Purpose This study examines the impact of CEO narcissism on organizational and CEO correlates, with a particular focus on methodological inconsistencies in its measurement. Design/methodology/approach We conduct a meta-analysis of 124 primary studies (119 published, 5 unpublished) spanning 2007–2025, employing psychometric meta-analysis techniques to assess bivariate relationships between CEO narcissism and key correlates. Findings Our results show that the relationship between CEO narcissism and organizational and CEO correlates strongly depend on how narcissism is measured. Self-report measures often show weak or even negative links to firm performance, while third-party ratings suggest small positive effects. Unobtrusive measures, such as the CEO Narcissism Index or signature size, produce mixed or inconsistent results and may reflect different correlates rather than narcissism. These differences suggest that measurement choice significantly influences effect sizes and may explain the inconsistent findings in the field. Originality/value This study advances the theoretical discussion on measurement validity by highlighting methodological inconsistencies and emphasizing the need for standardized, multi-method approaches to improve research reliability and comparability in organizational psychology.
Honsová et al. (Mon,) studied this question.