Introduction
In the focal article, Mitchell and colleagues (Reference Mitchell, Haslam, Burke and Steffens2026) argue that human resource (HR) practices can shape leader narcissism, underscoring the potential of using organizational-level policies and systems to influence individual-level behavior. They also note that narcissism’s effects can be observed at the individual, team, and organizational levels. These observations point to the value of applying multilevel thinking to better understand leader narcissism—something Mitchell and colleagues touch on implicitly but do not fully develop. Although we recognize that this was not the primary focus of the article, we believe that adopting a multilevel perspective would sharpen their theoretical contribution and bring greater clarity to the constructs and mechanisms involved. Accordingly, we draw on multilevel theory to clarify the meaning and role of each construct at the individual, team, and organizational levels, and to identify the cross-level pathways that connect HR systems to leader behavior. Our aim here is to open new theoretical opportunities and directions for research beyond those identified in the original framework.
Leader narcissism as a multilevel construct
Although Mitchell and colleagues note that leadership roles can be distributed among organizational members (e.g., through shared or rotating leadership), their conceptualization of leader narcissism remains centered at the individual level of analysis. However, viewing leader narcissism only through an individual lens limits our understanding of the processes through which the construct operates within organizations. We propose that narcissism can also emerge as a shared property of group members. For example, hyperpersonalizing HR practices may foster what could be termed a “narcissistic climate” in which managers and executives collectively perceive narcissism as expected and acceptable within the organization. Similarly, prior work suggests that narcissism can emerge at the team level, with both leaders and followers exhibiting such tendencies (Grijalva et al., Reference Grijalva, Maynes, Badura and Whiting2020). Extending the focal article’s framework in this way raises new questions: Do depersonalizing HR practices reduce not only leader narcissism but also shared perceptions that narcissism is acceptable? And does shifting this climate, in turn, discourage narcissism in not just leaders but also followers? Exploring these questions would clarify not only whether HR practices influence narcissism but also the mechanisms through which they operate.
Furthermore, recent research highlights the inherently social nature of narcissism, pointing to additional ways in which it can emerge at higher levels of analysis. In line with socioanalytic theory (e.g., McLarty et al., Reference McLarty, Whitman, Kluemper and Tao2022), narcissism involves both identity (how leaders see themselves) and reputation (how they are perceived by others). From a multilevel perspective, this implies that leader narcissism exists simultaneously as an individual self-concept and as a shared judgment that can emerge within teams and organizations (Bernerth et al., Reference Bernerth, Carter and Cole2022). This distinction is notable because it suggests that the effects of depersonalizing HR practices may play out differently across levels, with changes in self-concept not necessarily mirroring changes in reputation. For example, a leader’s self-concept might shift quickly in response to leader-centric training programs, whereas their reputation for narcissism might develop more slowly as followers’ shared perceptions change and solidify over time. Conversely, HR practices such as team-based recognition programs might reduce a leader’s reputation for narcissism without immediately altering the leader’s own self-concept. This separation clarifies which outcomes of HR practices are immediate and internal versus those that emerge more gradually and collectively, and it opens the door to interventions that address each pathway directly. In short, viewing leader narcissism as both a leader’s self-view and the organization’s shared view reveals two distinct processes that unfold at different levels and speeds.
Strategic HRM: HR bundles and alignment
The arguments in the focal article can also be strengthened by applying multilevel logic to the treatment of HR practices. Strategic human resource management (HRM), an inherently multilevel concept, views HR as an integrated system designed at the organizational level, implemented at the unit level, and experienced by individuals (Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Schuler and Jiang2014). From a strategic HRM vantage point, the most effective systems are rarely single, isolated practices; rather, they take the form of HR bundles: coherent sets of practices intentionally designed to work together. Bundles create stronger and more consistent signals than any single intervention, increasing the likelihood that leader behavior is shaped in the intended direction (Subramony, Reference Subramony2009). By distinguishing between depersonalizing and hyperpersonalizing HR practices, Mitchell and colleagues provide a useful starting point for examining how these practices might operate in combination. Future research should therefore investigate not only how single HR practices influence leader narcissism but also how different configurations of hyperpersonalizing and depersonalizing practices shape leadership norms and behaviors across organizational levels.
A related strength of a strategic HRM perspective is its emphasis on the distinction between vertical and horizontal fit, both of which can be integrated into the focal framework to strengthen its multilevel logic (Wright & Ulrich, Reference Wright and Ulrich2017). Vertical fit refers to the alignment between HR practices and the organization’s overarching strategy, linking organizational objectives to unit-level priorities and individual leader behavior. A lack of vertical fit can be seen, for example, when a “leadership readiness program” is introduced in an organization whose strategy still prioritizes individual star performers in other areas. As a result of this mismatch, the depersonalizing HR practice is unlikely to achieve its intended effect. On the other hand, horizontal fit concerns the internal consistency among HR practices operating at the same level, ensuring they send reinforcing rather than contradictory signals. For example, a practice emphasizing collaborative leadership paired with rewards that recognize only individual achievements may undermine the intended effects of the HR practice. In short, misalignment in either direction can create friction across levels, pointing to boundary conditions to consider in the future.
Cross-level processes
Clarifying the levels at which HR practices exert their effects also opens the door to examining cross-level mechanisms that were not explicit in the focal article. One such mechanism is a climate pathway, wherein HR systems shape group-level climates that, in turn, influence individual leader behavior. Mitchell and colleagues, for instance, point out that depersonalizing HR practices can foster cooperative climates that orient leaders toward group interests, but they do not specify the processes through which these climates form or the levels at which they operate. A multilevel perspective builds on this by clarifying how the pathway unfolds: Organizational-level practices predict individual leader behavior through mechanisms that emerge at the unit level (e.g., shared perceptions). For example, group-based rewards may foster a collaborative climate at the unit level in which cooperation and coordination are not only expected but also necessary for obtaining those rewards. In such climates, team members might reduce narcissism by applying social pressure to cooperate or by relying on patterns of coordination that leave little room for individualistic behaviors.
This perspective also raises a critical theoretical distinction: whether these climates reduce leaders’ underlying narcissism (i.e., mediation) or simply suppress its expression (i.e., moderation). Evidence from Braun et al. (Reference Braun, Sleebos, Zou and Wisse2025) suggests that cooperative climates can constrain the behavioral expression of narcissism without necessarily altering the trait itself, underscoring the value of making levels explicit so that both within-level and cross-level processes can be identified and tested.
Conclusion
The focal article offers a promising start for exploring how HR practices can stimulate or suppress leader narcissism, recognizing that its effects occur at individual, team, and organizational levels. Our contribution is to make this multilevel structure more explicit and to encourage future research that systematically examines the variables and processes operating across levels. This includes investigating how the meaning and impact of narcissism may shift when it becomes a shared property of groups or organizations, how the design and implementation of HR practices can amplify or constrain their effects, and explicating how variables at one level of analysis can both mediate and moderate the relationships between variables at a different level of analysis.
Competing interests
We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
