reduced if managers were adequately equipped to handle the resulting disruptions (Sheaffer & Brender-Ilan, 2014).

What makes firms exceptionally prepared for crises is an essential subject of inquiry in organization and management science (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2008). We address this question and focus on CP—as a vital and critical component of CM by examining managerial-personality effects and critical situational processes. To achieve this goal, we used the Trait theory as a theoretical framework to explain the complex reality of organizations, especially in crises. The Trait theory is arguably one of the earliest documented theories of leadership. According to leadership trait theory, there was a widely held belief that leaders needed to exhibit exceptional abilities that empowered them to skillfully guide and influence their followers (Gehring, 2007). Therefore, leadership trait theory seeks to identify the unique qualities that contribute to effective leadership by identifying a specific set of personal traits (Colbert et al., 2012). The integration of personality variables together with situational processes could bring new relevant insights to the complicated reality of organizations. Therefore, this study aims to present and analyze an integrative model that gages the mediating role of narcissistic rivalry and the moderation role of EoC on the personality-crisis preparedness relationship.

Moreover, contemporary adults have been criticized as being more self-centered, entitled, and narcissistic (LeBlanc, 2018; Twenge, 2013; Wood et al., 2021). Empirical studies (e.g., Twenge et al., 2008; Twenge & Foster, 2010) show that younger generation are higher in such individualistic traits as self-esteem, assertiveness, and narcissism. Thus, investigating conscientiousness and narcissistic rivalry is likely to contribute novel insights to CM in general and specifically to the study of CP as a key phase in CM.

Furthermore, direct associations between conscientiousness, narcissistic rivalry, and CP were examined. According to Nohrstedt (2018), Crisis Management is becoming an increasingly professional domain that regards managers as facilitators, brokers, and controllers of formal and informal collaborative efforts to improve CM capacity. CM requires integrating managerial skills, personal competencies, and traits that allow planning for, responding to, and unlearning crises (Morais-Storz & Nguyen, 2017). Most CM studies consider it an all-inclusive process that only marginally refers to CP (Williams et al., 2017). We address this gap by exploring the personality-CP relationship by studying such managerial dispositions as narcissistic rivalry as a mediator, along with EoC as a moderator.

Theory

Crisis Preparedness

An organizational crisis is a low-probability, high-impact occurrence that jeopardizes organizational survival and is typified by the vagueness of cause, effect, and means of resolution and by a belief that decisions must be made swiftly (Pearson & Clair, 1998). Moreover, high vagueness and a low likelihood of occurrence are often described as crisis characteristics (Sayegh et al., 2004). To be classified as a crisis, a situation must meet two conditions. Firstly, the entire system must be disrupted to the point where operations are significantly affected, and the fundamental assumptions of managers and employees are challenged (Pauchant & Mitroff, 1992). Secondly, the organization must face a severe threat to its survival (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2008). Moreover, high ambiguity with unknown causes and consequences and a low probability of occurrence are often described as crisis characteristics (Sayegh et al., 2004).

A crisis is also defined as a “turning point for better or worse,” a “decisive moment,” or a “crucial time” (Heller & Darling, 2012). An organizational crisis is a critical turning point that has the potential to dissolve or positively transform the business as a whole (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2008).

A central argument holds that to strengthen organizational ability to withstand and bounce back from extreme events, hazard mitigation systems must include the critical functions of crisis preparedness (K. Smith, 2013), which constitutes the dependent variable in our research model. CP, as defined by Sheaffer and Mano-Negrin (2003), refers to a state of corporate readiness to identify and effectively manage internal or external adverse circumstances that have the potential to cause a multidimensional crisis. This state is achieved by consciously recognizing and preparing for the inevitable occurrence of such events. It involves the development of contingency plans, procedures, and mechanisms aimed at detecting early warning signals and containing them before they escalate (Sommer & Pearson, 2007).

Crisis-prepared organizations prioritize advanced crisis-sensing and structured diagnosis techniques to prevent the escalation of crises (Reilly, 1993) and develop responsive decision-making processes for crisis management and resource allocation (Mano-Negrin & Sheaffer, 2004). In addition, they facilitate external and internal information flows - most notably, effective communication links with key stakeholders (Pearson & Mitroff, 1993). According to Sheaffer et al. (1998), managers are expected to develop and implement mechanisms for early warning signals, monitor potential problems, contain them if they cannot be halted, and subsequently concentrate on restoring performance after dealing with the resulting difficulties (Grant & Mack, 2004).

Conscientiousness

According to trait theorists (DeYoung et al., 2013), a personality constitutes a pattern of behavior and reactions that vary among individuals but within individuals is stable over time (Eysenck, 1985). The trait theory of leadership posits that personality traits play a significant role in understanding how individuals behave in leadership roles, serving as a fundamental predictor of their leadership behaviors (Allport, 1927; Andersen, 2006; Ishaq et al., 2021). Traditionally, personality has been conceptualized as consisting of several traits (McCrae & Costa, 1989). While several theories address the nature and content of individual dispositions, trait theories—and the “Big Five” as the prominent model—seem most influential in contemporary psychology (McCrae & Costa, 2008).

According to the “Big Five” model, personality traits reflect individuals’ consistent patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving and can be organized into five broad and independent dimensions: extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism (emotional stability), and openness to experience (McCrae & John, 1992). Each trait encompasses the shared variance among several characteristics that are more specific or facets. Conscientiousness, one of the “Big Five” traits, is defined in the Psychological Association Dictionary, Corsini (2016) as the tendency to be organized, responsible, and hard working. Goldberg (1999) proposed the following facets for this trait: conscientiousness, efﬁciency, dutifulness, purposefulness, organization, cautiousness, rationality, perfectionism, and orderliness. People scoring high on this dimension are organized, reliable, hardworking, self-disciplined, punctual, scrupulous, neat, ambitious, and persevering. Essentially, this trait seems to be related to the concepts of precaution and foresight (Bacon et al., 2021; Volk et al., 2021).

Crisis Preparedness and Conscientiousness

One of the facets of conscientiousness proposed by Costa et al. (1991) is self-discipline, which pertains to the ability to persist in tasks that may not be immediately appealing. Self-discipline is one aspect of self-control (Tangney et al., 2004), which is an essential component of behaving in a conscientious manner; completing assignments, fulfilling commitments, and otherwise taking care of business require the ability to control and direct behavior strategically (Tangney et al., 2004). Enhanced conscientiousness is believed to be associated with greater self-regulatory capabilities, which may result in lower risk-taking (Caspi & Shiner, 2006). Furthermore, conscientiousness is characterized by thoughtfulness before taking action, deferring indulgence, adhering to prescribed standards and guidelines, and engaging in planning and prioritizing (Mount et al., 2006). Conscientious individuals also tend to be systematic and demonstrate ingenuity in overcoming challenges (Mansour & Popoola, 2020).

Crisis prevention focuses on searching for possible threats and weaknesses, recognizing a crisis before it occurs, and preparing to deal with it (Najafbagy, 2011). It includes the systematic, proactive scanning of the environment for possible risks to detect threats, minimize risks, and avoid future problems (Simola, 2014). We, therefore, assume that because conscientious individuals are more likely to be cautious, deliberate, prepared, organized, reliable, thoughtful, measured, or methodical in their decisional approach, conscientiousness will be positively associated with CP. Thus, the first hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 1: Individuals with high levels of conscientiousness will be better prepared to cope with crises, while individuals with lower levels of conscientiousness will be less prepared for crises.

Narcissism

Extensive research has been conducted on narcissism as a personality disorder, commonly defined as a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). Raskin and Hall (1979) first introduced the narcissism trait into social personality research and suggested that abnormality and normality are on a continuum. Consequently, narcissism is a trait that is predominantly exhibited by individuals with a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder (“clinical narcissism”) (Lull & Dickinson, 2018). Narcissism is also seen to a lesser degree in the general population (“subclinical narcissism”) (Krizan & Herlache, 2018; Sedikides & Campbell, 2017). The present study focuses on “subclinical narcissism,” the characteristic manifestation of narcissism as a personality trait in the general population. Individuals with narcissism are primarily characterized by excessive self-esteem, fantasies of boundless success, a desire for admiration, feelings of grandiosity, and a tendency to exploit others (Zhang et al., 2017). Narcissism has also been characterized by dominance and exhibitionism, along with a sense of superiority and entitlement (Potard et al., 2018).

Narcissism has been characterized as partly adaptive; as it is inflated and grandiose self-view is linked to positive traits such as high self-esteem, social confidence, charm, and a desire for attention (Rogoza, Żemojtel-Piotrowska et al., 2016). Nevertheless, narcissism can also be maladaptive since it is correlated with impulsivity, aggression, and a sense of entitlement (Vazire & Funder, 2006). This paradoxical nature of narcissism has led Paulhus (1998) to refer to it as a “mixed blessing.”

The Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC)

In 2013, Back et al. proposed the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC), which accounts for narcissism’s dual nature. Narcissists’ main goal is to maintain a grandiose sense of self, and there are two different social strategies aimed at attaining this: self-enhancing admiration and self-defensive rivalry (Mota et al., 2023; Rogoza, Żemojtel-Piotrowska et al., 2016). Narcissistic admiration is an assertive form of narcissism associated with grandiose fantasies, striving for uniqueness, and charming behavior (Rogoza, Wyszyńska et al., 2016). The narcissistic rivalry strategy is an aggressive and self-protective form of narcissism characterized by devaluing and diminishing other people, striving for uniqueness, and aggressive behavior (Seidman et al., 2020).

Narcissistic Rivalry and Conscientiousness

Research on the relationship between conscientiousness and narcissism has been equivocal. Some studies (Rubinstein, 2016) found these variables to be positively interrelated. Others (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006) either showed the opposite or did not identify any statistically significant relationship between them (Book et al., 2015). These findings may be indicative of the co-mingling of the narcissistic admiration and rivalry concepts. Hence, narcissistic admiration and rivalry concepts (NARC), proposed by Back et al. (2013), may account for this ambiguity. Back et al. (2013) and Rogoza, Wyszyńska et al. (2016) found that rivalry is predicted by low conscientiousness and emotional stability. Likewise, Ramos (2017) found conscientiousness negatively associated with narcissistic rivalry. Similarly, narcissistic rivalry was primarily associated with low conscientiousness in forensic context research (Niemeyer et al., 2022). Lastly, Cheshure et al. (2020) found narcissistic rivalry to be characterized by emotion dysregulation. This theoretical discussion suggests the second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Conscientiousness will be negatively associated with the rivalry dimension of narcissism.

Narcissistic Rivalry and CP

Managers who are less crisis-prepared are often narcissists, self-centered, and deluded by an unrealistic sense of invulnerability (Sheaffer & Mano-Negrin, 2003). They demonstrate overconfidence, risk-taking (Venema & Pfattheicher, 2021), undue optimism, and arrogance (Landau & Chisholm, 1995), and refrain from rethinking their theory about the business or organization (Drucker, 1994). Narcissistic individuals tend to be disposed to risky institutional behavior, expressed, for instance, in risky investment choices (Foster et al., 2011) and corporate failure in the end (Leckelt et al., 2019). Consequently, many authors argue that narcissism is correlated with destructive leadership (Padilla et al., 2007).

According to the NARC model proposed by Back et al. (2013), admiration and rivalry are linked to distinct motivational styles to avoid inferiority. Admiration is connected to a secure, non-striving style where individuals believe they will be valued regardless of their success or failure. Conversely, rivalry is associated with an insecure striving style characterized by a fear of inferiority and increased levels of anxiety and stress (Grove et al., 2019). This motivates an antagonistic style of preemptive self-protection, in which the individual strives for superiority over others, devalues their worth, and behaves in an outwardly aggressive, annoyed, insensitive, and defensive manner (Back et al., 2013). Consequently, rivalry is associated with fear of failure and envy, which lead to higher frustration levels and higher avoidant behaviors (Manley et al., 2019).

Considering that CP involves mechanisms aimed at detecting early warning signals and containing them prior to further escalation (Sommer & Pearson, 2007), we postulate the third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The higher the level of narcissistic rivalry is, the lower the level of crisis preparedness will be.

Mediation of Narcissistic Rivalry on the Effect of Conscientiousness on CP

Based on the above-mentioned theoretical discussion concerning the effect of conscientiousness and narcissistic rivalry, and in light of the argued effect of narcissistic rivalry on CP, it is expected that conscientiousness increases CP through narcissistic rivalry. Therefore, we postulate the forth hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Rivalry will mediate the relationship between conscientiousness and CP.

Escalation of Commitment

Organizations’ decision-makers are frequently confronted with a dilemma: Should they abandon a failing course of action or invest additional resources to reverse current losses? (Kelly & Milkman, 2013). This situation is known as an “escalation situation” and is characterized as “predicaments where costs are suffered in the course of actions, where there is an opportunity to withdraw or persist, and where the consequences of persistence and withdrawal are uncertain” (Staw & Ross, 1987, p. 40).

Escalation of commitment refers to the tendency to persist in supporting a chosen course of action despite the existence of clear evidence as to its non-viability (Braxton et al., 2017; Michailova, 2022). Consequently, ultimate losses are substantially increased (Keil & Mähring, 2010). The EoC phenomenon has been well documented in a wide variety of contexts and disciplines (e.g., Lee et al., 2021).

Several explanations for why individuals participate in behaviors that escalate have been presented. Respectively, several conceptual constructs underlie these explanations. A core and relevant conceptual construct is the Self-Justification Theory.

According to this theory, most individuals are motivated to perceive themselves positively (Thibodeau & Aronson, 1992). As a result, people tend to interpret their own actions in a self-serving manner (Dunning & Cohen, 1992), and they have a pervasive inclination to focus on information that supports a favorable self-image (Tedeschi, 2013). Festinger (1957) suggested that when a person’s behavior contradicts their attitudes or beliefs, it creates cognitive dissonance, which threatens their positive self-image and results in negative emotions (Harmon-Jones, 2000). These unpleasant feelings motivate individuals to reduce dissonance and achieve consonance between their behaviors and beliefs (Harmon-Jones, 2000). Since attitudes are more malleable than past behaviors, individuals may alter their attitudes to justify their past actions (Sivanathan et al., 2008), thereby restoring psychological consistency and reducing the discomfort arising from cognitive dissonance (Hinojosa et al., 2017).

Staw and Fox (1977) expanded on this self-justification process to apply to situations where escalation occurs. They proposed that, instead of modifying their attitudes to align with past behavior, people tend to rationalize their previous actions by persisting in their commitment to that behavior (van Oorschot et al., 2013).

To fully understand the relationship between conscientiousness and narcissistic rivalry (Hypothesis 2), a moderation role of EoC was postulated. This proposes that the degree of EoC may shape, and thus explain, the relationship between conscientiousness and narcissistic rivalry. The theoretical logic and support for this hypothesis are discussed below.

Moderation of EoC on the Relationship Between Conscientiousness and Narcissistic Rivalry

Individuals with high conscientiousness often prepare in advance, establish objectives, and work hard to attain them (Costa et al., 1991). Consequently, they have confidence in their capacity to govern forthcoming outcomes.

Individuals with high levels of conscientiousness are likely to plan, set goals, and strive to achieve them (Costa et al., 1991). Thus, they believe in their ability to control future outcomes (Kesavayuth et al., 2018).

Locus of control is a trait representing the degree to which individuals believe the outcomes in their lives are influenced more by personal actions (internal locus of control) than by external forces or fate (external locus of control; Kirkpatrick et al., 2008). These two constructs are likely related; individuals who are dependable, persistent, and self-controlled are likely to believe they are in control of their life outcomes. Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that these constructs are related, as both predict the same important outcomes in professional settings (e.g., Judge, 2009). As a result, previous research has provided evidence that conscientiousness may be related to locus of control orientation (Saint-Germain et al., 2011).

EoC, Paradox Mindset, and Optimism

Escalation situations are intricate since individuals strive to recognize and comprehend the numerous factors that may be relevant and integrate them into a decision about how to react (Drummond, 2014). This intricacy converges into two core objectives that conflict: Factors such as the drive for consistency and the need to justify past investments (Staw, 1976) encourage decision-makers to persist with the current course of action, even though it may not be working. Simultaneously, however, because of the desire to avoid repeating previous behavior that has yielded adverse outcomes, decision-makers are also compelled to abandon the failing course of action (Wong & Kwong, 2018).

The literature on paradox provides a valuable framework for comprehending how individuals deal with intricate situations and the resulting tensions. These tensions can lead to adverse outcomes such as conflict, ambivalence, and defensiveness (Schad et al., 2016). Nevertheless, research has demonstrated that such adverse outcomes are less prevalent when people approach tensions with a paradox mindset, characterized as the degree to which one accepts and is energized by tensions (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018, p. 61). Rather than avoiding tensions or compromising in the face of competing elements, individuals who adopt a paradoxical perspective feel comfortable with these tensions and strive to accept and transcend contradictory elements to achieve higher levels of learning and discovery (Lewis & Smith, 2014). The paradox mindset pertains to an individual-level factor determining how effectively individuals deal with paradoxical tensions (Boemelburg et al., 2023; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). Research indicates that individuals who possess a paradox mindset and are faced with an EoC situation have a strong inclination to work through tensions, leading to a sense of optimism and an overall positive outlook regarding their ability to manage the situation, even when experiencing negative feedback and ambivalence (Shepperd et al., 2015). It is suggested that those who embrace and work through tension-filled situations tend to focus on its positive elements and effects, which aligns with Sleesman’s (2019) empirical finding that a paradoxical mindset is associated with optimism. (Keller & Chen, 2017).

Individuals with a paradoxical mindset tend to be optimistic about their ability to navigate through tension-filled situations, which may lead them to persist in a failing course of action. Eventually, this provides them with further experience to discover new ways of working through the situation (W. K. Smith & Besharov, 2019).

Given the evidence that individuals with high levels of EoC experience high levels of optimism (Sleesman, 2019), this research is designed to investigate the possibility that high levels of internal locus of control attributed to conscientious individuals, together with high levels of EoC, will significantly attenuate narcissistic rivalry. Therefore, it is assumed that the optimism experienced by individuals with high levels of EoC combined with the responsibility that characterizes conscientious individuals will lead to lower levels of rivalry. Hence, we explored EoC as a moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and rivalry such that, in individuals with high levels of conscientiousness, when EoC is high, rivalry will be lower. In contrast, regarding individuals with low levels of conscientiousness, rivalry will be similar for both high and low levels of EoC. Consequently, the fifth hypothesis is

Hypothesis 5: EoC will moderate the relationship between conscientiousness and narcissistic rivalry.

Based on the above theoretical rationale, a conceptual model is proposed (see Figure 1)

Figure 1.

The research model.

Method

Participants

The research sample comprises 314 managers, 73.6% from private for-profit firms, representing various managerial levels from wide-ranging Israeli industries, including hi-tech, healthcare, education, finance, engineering, and low-tech. 8.3% of the respondents were from non-profit organizations, and 18.2% were from public sector organizations. The sample included 72% male respondents. The respondents’ mean age was 47.5 years (SD = 9.5), and the average managerial tenure of the respondents in the present organization was 6.7 years (SD = 6.2). 35.7% of the respondents had at least 11 subordinates, 25.8% had 6 to 10 subordinates, 29.9% had 2 to 5 subordinates, and 8.6% had 0 to 1 subordinates. About 71.7% of the respondents were in top-level managerial positions, 23.6% were in middle-level managerial positions, and the remainder were in low-level managerial positions. Levels of education ranged from a high school diploma to a Ph.D.: 3.8% had completed high school, 7.6% were still in college, 30.6% had a Bachelor’s degree, and 58% received a Master’s degree or higher. Regarding the age of the organizations, 74.5% of the managers were from organizations aged 11 years and above, 20.6% aged 3 to 10 years, and the remainder aged 1 to 2 years.

Procedure and Data Collection

Data were collected via a web-based questionnaire (Fan & Yan, 2010). This procedure is useful given its potential for broad access to appropriate participants, ease of data entry, flexible format, and rapid response (Bhalerao, 2015). The total items of the questionnaire appear in Appendix A.

Participants were selected based on a non-probability convenience sampling (Heckathorn, 2011), composed of individuals who were readily available to the researcher (Warner, 2013). This is advantageous because of the potential participants’ accessibility (Handcock & Gile, 2011). Hence, as a first step, participants were recruited through friends, colleagues, and a personal database, after which additional acquaintances were approached through social networks (LinkedIn et al.).

Additionally, referral sampling (Creswell, 2012) was applied as a subcategory of the nonprobability convenient sampling used.

Based on a list of potential participants’ email addresses, email invitations were sent out to eligible participants. This invitation directed interested participants to a secure link with detailed information, including instructions regarding the questionnaire’s completion. Participants were advised regarding the significance of the study, along with an explicit promise of confidentiality and assurance of anonymity (Patten, 2001). Indeed, all data was collected while confidentiality and anonymity were assured and protected.

Measures

Conscientiousness

Determining participants’ scores on the conscientiousness trait is predicated on nine items that measure conscientiousness from the Big Five Inventory (BFI) (John & Srivastava, 1999). Sample item: “I am someone who is a reliable worker.” These items were included in the second set of items.

The BFI is a 44-item, self-report questionnaire designed to measure personality traits using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from disagree strongly = 1 to agree strongly = 5 based on five scales: Extraversion, Openness, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (John & Srivastava, 1999). Earlier research showed that the BFI is reliable and valid, with individual subscale reliabilities ranging from 0.75 to 0.90, and excellent alternative Big Five measures convergent validity concerning such alternate Big Five measures as Costa and McCrae’s (1992). Accordingly, Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .8.

Narcissism

The Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ; Back et al., 2013) is an operationalization of the NARC model designed to measure two distinct narcissistic dimensions: admiration and rivalry. The NARQ consists of 18 items, nine of which measure narcissistic rivalry. A sample item is “I secretly take pleasure in the failure of my rivals.” Responses were measured on a six-point Likert scale ranging from “do not agree at all” = 1 to “agree completely” = 6. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .8.

EoC

This measure is composed of a short scenario and is a version of the “blank radar plane” scenario (Arkes & Blumer, 1985), which has been widely used in EoC studies (e.g., Devoto & DeFulio, 2022; Moon, 2001). Based on the scenario, participants were instructed to determine (on a scale of 0–100) the extent to which they would continue to invest in the project.

Dependent Variable, Crisis Preparedness

Crisis preparedness was measured using the “Organizational Crisis Preparedness questionnaire” (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2008), which refers to the extent to which the organization is prepared to cope with immediate and future crises. This measure is composed of two CP dimensions: present and prospective. Present crisis-preparedness is defined as the organizational ability to manage an immediate crisis (see items 5–10 in Appendix A). Prospective crisis-preparedness, on the other hand, is defined as the organizational ability to cope with a crisis in the distant future (see items 11–14 in Appendix A). Sample items are: “We have good knowledge regarding the different phases of organizational crises” and “We would know how to diagnose the causes of a crisis.” The questionnaire consists of 10 items with responses based on a five-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree = 1–strongly agree = 5). The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .9.

Control Variables

Since previous research found that age, gender, education, managerial level, and organization size were related to crisis management (e.g., Parnell & Crandall, 2021), in order to rule out the potential confounding effects, these variables were used as control variables in the research.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Prior to hypothesis testing, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using SPSS AMOS Ver25.0 was performed to test the discriminant validity of the continuous scales. The CFA included four factors. The four-factor measurement model showed a good fit with the data (χ² = 2147.31; df = 1,637; χ²/df = 1.31; CFI = 0.93; SRMR = 0.07; RMSEA = 0.03; TLI = 0.92; NFI = 0.76; PClose = 1.00) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The results of the factor analysis are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Factor Analysis Results.

Measure	Estimate	Threshold	Interpretation
CMIN	2147.306	–	–
DF	1637.000	–	–
CMIN/DF	1.312	Between 1 and 3	Excellent
CFI	0.929	>0.95	Acceptable
SRMR	0.066	<0.08	Excellent
RMSEA	0.032	<0.06	Excellent
PClose	1.000	>0.05	Excellent

Main Analysis and Hypotheses Testing

We used Hayes (2018) procedure via SPSS macro PROCESS 3.2 (model 7) to test for mediation and moderation. Nonessential multicollinearity concerns were reduced (Enders & Tofighi, 2007) by mean centering the independent variables before computing product terms. All results were calculated while controlling for age, gender, education, managerial level, and organization size.

The moderated-mediation analysis results are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Moderated-mediation model: EoC moderates the mediation of rivalry on the effect of conscientiousness on CP.

Direct Effects

All of the model’s direct effects were supported, including a positive effect of conscientiousness on CP (H1), a negative effect of conscientiousness on rivalry (H2), and a negative effect of rivalry on CP (H3).

Indirect Effects

Results referring to the mediation of rivalry on the effect of conscientiousness on CP (H4) were significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported. Specifically, the indirect effect of conscientiousness on CP through rivalry was tested at all three levels of EoC (−1SD, mean, and +1SD). All of the three indirect effects estimated by the bootstrapping procedure turned out to be significant. Specifically, when EoC was low (−1SD) a significant indirect effect was obtained (b = 0.03, se = 0.02, 95% CI [0.00, 0.06]). Similarly, at mean levels of EoC, a significant indirect effect was received (b = 0.04, se = 0.02, 95% CI [0.01, 0.09]). Lastly, at high (+1SD) levels of EoC, a significant indirect effect was received (b = 0.06, se = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.12]).

Moreover, the results show a positive total effect of conscientiousness on CP (b = 0.14, p = .02). However, when rivalry was included as a mediator in the analysis, this coefficient was reduced and became statistically non-significant (direct effect: b = 0.11, se = 0.06, p = .08; 95% CI [−0.02, 0.24]). This pattern of findings indicates a full mediation effect of rivalry on the relationship between conscientiousness and CP.

Hypothesis 5, which proposed that EoC would moderate the effect of conscientiousness on rivalry, was supported in the estimated moderation test. Specifically, rivalry was predicted by conscientiousness and EoC. Importantly, to explain the interaction, simple slopes were analyzed, and the results revealed that for all levels of EoC (high (+1SD), mean, low (−1SD)), conscientiousness had a negative effect on the rivalry: (High EoC: b = −0.52, se = 0.11, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.74 −0.30]), (Mean EoC: b = −0.38, se = 0.08, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.55 −0.22]) and (Low EoC: b = −0.23, se = 0.10, p = .02, 95% CI [−0.43 −0.04]). Explicitly, individuals with high levels of conscientiousness and high EoC showed the lowest levels of rivalry. For individuals with low levels of conscientiousness, rivalry was similar for both high and low levels of EoC. The interaction was plotted and presented in Figure 3. A summary of the hypotheses results and conclusion is shown in Table 2.

Figure 3.

The interaction between conscientiousness and EoC on rivalry.

Table 2.

Hypotheses Summary.

Hypothesis	Result	Hypothesis conclusion	Statistics
1	Positive effect of conscientiousness on CP	Managers with higher levels of conscientiousness will show higher levels of CP	b = 0.14
1	Positive effect of conscientiousness on CP		p = .05
2	Negative effect of conscientiousness on rivalry	Managers with higher levels of conscientiousness will show lower levels of rivalry	b = −0.39
2	Negative effect of conscientiousness on rivalry		p < .01
3	Negative effect of rivalry on CP	Managers with higher levels of rivalry will show lower levels of CP	b = −0.12
3	Negative effect of rivalry on CP		b < 0.01
4	Full mediation of rivalry on the effect of conscientiousness on CP	Conscientiousness will be positively related to CP but rivalry will mediate this relationship such that at higher levels of rivalry this relationship will be lower	b = 0.11
4			n.s. full mediation
5	EoC moderates the effect of conscientiousness on rivalry	Managers with high levels of conscientiousness and high EoC showed the lowest levels of rivalry. For individuals with low levels of conscientiousness, rivalry was similar for both high and low levels of EoC.	b = 0.01
5	EoC moderates the effect of conscientiousness on rivalry		p < .05

Note. CP = crisis preparedness; n.s. = not significant.

Results of the regression test of the moderated-mediation model are presented in Table 3. The results of hypotheses 4 and 5 are presented in Table 4.

Table 3.

Results of the Regression Test of the Moderated-Mediation Model.

Effect	b	se	β	p-Value	95% CI
Mediator variable model
Rivalry
R² = .10, F(8, 305) = 4.41, p = .000
Conscientiousness	−0.38	0.08	−.27	.00	[−0.55, −0.22]
EoC	−0.00	0.00	−.03	.60	[−0.00, 0.00]
Conscientiousness × EoC	−0.01	0.00	−.10	.03	[−0.01, −0.00]
Constant	2.71	0.33		.00	[2.06, 3.35]
Dependent variable model
Cp = crisis preparedness
R² = .08, F(7, 306) = 3.88, p = .000
Conscientiousness	0.11	0.06	.10	.1	[−0.02, 0.24]
Rivalry	−0.12	0.04	−.15	.01	[−0.20, −0.03]
Constant	3.71	0.28		.00	[3.15, 4.27]

Table 4.

Results of Hypotheses 4 and 5.

Hypothesis	Indirect effect of conscientiousness on CP	Standard error (se)	95% Confidence interval (CI)	p-Value
H4
	EoC: −1SD
	b = 0.03	se = 0.02	[0.00, 0.06]
	EoC: Mean
	b = 0.04	se = 0.02	[0.01, 0.09]

	EoC: +1SD
	b = 0.06	se = 0.03	[0.01, 0.12]
	Total effect of conscientiousness on CP
	b = 0.14			p = .02
	Mediated effect of conscientiousness on CP with rivalry included
	Direct effect		se = 0.06	p = .08
	b = 0.11		se = 0.06	p = .08
H5
	High EoC
	Conscientiousness: b = −0.52	se = 0.11	[−0.74, −0.30]	p < .01
	Mean EoC
	Conscientiousness: b = −0.38	se = 0.08	[−0.55, −0.22]	p < .01
	Low EoC
	Conscientiousness: b = −0.23	se = 0.10	[−0.43, −0.04]	p = .02

Note. CI = confidence interval; EoC = escalation of commitment; SD = standard deviation.

Discussion

Crises have substantive implications for organizations (John-Eke & Eke, 2020). Hence, CP has strategic importance and significantly influences the organization’s survival (Labaš, 2017). In a similar manner, leadership is a compelling and significant subject, primarily due to the pivotal role leaders play within organizations or groups of individuals. The effectiveness of a leader significantly influences the future prosperity or decline of the organization or group. In this research, we tried to understand the role of situational factors together with the personality of the leader using trait theory as an overarching construct. We developed a model that accurately assesses the impact of individual and situational aspects on CP, drawing on crisis management theory and trait theory as the overarching theoretical basis. The study examines organizational CP by exploring personal attributes and decision-making processes. This integration of personality aspects, together with situational aspects, provides a new perspective of a complex and everyday reality in organizations. Using these two different and complementary aspects brings to light new insights and has significant implications for the complex reality of organizations. Drawing from the results above, this research found that personality and EoC were observed to have a substantial impact on CP. The study not only finds that these factors indeed have the expected impact; it also describes the specific roles of the personal and situational antecedents of CP. Specifically, the above interaction reveals a differential role of EoC on the relationship between conscientiousness and rivalry, which improves and also changes the existing knowledge. The findings imply that the mediation of rivalry expands and enriches our current understanding of the conscientiousness-CP relationship. Specifically, the findings indicate that conscientiousness significantly and positively affects CP. However, the mediation effect best predicts the relationship between personality and CP.

Because CP in organizations is typically influenced by different factors, to accurately assess the effect of the individual together with situational aspects on CP, we tried to offer a better clarification of how these two aspects interact and relate to CP. Thus, a moderation-mediation model was proposed in which rivalry was a mediator and EoC was a moderator.

The results of the proposed model support a positive relationship between conscientiousness and CP, a negative relationship between conscientiousness and rivalry, and a negative relationship between rivalry and CP. In addition, the results indicated a full mediation of rivalry on the relationship between conscientiousness and CP and an interaction between conscientiousness and EoC on rivalry.

These personality and situational aspects effects on CP make a notable contribution to the existing research. The data bring fresh, innovative, and diverse insights regarding the factors influencing CP.

Theoretical Contribution

The study’s findings extend and strengthen the overarching theories of crisis management and trait theory and prior crisis management studies by exploring two relevant attributes: conscientiousness and narcissistic rivalry. Empirical research suggests that narcissism is on the rise in both Eastern and Western cultures (Bush-Evans, 2020). Taken together, this study’s results are instructive and deliver a warning for organizations: Narcissist rivalry is an important personality trait to understand and monitor in the workplace.

Empirical studies have so far underscored the utility and validity of a two-dimensional redefinition of narcissism, in line with the NARC (Back et al., 2013). This study builds upon these findings and applies the NARC across new contexts: the personal and the organizational. Therefore, this study also advances our understanding of narcissistic rivalry as a relatively new construct.

Because EoC may lead to exceptionally adverse organizational outcomes (Staw, 1981), it has been a significant matter in both information system research (Keil et al., 2000) and organizational research (Wong et al., 2006). This study evaluates the role of EoC on the personality-CP relationship and strives to reach a more nuanced understanding of this relationship.

In addition, the propensity of “throwing good money after bad,” which is denoted as EoC, has been categorized as hazardous (Wong, 2005), maladaptive (Brockner et al., 1986), and non-rational (Bazerman, 1994). Our study results show that individuals with high conscientiousness and high EoC levels showed the lowest levels of rivalry. Thus, this study demonstrates that under certain circumstances, there might be positive and constructive aspects to EoC, which, in turn, may influence CP.

Finally, the study results provide insight into the complexity of the conscientiousness-CP relationship when considering the unique roles of narcissistic rivalry and EoC.

Practical Implications

Understanding key organizational CP variables allows advantages and savings of time and money, as well as a reduction of potential crisis damage, which, consequently, results in a higher level of business success (El Idrissi et al., 2022). Therefore, the enrichment of CP research and its implementation are critical for organizations.

This study also has important practical implications. Managers should take heed of the factors identified in this study in order to improve organizational crisis readiness. Some of the more important study implications are as follows:

First and foremost, in light of the study results showing a positive relationship between conscientiousness and CP and a negative relationship between rivalry and CP, organizations should prefer selecting managers with high levels of conscientiousness and low levels of rivalry.

Second, the study results regarding the moderating role of EoC propose preferring high levels of EoC when high levels of conscientiousness characterize the manager. This will lead to low levels of rivalry, which, in turn, enhance CP. These findings suggest that being disposed to EoC also has a positive side; in some circumstances, it can be constructive to the organization. This study’s recommendation to prefer conscientious managers who are disposed to EoC is accurate only on the condition that the organization can control this tendency. If taking the right steps, organizations can enjoy the advantages of managers disposed to EoC while reducing crisis risks.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the present study has several strengths, it is important to acknowledge some of the potential limitations of this study and to use them as a basis to guide future research.

The first limitation of this study is its reliance on self-report measures, which could have potentially distorted the data due to socially desirable responses or inadequate insight into the individuals’ psychological processes to provide accurate self-reports.

To address this limitation, future research should employ alternative methods for assessing these variables that are not solely reliant on self-reports.

The second limitation involves the issue of generalizability. The study results are based on a sample of managers from Israeli firms. Hence, additional research on global samples is warranted (Parnell & Crandall, 2021). In future studies, it is recommended that the same or modified research be conducted in other countries in order to generalize the study results.

A third limitation concerns CMB. We have implemented several remedies to tackle this concern. First, we introduced a time delay of 2 weeks between participants’ answers regarding the dependent and independent variables (Podsakoff et al., 2012).

A second remedy was to counterbalance the order of items relating to different scales and constructs. The order of the items in each set was randomized (Chang et al., 2010). Third, different scale endpoints and formats for some of the predictor and criterion measures were used (Jakobsen & Jensen, 2015).

The fourth limitation is that in this study, we discussed different factors that, based on the theoretical background, were deemed important to CP. Undoubtedly, there are additional factors, and it is recommended that these factors be explored in future research.

The sixth limitation concerning the meaning of EoC to organizations: as written above, our study shows that EoC can be constructive to the organization. Therefore, it is highly recommended that research be continued regarding EoC and its effects on complex organizational situations.

Finally, integrating personality assessments into crisis management planning could result in more personalized strategies. Additionally, developing targeted interventions and training programs to enhance individual resilience and readiness in the face of potential disasters holds significant promise. Although these assessments are beyond the scope of our current research, they represent strong and compelling directions for future investigation.

Conclusion

Crisis management and CP are of utmost importance due to their capacity to safeguard reputation, maintain public trust, and protect lives and well-being. By proactively preparing for potential crises and implementing effective response strategies, organizations can mitigate risks, navigate challenges, and emerge more vital in the aftermath of adversity. In this study, we aim to enhance our understanding of the mechanisms through which personality traits and decision-making processes intersect with organizational CP. By incorporating this mechanism, organizations can acquire a valuable tool for their survival. Therefore, organizations should internalize the practical implications of this study within their actual crisis management activities. This study presents an integrated model and proposes new insights into the impact of managers’ personality traits and decision-making processes on CP. Hence, in today’s dynamic and unpredictable business environments, the findings of this study constitute a significant contribution to organizations that strive to avert future crises proactively.

Compliance With Ethical Standards

Procedures applied in our study involved human participants. Hence, all procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Our research procedures were subject to our university’s Ethics Committee requirement (20181122-1). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Yael Brender-Ilan

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon request from the corrosponding author.

References

Abdalla

Alarabi

Hendawi

(2021). Crisis management art from the risks to the control: A review of methods and directions. Information, 12(1), 18.

Allport

G.W.

(1927). Concepts of trait and personality. Psychological Bulletin, 24(5), 284–293.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Author.

Andersen

J.A.

(2006). Leadership, personality and effectiveness. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(6), 1078–1091.

Argenti

P. A.

(2012). Corporate communication. McGraw-Hill.

Arkes

H. R.

Blumer

(1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140.

Back

M.D.

Küfner

A.C.P.

Dufner

Gerlach

T.M.

Rauthmann

J.F.

Denissen

J.J.A.

(2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–1037.

Bacon

A. M.

Krupić

Caki

Corr

P. J.

(2021). Emotional and behavioral responses to COVID-19: Explanations from three key models of personality. European Psychologist, 26(4), 334–347.

Barlow

Berenguer

Carmenta

França

(2020). Clarifying Amazonia’s burning crisis. Global Change Biology, 26(2), 319–321.

10.

Bazerman

M. H.

(1994). Judgement in managerial decision making. John Wiley.

11.

Bhalerao

A. K.

(2015). Application and performance of Google forms for online data collection and analysis: A case of North Eastern Region of India. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 51(3and4), 49–53.

12.

Boemelburg

Zimmermann

Palmié

(2023). How paradoxical leaders guide their followers to embrace paradox: Cognitive and behavioral mechanisms of paradox mindset development. Long Range Planning, 56(4), 1–13.

13.

Book

Visser

B. A.

Volk

A. A.

(2015). Unpacking “evil”: Claiming the core of the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 29–38.

14.

Braxton

C. C.

Robinson

C. N.

Awad

S. S.

(2017). Escalation of commitment in the surgical ICU. Critical Care Medicine, 45(4), e433–e436.

15.

Brockner

Houser

Birnbaum

Lloyd

Deitcher

Nathanson

Rubin

J. Z.

(1986). Escalation of commitment to an ineffective course of action: The effect of feedback having negative implications for self-identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 109–126.

16.

Bundy

Pfarrer

M. D.

Short

C. E.

Coombs

W. T.

(2017). Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1661–1692.

17.

Bush-Evans

(2020). There’s no I in team but there is a me: the influence of narcissism on team processes and organisational outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton]. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/441814/1/24670049_Bush_Evans_Final_Thesis.pdf

18.

Carmeli

Schaubroeck

(2008). Organisational crisis-preparedness: The importance of learning from failures. Long Range Planning, 41(2), 177–196.

19.

Caspi

Shiner

R. L.

(2006). Personality development. In Eisenberg

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 300–365). Wiley.

20.

Chang

S. J.

van Witteloostuijn

Eden

(2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.

21.

Cheshure

Zeigler-Hill

Sauls

Vrabel

J. K.

Lehtman

M. J.

(2020). Narcissism and emotion dysregulation: Narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry have divergent associations with emotion regulation difficulties. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109679.

22.

Colbert

A. E.

Judge

T. A.

Choi

Wang

(2012). Assessing the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: The mediating role of contributions to group success. Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 670–685.

23.

Corsini

(2016). The dictionary of psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.

24.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

25.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

Dye

D. A.

(1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(9), 887–898.

26.

Creswell

(Ed.). (2012). Education research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.

27.

Devoto

DeFulio

(2022). The sunk cost effect in humans: Procedural comparisons. Psychological Record, 72(2), 275–283.

28.

DeYoung

C. G.

Weisberg

Y. J.

Quilty

L. C.

Peterson

J. B.

(2013). Unifying the aspects of the Big Five, the interpersonal circumplex, and trait affiliation. Journal of Personality, 81(5), 465–475.

29.

Drucker

P. F.

(1994). The theory of the business. Harvard Business Review, 72(5), 95–104.

30.

Drummond

(2014). Escalation of commitment: When to stay the course? Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 430–446.

31.

Dunning

Cohen

G. L.

(1992). Egocentric definitions of traits and abilities in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 341–355.

32.

El Idrissi

El Manzani

Maatalah

W. A.

Lissaneddine

. (2022). Organizational crisis preparedness during the COVID-19 pandemic: an investigation of dynamic capabilities and organizational agility roles. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(1), 27–49.

33.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138.

34.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1985). Personality and individual differences. Plenum Press.

35.

Fan

Yan

(2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132–139.

36.

Festinger

(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

37.

Foster

J. D.

Reidy

D. E.

Misra

T. A.

Goff

J. S.

(2011). Narcissism and stock market investing: Correlates and consequences of cocksure investing. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(6), 816–821.

38.

Gehring

D. R.

(2007). Applying traits theory of leadership to project management. Project management journal, 38(1), 44–54.

39.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7(1), 7–28.

40.

Grant

J. M.

Mack

D. A.

(2004). Preparing for the battle: Healthy leadership during organizational crisis. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 409–442.

41.

Grove

J. L.

Smith

T. W.

Girard

J. M.

Wright

A. G.

(2019). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: An interpersonal approach to construct validation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 33(6), 751–775.

42.

Handcock

M. S.

Gile

K. J.

(2011). Comment: On the concept of snowball sampling. Sociological Methodology, 41(1), 367–371.

43.

Harmon-Jones

(2000). Cognitive dissonance and experienced negative affect: Evidence that dissonance increases experienced negative affect even in the absence of aversive consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(12), 1490–1501.

44.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40.

45.

Heckathorn

D. D.

(2011). Snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Sociological Methodology, 41(1), 355–366.

46.

Heller

V. L.

Darling

J. R.

(2012). Anatomy of crisis management: Lessons from the infamous Toyota case. European Business Review, 24(2), 151–168.

47.

Hinojosa

A. S.

Gardner

W. L.

Walker

H. J.

Cogliser

Gullifor

(2017). A review of cognitive dissonance theory in management research: Opportunities for further development. Journal of Management, 43(1), 170–199.

48.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

49.

Hussmann

Schippert

(2019). Do Leaders Prioritise Crisis Preparedness?: A study of how leaders can affect the level of crisis preparedness in SMEs [Dissertation, Jönköping University).

50.

Ishaq

Bashir

Khan

A. K.

(2021). Paradoxical leader behaviors: Leader personality and follower outcomes. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 342–357.

51.

Jakobsen

Jensen

(2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3–30.

52.

Jakobwitz

Egan

(2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 331–339.

53.

John-Eke

E. C.

Eke

J. K.

(2020). Strategic planning and crisis management styles in organizations: A review of related literature. Journal of Strategic Management, 5(1), 36–46.

54.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

(1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2(1), 102–138.

55.

Judge

T. A.

(2009). Core self-evaluations and work success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 58–62.

56.

Karabag

S. F.

(2020). An unprecedented global crisis! The global, regional, national, political, economic and commercial impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 10(1), 1–6.

57.

Keil

Mähring

(2010). Is your project turning into a black hole? California Management Review, 53(1), 6–31.

58.

Keil

Mann

Rai

(2000). Why software projects escalate: An empirical analysis and test of four theoretical models. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 631–664.

59.

Keller

Chen

E. W.

(2017). A road map of the paradoxical mind. In Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

Jarzabkowski

Langley

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 66–86). Oxford University Press.

60.

Kelly

T. F.

Milkman

K. L.

(2013). Escalation of commitment. In Kessler

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 257–260). Sage Publications.

61.

Kesavayuth

K. M.

Zikos

(2018). Locus of control and financial risk attitudes. Economic Modelling, 72, 122–131.

62.

Kirkpatrick

M. A.

Stant

Downes

Gaither

(2008). Perceived locus of control and academic performance: Broadening the construct’s applicability. Journal of College Student Development, 49(5), 486–496.

63.

Krizan

Herlache

A. D.

(2018). The narcissism spectrum model: A synthetic view of narcissistic personality. Personality and social psychology review, 22(1), 3–31.

64.

Krizan

(2018). The narcissism spectrum model: A spectrum perspective on narcissistic personality. In Handbook of trait narcissism (pp. 15–25). Springer.

65.

Labaš

(2017). The impact of organizational crisis preparedness on firm business performance. MARKET/TRŽIŠTE, 29(1), 75–92.

66.

Landau

Chisholm

(1995). The arrogance of optimism: Notes on failure-avoidance management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 3(2), 67–80.

67.

LeBlanc

(2018). Exploring the consequences of helicopter parenting on career identity and adaptability in emerging adulthood [Doctoral dissertation, University of Guelph, Canada].

68.

Leckelt

Richter

Wetzel

Back

M. D.

Donnellan

M. B.

Schlegel

(2019). Longitudinal associations of narcissism with interpersonal, intrapersonal, and institutional outcomes: An investigation using a representative sample of the German population. Collabra, 5(1), 26.

69.

Lee

J. S.

Keil

Wong

K. F. E.

(2021). When a growth mindset can backfire and cause escalation of commitment to a troubled information technology project. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 7–32.

70.

Lewis

M. W.

Smith

W. K.

(2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127–149.

71.

Lucchese

Pianta

(2020). The coming coronavirus crisis: What can we learn? Intereconomics, 55(2), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-020-0878-0

72.

Lull

R. B.

Dickinson

T. M.

(2018). Does television cultivate narcissism? Relationships between television exposure, preferences for specific genres, and subclinical narcissism. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7(1), 47–60.

73.

Manley

Jarukasemthawee

Pisitsungkagarn

(2019). The effect of narcissistic admiration and rivalry on mental toughness. Personality and Individual Differences, 148(2), 1–6.

74.

Mano-Negrin

Sheaffer

(2004). Are women “cooler” than men during crises? Exploring gender differences in perceiving organisational crisis preparedness proneness. Women in Management Review, 19(2), 109–122.

75.

Mansour

A. A.

Popoola

O. M. J.

(2020). The personality factor of conscientiousness on skills requirement and fraud risk assessment performance. International Journal of Financial Research, 11(2), 405–415.

76.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 586–595.

77.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment, 1(2), 273–294.

78.

McCrae

R. R.

John

O. P.

(1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.

79.

Melé

Sanchez-Runde

C. J.

(2011). Towards an holistic understanding of management. Journal of Management Development, 30(6), 544–547.

80.

Michailova

(2022). An attempt to understand the war in Ukraine–An escalation of commitment perspective. British Journal of Management, 33(4), 1673–1677.

81.

Miron-Spektor

Ingram

Keller

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

(2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0594

82.

Moon

(2001). Looking forward and looking back: Integrating completion and sunk-cost effects within an escalation-of-commitment progress decision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 104–113.

83.

Morais-Storz

Nguyen

(2017). The role of unlearning in metamorphosis and strategic resilience. Learning Organization, 24(2), 93–106.

84.

Mota

Mielke

Kroencke

Geukes

Nestler

Back

M. D.

(2023). Daily dynamics of grandiose narcissism: distribution, stability, and trait relations of admiration and rivalry states and state contingencies. European Journal of Personality, 37(2), 207–222.

85.

Mount

Ilies

Johnson

(2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 591–622.

86.

Najafbagy

(2011). The crisis management capabilities and preparedness of organizations: a study of Iranian Hospitals. Journal of International Management, 28(2), 573–584.

87.

Niemeyer

L. M.

Grosz

M. P.

Jallalvand

Mota

Back

M. D.

(2022). Toward a differentiated assessment of narcissism in forensic contexts: Validating the narcissistic admiration and rivalry questionnaire–short scale (NARQ-S) in a forensic sample. Assessment, 29(4), 747.

88.

Nohrstedt

(2018). Networking and crisis management capacity: A nested analysis of local-level collaboration in Sweden. American Review of Public Administration, 48(3), 232–244.

89.

Padilla

Hogan

Kaiser

R. B.

(2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–194.

90.

Parnell

J. A.

Crandall

W. R.

(2021). What drives crisis readiness? An assessment of managers in the United States: The effects of market turbulence, perceived likelihood of a crisis, small-to medium-sized enterprises and innovative capacity. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 29(4), 416–428.

91.

Patten

M. L.

(Ed.). (2001). Questionnaire research. A practical guide (2nd ed.). Pyrczak.

92.

Pauchant

T. C.

Mitroff

I. I.

(1992). Transforming the crisis-prone organization: Preventing individual, organizational, and environmental tragedies. Jossey-Bass.

93.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197–1208.

94.

Pearson

C. M.

Clair

J. A.

(1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 59–76.

95.

Pearson

C. M.

Mitroff

I. I.

(1993). From crisis prone to crisis prepared: A framework for crisis management. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 48–59.

96.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

97.

Potard

Lignier

Henry

(2018). Psychometric properties of a French version of the narcissistic personality inventory in young adults. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 77(1), 23–32.

98.

Ramos

J. Z.

(2017). Narcissism admiration and rivalry using situation research. Florida Atlantic University.

99.

Raskin

R. N.

Hall

C.S.

(1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45(2), 590.

100.

Reilly

A. H.

(1993). Preparing for the worst: The process of effective crisis management. Industrial and Environmental Crisis Quarterly, 7(2), 115–143.

101.

Rogoza

Wyszyńska

Maćkiewicz

Cieciuch

(2016). Differentiation of the two narcissistic faces in their relations to personality traits and basic values. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 85–88.

102.

Rogoza

Żemojtel-Piotrowska

Rogoza

Piotrowski

Wyszyńska

(2016). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry in the context of personality metatraits. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 180–185.

103.

Rubinstein

(2016). Modesty doesn’t become me. Journal of Individual Differences, 37(4), 223–230.

104.

Saint-Germain

M. D.

Wiernik

B. M.

Goebel

C. C.

Van Eendenburg

D. J.

Klapperick

J. A.

(2011). Effect of observed conscientiousness on perceptions of locus of control. Journal of Psychology, 4(6), 1–7.

105.

Santana

(2004). Crisis management and tourism: Beyond the rhetoric. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(4), 299–321.

106.

Sayegh

Anthony

W. P.

Perrewé

P. L.

(2004). Managerial decision-making under crisis: The role of emotion in an intuitive decision process. Human Resource Management Review, 14(2), 179–199.

107.

Schad

Lewis

M. W.

Raisch

Smith

W. K.

(2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.

108.

Sedikides

Campbell

W. K.

(2017). Narcissistic force meets systemic resistance: The energy clash model. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(3), 400–421.

109.

Seidman

Shrout

P. E.

Zeigler-Hill

(2020). Untangling the associations that narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry have with agency, communion, and romantic commitment. Journal of Research in Personality, 89(1), 104022.

110.

Sheaffer

Brender-Ilan

(2014). Are sensation seekers in control? A study in crisis preparedness. Risk Management, 16(1), 1–24.

111.

Sheaffer

Brender-Ilan

(2016). Augmenting or diminishing crisis preparedness: Leadership style and sensation-seeking as mediators. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), 12161.

112.

Sheaffer

Mano-Negrin

(2003). Executives’ orientations as indicators of crisis management policies and practices. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 573–606.

113.

Sheaffer

Richardson

Rosenblatt

(1998). Early-warning-signals management: A lesson from the Barings crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 6(1), 1–22.

114.

Shepperd

J. A.

Waters

E. A.

Weinstein

N. D.

Klein

W. M.

(2015). A primer on unrealistic optimism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414568341

115.

Simola

(2014). Teaching corporate crisis management through business ethics education. European Journal of Training and Development, 38(5), 483–503.

116.

Sivanathan

Molden

D. C.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2008). The promise and peril of self-affirmation in de-escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(1), 1–14.

117.

Sleesman

D. J.

(2019). Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: Paradox mindset and escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155(3), 83–96.

118.

Smith

(2013). Environmental hazards: Assessing risk and reducing disaster. Routledge.

119.

Smith

W. K.

Besharov

M. L.

(2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44.

120.

Sommer

Pearson

C. M.

(2007). Antecedents of creative decision making in organizational crisis: A team-based simulation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(8), 1234–1251.

121.

Staw

B. M.

(1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44.

122.

Staw

B. M.

(1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 577–587.

123.

Staw

B. M.

Fox

F. V.

(1977). Escalation: The determinants of commitment to a chosen course of action. Human Relations, 30(5), 431–450.

124.

Staw

B. M.

Ross

(1987). Knowing when to pull the plug. Harvard Business Review, 65(2), 68–74.

125.

Sweeney

J. A.

(2022). What’s next? COVID-19 both is and is not a black swan (and that’s ok): Futures within and beyond a time of crisis. World Futures Review, 14(1), 3–8.

126.

Tangney

J. P.

Baumeister

R. F.

Boone

A. L.

(2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324.

127.

Tedeschi

J. T.

(Ed.) (2013). Impression management theory and social psychological research. Academic Press.

128.

Thibodeau

Aronson

(1992). Taking a closer look: Reasserting the role of the self-concept in dissonance theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 591–602.

129.

Twenge

J. M.

(2013). Overwhelming evidence for generation me: A reply to Arnett. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 21–26.

130.

Twenge

J. M.

Foster

J. D.

(2010). Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among american college students, 1982–2009. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 99–106.

131.

Twenge

J. M.

Konrath

Foster

J. D.

Keith Campbell

Bushman

B. J.

(2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875–902.

132.

van Oorschot

K. E.

Akkermans

Sengupta

Van Wassenhove

L. N

. (2013). Anatomy of a decision trap in complex new product development projects. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 285–307.

133.

Vazire

Funder

D. C.

(2006). Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 154–165.

134.

Venema

T. A.

Pfattheicher

(2021). Perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and narcissistic traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 175, 110696.

135.

Volk

A. A.

Brazil

K. J.

Franklin-Luther

Dane

A. V.

Vaillancourt

(2021). The influence of demographics and personality on COVID-19 coping in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.

136.

Warner

R. M.

(2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. Sage.

137.

Williams

T. A.

Gruber

D. A.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Shepherd

D. A.

Zhao

E. Y.

(2017). Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 733–769.

138.

Wong

K. F. E.

(2005). The role of risk in making decisions under escalation situations. Applied Psychology, 54(4), 584–607.

139.

Wong

K. F. E.

Kwong

J. Y. Y.

(2018). Resolving the judgment and decision-making paradox between adaptive learning and escalation of commitment. Management Science, 64(4), 1911–1925.

140.

Wong

K. F. E.

Yik

Kwong

J. Y.

(2006). Understanding the emotional aspects of escalation of commitment: The role of negative affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 282.

141.

Wood

A. D.

Borja

Hoke

(2021). Narcissism for fun and profit: An empirical examination of narcissism and its determinants in a sample of generation Z business college students. Journal of Management Education, 45(6), 916–952.

142.

Zhang

A. Y.

Tsui

A. S.

Wang

(2017). CEO humility, narcissism and firm innovation: A paradox perspective on CEO traits. Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), 585–604.

Personality and Crisis Preparedness: The Mediation and Moderation of Narcissistic-Rivalry and Escalation of Commitment

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Theory

Crisis Preparedness

Conscientiousness

Crisis Preparedness and Conscientiousness

Narcissism

The Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC)

Narcissistic Rivalry and Conscientiousness

Narcissistic Rivalry and CP

Mediation of Narcissistic Rivalry on the Effect of Conscientiousness on CP

Escalation of Commitment

Moderation of EoC on the Relationship Between Conscientiousness and Narcissistic Rivalry

EoC, Paradox Mindset, and Optimism

Method

Participants

Procedure and Data Collection

Measures

Conscientiousness

Narcissism

EoC

Dependent Variable, Crisis Preparedness

Control Variables

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Main Analysis and Hypotheses Testing

Direct Effects

Indirect Effects

Discussion

Theoretical Contribution

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Compliance With Ethical Standards

Footnotes

Appendix A

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References