Walden University
ScholarWorks
!%%$&&"!%!"&"$&'%
!%%$&&"!%!"&"$&'%
"&"!
Financial Investment Advisor Professional
Arrogance and Performance
Cranla Warren
Walden University
"")&%!&"!)"$%& -#%%"$)"$%)!''%%$&&"!%
$&"& $!+&"!("$!,"$*" "!%!& '!&&&(%*""*
" "!%
,%%%$&&"!%$"'&&"*"'"$$!"#!%%*&!%%$&&"!%!"&"$&'%"&"!&"$"$%&%!
#&"$!'%"!!!%%$&&"!%!"&"$&'%*!'&"$+ !%&$&"$""$"$%"$ "$!"$ &"!#%
"!&& "$"$%)!''
Walden University
College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by
Cranla Warren
has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,
and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.
Review Committee
Dr. James Herndon, Committee Chairperson, Psychology Faculty
Dr. John Schmidt, Committee Member, Psychology Faculty
Dr. Richard Thompson, University Reviewer, Psychology Faculty
Chief Academic Officer
Eric Riedel, Ph.D.
Walden University
2019
Abstract
Financial Investment Advisor Professional Arrogance and Performance
by
Cranla Warren
MPhil, Walden University, 2019
MSW, University of Toronto, 1988
BA, McMaster University, 1985
Dissertation Abstract Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Organizational Psychology
Walden University
March 2019
Abstract
Arrogance in the workplace is a growing area of interest within industrial-
organizational psychology. Arrogant employees tend to lack positive interpersonal work
relationships, act superior yet have a lower level of cognitive abilities, and have poorer
job performance than their less arrogant counterparts, leading to challenging work
relationships and overall impact on an organization’s ability to meet its objectives. The
present study examined professional arrogance measured by the Workplace Arrogance
Scale (WARS), a 26 question survey, in relation to the objective outcome measure of a
Financial Investment Advisor’s (FIA) ranking on the firm’s leader board based on total
assets under management plus revenue. A total of 37 participants who have been in the
profession for more than 2 years completed the survey. This study employed a
quantitative, correlational research design. The research questions were assessed using
linear regression and moderation analyses. Analysis of the data showed no significant
predictive relationship between results of the WARS and performance. Gender and
professional experience did not moderate the relationship between an FIA’s arrogance
and their performance. While these findings did not support the hypothesis of a
connection between a FIA’s assessed arrogance and measured performance, arrogance
remains an important construct requiring further study. As workplace arrogance is better
understood, it can be screened for by human resources within hiring processes and can be
addressed directly by leadership through training and development. Decreased arrogance
is likely to lead to more respectful client relationships, leading to customer loyalty and
increased revenues for the client, FIA and the financial firm that he/she serves.
Financial Investment Advisor Professional Arrogance and Performance
by
Cranla Warren
MPhil, Walden University, 2019
MSW, University of Toronto, 1988
BA, McMaster University, 1985
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Organizational Psychology
Walden University
March 2019
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my family, friends, and colleagues who have been
patient, supportive and encouraging of me during this extensive academic journey.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Dissertation Committee
Chairperson, advisor and mentor Dr. James Herndon for his continuous support of my
Ph.D. study and journey as a scholar-practitioner. His patience and guidance helped me
in understanding how to identify gaps in the literature, how best to structure methodology
and then collect data with integrity.
In addition to my dissertation advisor, I would like to thank my other Committee
member Dr. John Schmidt; methodologist. Dr. Schmidt provided challenge for a deeper
understanding of statistics, the rigor involved in scholarly work and data analysis, and
respect for the limitations of research. I would also like to thank Dr. Richard Thompson
for his contribution via his role as independent reviewer of my work.
i
Table of Contents
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1
Background ....................................................................................................................2
Problem Statement .........................................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................5
Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................................................................6
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................7
Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................8
Definitions......................................................................................................................9
Assumptions .................................................................................................................11
Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................11
Limitations ...................................................................................................................12
Significance..................................................................................................................12
Summary and Transition ..............................................................................................16
Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................18
Introduction ..................................................................................................................18
Arrogance .....................................................................................................................19
Arrogance Versus Narcissism ......................................................................................21
Arrogance Versus Pride ...............................................................................................24
ii
Arrogance Versus Confidence .....................................................................................25
Arrogance Versus Hubris .............................................................................................26
Arrogance Versus Humility .........................................................................................28
Arrogance in Professional Settings ..............................................................................31
Engineers............................................................................................................... 32
Physicists............................................................................................................... 32
Physicians ............................................................................................................. 33
Accountants........................................................................................................... 35
Financial Investment Advisors ............................................................................. 36
Arrogance Studies ........................................................................................................40
Impact of Arrogance on Individuals ............................................................................45
Potential Impact of Arrogance on Organizations .........................................................47
Potential Positive Impact of Arrogance .......................................................................50
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................51
Summary and Transition ..............................................................................................55
Chapter 3: Research Method ..............................................................................................58
Overview ......................................................................................................................58
Dependent Variable .............................................................................................. 59
Research Design and Rationale ...................................................................................60
Research Questions and Hypotheses ...........................................................................61
Participants and Sample ...............................................................................................62
iii
Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection .........................................................66
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................67
Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................................. 68
Workplace Arrogance Scale ................................................................................. 68
Total assets under management ............................................................................ 70
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................70
Threats to Validity .......................................................................................................73
External Validity ................................................................................................... 73
Internal Validity .................................................................................................... 73
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................74
Summary ......................................................................................................................75
Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................77
Pre-Analysis Screening of the Data .............................................................................77
Sample Demographics .................................................................................................77
Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................................................79
Correlational Analysis .................................................................................................81
Statistical Analysis .......................................................................................................82
Summary and Transition ..............................................................................................91
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................93
Introduction ..................................................................................................................93
Interpretation of the Findings.......................................................................................95
iv
Limitations of the Study...............................................................................................97
Recommendations ........................................................................................................98
Implications..................................................................................................................99
Conclusion .................................................................................................................101
References ........................................................................................................................102
Appendix A: Permission to Use the Workplace Arrogance Scale ...................................123
Appendix B: Financial Investment Advisor “Leader Board” ..........................................124
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Frequency Table for Nominal Demographic Variables………………………...78
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables………………………………..79
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics Breakout for Continuous Study Variables………………80
Table 4. Correlation Matrix of Variables of Interest…………………………………….81
Table 5. Linear Regression between Professional Arrogance and Objective Index of
Performance……………………………………………………………………………...85
Table 6. Regression Results with Professional Arrogance Predicting Objective Index of
Performance, While Moderating for Years of Professional Experience…………………88
Table 7. Regression Results with Professional Arrogance Predicting Objective Index of
Performance, While Moderating for Gender…………………………………………….91
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Scatterplot between professional arrogance and objective index of
performance. .................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 2. P-P scatterplot for normality for professional arrogance and objective index of
performance ................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 3. Residuals scatterplot for homoscedasticity for professional arrogance and
objective index of performance. ..................................................................................... 84
Figure 4. P-P scatterplot for normality for professional arrogance, years of professional
experience, and objective index of performance ........................................................... 86
Figure 5. Residuals scatterplot for homoscedasticity for professional arrogance and
objective index of performance, while moderating for years of professional experience
........................................................................................................................................ 87
Figure 6. P-P scatterplot for normality for professional arrogance, gender, and objective
index of performance ..................................................................................................... 89
Figure 7. Residuals scatterplot for homoscedasticity for professional arrogance and
objective index of performance, while moderating for gender ...................................... 90
1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Over the past 40 years in North America, an increase of immodesty, self-
aggrandizement, and ego gratification has taken root (Gibbs, 2009). According to Gibbs
(2009), North Americans are living in an “age of arrogance” where the display of such
qualities as modesty and humility are seen as weakness (p. 64). Arrogance refers to an
exaggerated perspective of and fixed belief in one’s superiority, as evidenced by
elevating oneself over others, and by behaving in ways that are entitled in the pursuit of
power and status (Johnson, Venus, Lanai, Mao, & Chang, 2010; Silverman, Johnson,
McConnell, & Carr, 2012).
The world of work has evolved with an expectation of collaboration of employees
and integration of many work functions (Bauer, Cho, Johnson, & Silverman, 2008). The
individualistic culture which has been bred in society seems to promote arrogance and is
at odds with the expectation within an organizational culture of working within pods,
project teams or work groups, empathetically meeting clients’ needs and delivering
exceptional client service (Bauer et al., 2008). There is evidence to suggest that the
presence of arrogance within work dynamics can create negative outcomes related to
individual and group performance, peer relationships, client relationships, and overall
organizational health (Bauer et al., 2008; De Silva, 2013; Johnson et al., 2010; Johnson &
Chang, 2006; Levine, 2005; Padua, Lerin, Tumapon, & Panares, 2010). Further, research
has shown that employees who act superior demonstrate inferior performance compared
to their less arrogant peers (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2010). According to
Silverman et al. (2012), arrogant employees are not well-liked, place stress on the work
2
environment, and have a negative impact on interpersonal relations. There are also
research findings that suggest arrogance may in fact be a helpful tool or approach in some
careers or circumstances such as in the sale of luxury items (Wang, Chow, & Luk, 2013).
Background
Early arrogance research involved the study of subjects detecting or perceiving
the arrogant behaviors of others (Haan, Britt, & Weinstein, 2007; Padua et al., 2010).
Hareli and Weiner (2000), and Hareli, Weiner, and Yee (2006) reported that study
participants perceived others as arrogant when they attributed personal successes to a
characteristic such as intelligence that was stable and deemed outside of individual
control. Hareli and Weiner (2000) also found that an individual was labelled as arrogant
when he/she assigned his/her success to a desirable trait. They found perception of
arrogance was unrelated to the individual’s actual achievement or success.
Hann et al. (2007) conducted a study on arrogance in a higher education setting.
The high level of intelligence typically present in colleges and universities, and the
hierarchical nature of the organizational structure, lent themselves to the examination of
perceived levels of arrogance across distinct segments. The study involved 500 business
students in an effort to gain an understanding of how the presence of arrogance is
perceived in business, nonbusiness (professional), and academic environments, and
included study groupings of students, professors of differing levels of tenure, deans,
directors, and higher level executives (Haan et al., 2007). The student participants’
perceptions indicated that college/university administrators ranked in the top 10 of
3
arrogant categories behind politicians, lawyers, entertainers, athletes, managers, and
physicians; in that order (Hann et al., 2007).
Johnson et al.’s (2010) development of the Workplace Arrogance Scale (WARS)
made the study of arrogance more systematized and objective. Johnson et al. conducted
four independent validation studies, in their efforts to design a standardized measure of
arrogance. Through self and other ratings, the studies showed a positive correlation
between arrogance and measures of dominance and entitlement, along with a negative
correlation with agreeableness and humility; a negative association between arrogance
and interpersonal workplace behavior, and that arrogance is related to low cognitive
ability, low self-esteem, and poor task performance results (Johnson et al., 2010). One
key limitation within this set of studies is that performance related findings for
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and task performance were subjective in
nature. In defense of their findings, Johnson et al. (2010) cited the real-world role that
subjective findings play in the workplace, as these types of ratings are very often used
within organizations in the decision-making processes involved in hiring, firing, and
promotions.
Problem Statement
Arrogance has been defined as a powerful construct where one person holds
him/herself superior to another, while holding the other person in a diminished role, state
or capacity (Johnson et al., 2010; Padua et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012). In the
workplace, arrogant behaviors are witnessed as bucking the system and operating by
one’s own personal agenda, social, emotional and intellectual posturing, blaming others
4
for mistakes and assuming no contribution or accountability, closing off to the
suggestions and ideas of others, and disrespecting and demeaning others (Johnson et al.,
2010; Marks, 2012; Padua et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012). Early arrogance research
involved study subjects rating the target groups based on perceived presence of arrogance
(Haan et al., 2007). Additional arrogance perception research found that an individual’s
perceived arrogance was not related to actual success factors but was instead associated
with the attribution of success to desirable causes that are internal, stable and
uncontrollable (Hareli & Weiner, 2000; Hareli, Weiner, & Yee, 2006). Research on
arrogance occurring in the workplace that has employed the WARS found that constructs
such as entitlement, trait anger, and dominance were positively associated with arrogance
and that arrogance was negatively correlated with agreeableness and humility (Johnson et
al., 2010). Past research used subjective perceptions of arrogance as the outcome
measure, and follow-on studies used the WARS as an objective measure correlated with
subjective outcome ratings (Johnson et al., 2010).
Although research has shown that arrogance in general is not related to reality-
based success factors (Hareli & Weiner, 2000; Hareli et al., 2006), and arrogant behavior
specific to the workplace is related to low cognitive ability and low scores in task
performance (Johnson et al., 2010), the arrogance-performance relationship has yet to be
examined using an objective performance outcome index (Silverman et al., 2012).
Across four studies conducted by Johnson et al., the mean age of all participants was 29.5
years, participant types ranged from full-time students with some work experience or
working part-time, to participants who were employed full-time, the average tenure of
5
study participants was 22 months, on average less than 18% of participants were
categorized as professionals, the remainder being employed in retail, and manufacturing,
and the majority of participants (approximately 63%) were female (Johnson et al., 2010).
Thus, noted limitations within existing research include how arrogance relates to
performance for populations of full-time employed professionals over 30 years of age,
who have worked for greater than 2 years in their roles.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between arrogance and
job performance in a professional setting, with participants who have been in their roles
for more than 2 years, using an objective measure of performance specific to their
profession and industry. This study examined the impact of professional arrogance on
Financial Investment Advisor (FIA) performance in providing financial investment
services. FIAs are responsible for managing portfolios referred to as their total assets
under management that contain the total of all dollars they have invested for their clients
(Financial Dictionary, 2016; Kolakowski, 2015; PriceMetrix Insights, 2013). This study
examined arrogance as one personal characteristic that may impact a FIA’s professional
relationships, and performance as objectively measured by his/her total assets managed
figure referred to as total assets under management plus the revenue generated from
investments by the individual FIA. The intent of the study was to add to the
organizational literature examining arrogance by measuring arrogance in a group of
professional participants and relating this construct to an objective outcome measure
critical to the livelihood of the FIA and the viability of the organization.
6
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The following research questions and associated hypotheses were proposed to
address the identified gap in the literature:
RQ1: What is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of his/her performance?
H
0
1: There is no significant relationship between a FIA’s professional arrogance as
assessed by the WARS and the objective index of his/her performance.
H
a
1:
There is a significant relationship between a FIA’s professional arrogance as
assessed by the WARS and the objective index of his/her performance.
RQ2: How is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and their
objective index of performance moderated by their years of professional experience?
H
0
2:
The relationship between a FIA’s professional arrogance assessed by
the WARS and the objective index of their performance is not moderated by
their years of professional experience.
H
a
2: The relationship between a FIA’s professional arrogance assessed by
the WARS and the objective index of their performance is moderated by their
years of professional experience.
RQ3: How is the relationship between a FIA's assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of the FIA’s performance moderated by gender?
H
0
3:
The relationship between a FIA's assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of the FIA’s performance is not moderated by gender.
7
H
a
3: The relationship between a FIA's assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of the FIA’s performance is moderated by gender.
Theoretical Framework
This study was rooted in Padua et al.’s (2010) Arrogance-Competence Theory
framework. The theorists suggested that arrogance in the workplace is driven by an
internal mechanism to be perceived as superior to others who the individual views as
inferior to him or her (Padua et al., 2010). Golson’s (2007) Arrogance-competence grid
plots intelligence on one axis and arrogance on the other, while Padua et al.’s theory
outlines the relationships within organizations between three variables: arrogance,
competence, and productivity. Padua et al. asserted a relationship between competence
and arrogance, whereby arrogant individuals are less competent than their nonarrogant
peers. According to this theory, productivity is positively correlated with competence
and negatively correlated with arrogance (Padua et al., 2010).
Padua et al. (2010) employed Golson’s competence-arrogance grid outcomes and
applied a deductive approach to develop their theory. The five axioms Padua et al. used
in developing and testing their theory were: “people build their axioms from different
foundations”, “all people have the potential for arrogant tendencies but it is normally not
their chief feature”, “arrogance is a compensatory mechanism to keep one’s self-esteem
artificially inflated or intact”, “organizations, in general, benefit from a mix of proper
levels of arrogance and high levels of competence”, and “job competence is directly
related to a person’s cognitive intelligence keeping the emotional quotient constant” (pp.
70-82). The five propositions underscoring the theory are “there will be arrogant
8
personalities in the academe”, “those with arrogant personalities in the academe mainly
build their arrogance from their own perceived intellectual superiority and work related
experiences”, “those identified as arrogant in the academe are most likely to have
negative experiences with respect to their esteemed intelligence in the past or have been
excessively exposed to positive reinforcements on their perceived intellectual superiority
in the past”, “every person in the academe has an (arrogance, competence) mix”, and
“highly intelligent people with high arrogance score are more likely underachieving in
the workplace” (Padua et al., 2010, pp. 83-85).
Nature of the Study
To address the identified gap in the literature, I employed a quantitative research
design, with FIA participants employed by a professional financial services firm. The
dependent variable (DV) was the participant’s total assets under management figure plus
the revenue generated from investments by the individual FIA. The independent
variables (IVs) were the participant’s degree of arrogance as established by the WARS,
gender, and tenure. The DV, the objective measure of the FIA’s total assets under
management plus the revenue generated from investments by the individual FIA, were
sourced from the financial investment firm’s records via an established, trusted source
within the company. The IV, degree of arrogance, was obtained from the WARS as an
objective measurement tool. Gender was measured as a nominal variable and years of
professional experience was measured as a continuous variable. Participants were asked
to provide their job tenure in years via a fill-in-the-blank response.
9
A sample of convenience was secured of FIAs working within a financial services
firm. A target number of 77 volunteers, based on effect size analysis, was sought for
participation in this study. The WARS, a validated and reliable tool (Johnson et al.,
2010; Silverman et al., 2012), was used to yield an arrogance score for each FIA
participant. The demographic data of gender and tenure/years of professional FIA
experience were obtained via participant responses to demographic survey questions.
The research questions were investigated and hypotheses tested through a quantitative
research approach. A quantitative approach was appropriate for the purpose of this study
to allow for the collection and analysis of data via the quantitative methods of linear
regression, moderation analyses and ANOVA for ancillary analyses. Objective measures
were examined, using a survey design, along with the categorical, dummy coded, and
continuous variables through linear regressions within primarily a correlational study
design.
Definitions
Client: The customer of a professional service agent such as an accountant,
financial advisor, or lawyer (Business Dictionary, 2016).
Client Retention: Client retention is used as an assessment of client loyalty to
their service provider (PriceMetrix Insights, 2013). Client retention is critical to
performance and business outcomes because satisfied clients hold their business and
assets with their professional services agent and are more likely to refer others to their
professional contact (Business Dictionary, 2016)
10
Financial Investment Advisor (FIA): “A professional who helps individuals
manage their finances by providing advice on money issues such as investments,
insurance, mortgages, college savings, estate planning, taxes and retirement, depending
on what the client requests. Some financial advisors are paid a flat fee for their advice,
while others earn commissions from the investments they sell to their clients”
(Investopia.com, 2016).
Professional Service: Services provided to clients by a formally educated and
certified professional such as accounting, legal, financial, and medical professionals
(Business Dictionary, 2016).
Revenue: Revenue is the term used for financial services income earned from
brokerage fees and commissions earned from investments (Investopia.com, 2018).
Total assets under management: A common phrase in financial firms referring to
a client list and the associated dollar value of investments for each client (Kolakowski,
2015). According to Financial Dictionary (2016), total assets under management is
defined as “a financial advisor’s or salesman’s list of clients and the amount of money
each one generates. This term is used most frequently in brokerages or investment
advisory firms”. The total assets under management is a statement of all clients in a
FIA's portfolio and the sum total of their associated dollar value based on invested assets
(citation). The total sum of all assets is the objective measure of FIA performance
(PriceMetrix Insights, 2013).
Workplace Arrogance Scale (WARS): A self-report tool containing 26 items
measured using a five-point Likert; a=0.93 (Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012).
11
Assumptions
For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that there would be enough variance
in the total of each FIA’s total assets under management figure plus the revenue
generated from investments made by the FIA and that arrogance would be detected
within the pool of volunteer FIA participants. It was also an assumption that participants
would answer the survey questions honestly without concern for the promotion of social
desirability (see Edwards, 1953). From an industry perspective, it was assumed that the
financial services firm would be willing to share confidential data within a blind system
with this researcher.
Scope and Delimitations
Historically, arrogance has been studied via observations, and study subjects’
perceptions of others’ arrogance (Haan et al., 2007; Hareli & Weiner, 2000; Hareli et al.,
2006). Recent research has utilized the WARS, an objective measure of arrogance, and
examined relationships between arrogance and subjective assessments of task
performance and OCB (Johnson et al., 2010). To date, there is no reporting in the
arrogance literature of the examination of the arrogance-performance relationship using
an objective performance outcome index (Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012; S.
Silverman, personal communication, October 12, 2014).
This study was delimited to recruited participants who hold the title of FIA who
have been in their role for greater than 2 years. Given that all participants were recruited
from one company and one specific industry, it is possible that study results might not be
generalizable to all applicants in all industries. Demographic data such as gender and age
12
were collected, and the descriptive statistic of age was analyzed, however it was not
included as an independent variable given that tenure/experience is highly correlated with
age.
Limitations
One limitation of the study is that the participants were all recruited from the
same company. This method of recruitment could have proven to be limiting if many of
the participants had the same objective performance index; a similar total sum of their
clients’ dollar investments in addition to revenue generated from investments. If multiple
individuals are sampled from the same organization, it is possible that their objective
indices could match. This lack of high variability in scores could be responsible for
issues with the regression analyses not being able to predict relationships if all or many of
the participants have the same objective index.
An additional limitation might have been the self-report nature of the
measurement tool. Although self-report surveys are common tools in the social and
behavioral sciences, there is the possibility that data can be skewed based on single
source bias such as social desirability (intentionally presenting oneself in a favorable
light) (Edwards, 1953; Harrison, McLaughlin, & Coalter, 1996). The lack of multisource
survey responders could have led to skewed study results (Cook & Campbell, 1976).
Significance
Arrogance has been cited as a contributing factor to breakdowns in work related
relationships (Johnson et al., 2010; Marks, 2012; Silverman et al., 2012). The display of
arrogant behaviors can impact the development, performance, and success of the arrogant
13
individual, other employees, and their professional contacts (Johnson et al., 2010; Padua
et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012). Arrogance can promote a breakdown of work teams
in the absence of citizenship behaviors instead of fostering a climate of positive social
interactions, collaboration, and cooperation (Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012).
Behaviors resulting from a breakdown in social interactions in the work environment are
believed to contribute to the creation of a toxic work environment where connection,
satisfaction, innovation, and productivity are diminished (Johnson et al., 2010; Padua et
al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012). The study of arrogance in professional settings is
important due to the overall impact low performing individuals lacking in OCB can have
on an organization, given that organizational success is highly dependent upon its human
resources (Johnson et al, 2010; Sheth & Sisodia, 2005; Silverman et al., 2012; Padua et
al., 2010).
The impact of arrogance in the workplace comes with a high cost related to
individual and organizational outcomes. In most professional service industries, there are
high stakes associated with performance and results (Sheth & Sisodia, 2005).
Undesirable behaviors of employees could potentially impact a company’s client base if
they express dissatisfaction and terminate their relationship with the organization.
According to Johnson et al. (2010) and Padua et al. (2010), arrogant employees typically
are not aware of their impact on others, or on the organizational bottom line. Given that
arrogance is a misrepresentation of oneself masking inadequacies and a lack of
competence, arrogant employees identified through a performance management process
incorporating the WARS, might have an opportunity to be redirected toward development
14
of contributory behaviors yielding positive outcomes (Johnson et al., 2010; Padua et al.,
2010; Silverman et al., 2012).
If professional services organizations can identify employees scoring high in
arrogance, their human resources and learning and development departments may be
afforded opportunities for interventions to be developed and implemented that will focus
on improving core skills and competencies (Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012).
Ultimately, the goal of organizations is to maintain a high level of productivity toward
achieving their goals and objectives and meeting their bottom line. Arrogant behaviors in
the workplace, that lead to lower levels of performance, can clearly undermine an
organization’s productivity efforts, and its ability to meet company objectives.
A retrospective look at financial systems shows that during the Great Depression
many families lost their savings, became desperate, and survived on rations (Gounaris &
Prout, 2009; Hamowy & Conigliaro, 2016). The 2008 crash of the stock market was
marked by massive unemployment, record levels of debt, and repossession of real estate
(Gounaris & Prout, 2009; Hamowy & Conigliaro, 2016). These types of profoundly
impactful financial events have left scars in the psyches of personal funds investors and
fear of loss and risk aversion have run rampant in the minds and souls of financial
services clients (Gounaris & Prout, 2009; Hamowy & Conigliaro, 2016). Based on
historic events, the relationship people have established with money, and the
compromised profile of the financial services professional, FIAs must sell themselves to
clients as trustworthy and capable of effectively managing their clients’ money (Gounaris
& Prout, 2009; Hamowy & Conigliaro, 2016; PriceMetrix Insights, 2013). They must
15
also strategically sell investments that will bring about the greatest gain for the FIA and
for their clients (Hamowy & Conigliaro, 2016; PriceMetrix Insights, 2013). Establishing,
maintaining and nurturing client relationships in order to retain the client and their
investments is a key activity and contributor to FIA productivity, performance and
overall success (PriceMetrix Insights, 2013). There may be personal, individual
characteristics that have a material impact on the FIA’s ability to connect with clients and
retain their business, which has an overall impact on the size of the FIA’s total assets
under management and their ability to derive revenue from investments made on behalf
of clients.
The more effective a FIA is at building and maintaining client relationships, the
greater the likelihood of him/her retaining clients and their professional efforts will
comprise the FIA’s total assets under management and associated revenue generated
from investments as performance metrics (PriceMetrix Insights, 2013). A FIA’s total
assets under management grows based on the number of clients gained and retained and
the amount of their assets (PriceMetrix Insights, 2013). Satisfied clients will stay with
their FIA and refer other clients to him/her (PriceMetrix Insights, 2013). If arrogance is
an impediment to building and nurturing good relationships, then a FIA’s total assets
under management can be detrimentally impacted due to the loss of clients (PriceMetrix
Insights, 2013). In a general sense, the human and organizational condition can be
positively impacted through gaining a deeper understanding of arrogance in the
workplace and application of learnings, strategies, and tools that can serve as an antidote
to arrogance. Study findings were intended to contribute to positive social change on the
16
levels of organization, individual (employee and client), and productivity/financial
impact.
Summary and Transition
The purpose of this current study was to examine the relationship between
professional arrogance and job performance using an objective, validated survey tool.
This chapter discussed the background, purpose, problem statement, and significance of
the study. The research questions and hypotheses, theoretical framework, key
definitions, and nature of the study were also presented. Finally, I concluded the chapter
with discussions regarding assumptions, limitations, scope and delimitations, and
significance.
Study participants were FIAs; the IVs were their gender, tenure, and degree of
arrogance as established by the WARS and the DV was the total dollar value of the FIA’s
total assets under management plus the revenue generated from client invested dollars
made by the FIA. Total assets under management represents the sum of client assets
within a FIAs portfolio (Kolakowski, 2015). This chapter contained a summary of the
meaning of arrogance, and an overview of arrogance studies using subjective and
objective measures. An introduction to the theoretical framework for understanding
arrogance related to an individuals’ level of competence was presented, along with
implications of past research supporting the selection of variables and the methodology
that were used in this current study. The development studies for the WARS were
summarized and the variables in the current research detailed.
17
Chapter 2 provides a deeper understanding of the meaning of arrogance, a review
of the history of research on the topic of arrogance and a comparison of arrogance to
related constructs such as narcissism and humility. Through an in-depth review of the
literature, the impact of arrogance on individual and organizational outcomes, and its
impact in professional settings is overviewed. The possibility of arrogance having
potential positive impact is also explored. Finally, an introduction to the theoretical
framework for understanding arrogance related to an individuals’ level of competence is
presented, along with a presupposition of the impact of arrogance on organizational
productivity.
Chapter 3 provides information regarding the variables involved in examining the
research questions and present the reliability and validity of the WARS tool to be used as
an objective measure of arrogance. The rationale for employing a quantitative research
design is discussed along with a review of the DV FIA total assets under management
and the associated revenue metric, and the IVs of arrogance, gender and tenure. Detailed
information to better understand the role of FIA study participants is provided in addition
to how they were recruited for the study. The plan for analyzing data via the use of linear
regression and moderation analyses is presented, with the chapter concluding with a
discussion of threats to validity and ethical considerations of the study.
18
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of arrogance to job
performance in a professional services firm. To date, few articles have examined the
construct of arrogance using objectives measures and none have correlated arrogance
with an objective performance index. In order to demonstrate as full a scope of the
literature as possible, the review includes some articles published greater than 20 years
ago. Peer-reviewed articles specific to arrogance, its measurement, leadership, and the
impact of arrogance in the workplace were collected with a focus on the past 7 years. I
used Google Scholar and Thoreau multidata base search for a broad review of resources
for each subject area. The following targeted databases were used PsycExtra, PsycINFO,
PsycARTICLES, ProQuest, Social Sciences Citation Index and Business Source
Compete. Search key words and phrases used were arrogance, professional arrogance,
arrogance measurement, Workplace Arrogance Scale, narcissism, pride, hubris,
confidence, overconfidence, humility, modesty, financial investment advisor, and single
source self-report data. Articles were downloaded and saved to a folder and subsequently
categorized into subtopic folders.
Over 254 sources were collected, and 174 have been used in this dissertation.
These resources were collected over a period of 4.5 years with regular bimonthly
searches for any additions to the databases. Articles were categorized according to topic
and then highlighted and tabbed based on subtopics. As many peer-reviewed articles and
papers presented at professional conferences as possible have been included in this
19
review, in addition to book chapters and internet resources. The most useful databases
were PsycExtra and Business Source Complete. I contacted Dr. Silverman, coauthor of
three critical, foundational papers in the study of professional arrogance, via email for
assistance in procuring a 2012 publication I had not been able to locate otherwise. Dr.
Silverman responded with a reply email attaching the 2012 publication I had cited and
had been unable to locate.
Arrogance
Arrogance is powerfully presented in modern media and is prevalent within the
political arena, academic community, and business professions (Haan et al., 2007;
Johnson et al., 2010; Padua et al., 2010). This construct has been defined as an
exaggeration of and chronic belief in one’s superiority demonstrated through entitlement
behaviors, and claims of rank and power resulting in an elevation of the offending
individual over others (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2010; Kowalski, Walker,
Wilkinson, Queen, & Sharpe, 2003; Leary, Bednarski, Hammon, & Duncan, 1997; Padua
et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012). Morf and Rhodewalt (2001) have suggested that
when individuals see themselves as superior to others, it is perhaps a way of crafting a
palatable self-image. Excessive claims of self-importance, and a simultaneous
denigration of others and their contributions are classic hallmarks of arrogance (Hareli &
Weiner, 2000; Kowalski et al., 2003; Leary et al., 1997). Ma and Karri (2005) described
the extreme form of arrogance as someone perceiving themselves as omnipotent and
invincible. Perhaps the most intriguing feature of this construct is that the arrogant
individual believes his/her inflated self-perception and positioning of self over others is
20
entirely justified (Johnson et al., 2010; Millon, 1981). This perception does not easily
budge despite evidence to the contrary (Johnson et al., 2010; Millon, 1981). A lack of
self-awareness is characteristic of the arrogant individual (Millon, 1981).
Historic world events, such as the crumbling of the Roman Empire, have been
anecdotally attributed to “leadership arrogance” (Padua et al., 2010, p. 77). Gregg and
Mahadevan (2014) have examined intellectual arrogance and intellectual humility from
an evolutionary perspective. According to Gregg and Mahadevan, arrogance is rooted in
the basic Darwinian position of survival of the fittest in which the victor is lauded as
superior over the fallen or the captive.
In early writings about arrogance, Bion (1958) pronounced arrogance a
“psychological catastrophe” (p. 278). Shapiro (1965) studied neurotic personality types
and suggested that arrogance was an ego defense mechanism that protected against
personal deficits and insecurities. Therefore, arrogant behavior appears to occur on an
unconscious level as a mechanism for defending against ego insults, and compensating
for one’s own shortcomings (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2010).
Arrogance has been studied in relation to the construct of self-esteem. Emmons
(1984) found that narcissistic individuals scored high on a measure of self-esteem and
extrapolated that arrogant individuals would likely score similarly, given arrogance is a
sub-trait of narcissism. Ryan (1983) provided a contradictory perspective suggesting that
high self-esteem is associated with humility which is the opposite of arrogance, and
therefore arrogance is not associated with high self-esteem. Clinical implications of
arrogance were studied by Matussek, Luks, and Seibt (1986), who found that unipolar
21
depressed study participants were more likely to present as emotionally distant, passive
aggressive and arrogant toward their life partners compared to study participants
diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
Robinson, Ode, Palder, and Fetterman (2012) defined “interpersonal arrogance”
as “an approach-motivated behavioral strategy to social interactions” (p. 859). These
authors suggested that arrogance can be best conceptualized as a blend of coldness and
dominance. The impact of said arrogance can be undermining of social support, poor
health, poor quality relationships, and an experience of hostility from others (Robinson et
al., 2012). Arrogance is said to be related to personal characteristics such as narcissism,
pride, hubris, and confidence, and to be the opposite of traits such as humility and
modesty (Bauer et al., 2008; Silverman, 2012). The important distinctions between
arrogance and these other constructs are outlined in the following sections.
Arrogance Versus Narcissism
Miller (1999) contends that behaviors of self-interest are inherent in being human,
and that promotion of moral development and external interventions is required for an
individual to set self-interest aside and substitute other-interest. According to Miller
(1999), human self-interest is natural; however, extreme self-interest involving grandiose
self-admiration is most often referred to as narcissism. Narcissism is both a social and
clinical construct (Bauer et al., 2008). Beyond the Greek myth of self-loving Narcissus,
Freud (1914) postulated that narcissism was the result of issues developed from
childhood related to ego and libido (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006). Further, Freud
suggested that individuals displaying narcissist tendencies could not distinguish truth
22
from fallacy about themselves, and that they preferred fantasy over reality (Judge et al.,
2005).
In present day psychiatry and clinical psychology, The American Psychiatric
Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – V (DSM-V)
defines narcissism as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of
empathy that begins by early adulthood and is present in a variety of contexts” (APA,
2013, p. 670). Narcissistic individuals embellish their achievements, present as
pretentious and boastful, and routinely overestimate their abilities (APA, 2013). They are
known to devalue others’ contributions and expect others to admire them excessively as
superior and unique (APA, 2013). Individuals displaying narcissistic behaviors tend to
act with an enormous sense of entitlement without regard for the feelings of others or the
impact of their behavior on others (APA, 2013; Bauer et al., 2008; Silverman et al.,
2012).
Associated features of narcissism are arrogance, and exploitation of others (APA,
2013; Emmons, 1984). Emmons (1984) conducted a factor analysis of Raskin and Hall’s
narcissistic personality inventory and established four subscales which he titled,
exploitiveness/entitlement, leadership/authority, self-absorption/self-admiration, and
superiority/arrogance. Entitlement refers to an individual’s belief that the universe,
society, their community, organization, etc. should provide him/her with the
considerations and resources of which he/she feels he/she is deserving (Brummel &
Parker, 2015). Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, and Bushman (2004) defined
23
entitlement as “a stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to
more than others” (p. 31).
According to Emmons (1987), egocentrism is a core element of narcissism,
specifically in the superiority/arrogance subscale. It has been noted in the literature that
narcissistic individuals can be especially volatile and aggressive, lashing out at others
when they experience a threat to their self-esteem (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998;
Grijalva & Newman, 2015). Penney and Spector (2002) found that individuals scoring
high in narcissism experienced anger at work and engaged in counterproductive work
behaviors more frequently than their nonnarcissistic counterparts. Narcissistic
individuals may make a good short-term impression; however, over the longer term, their
positioning of themselves as superior, their lack of empathy and pushing of their entitled
agenda erode the previously held positive perceptions from others over time (Grijalva &
Harms, 2014; Harms & Spain, 2015). In the work environment, entitlement has been
demonstrated by behaviors such as taking a greater share of resources, demanding raises
and promotions, and feeling one deserves a higher salary than peers (Campbell et al.,
2004; Fisk, 2010).
Several authors have suggested that arrogance is the key ingredient driving
narcissism and can be traced to counterproductive behaviors in the workplace (Judge et
al., 2006; Penny & Spector, 2002; Silverman et al., 2012). The study of arrogance in the
workplace is supported out of necessity for a narrower focus than the broad and complex
construct of narcissism (Bauer et al., 2008). The primary differentiator between
arrogance and narcissism is that narcissism can exist in the absence of others while
24
arrogance, by definition, is interpersonal and involves the disparagement and denigration
of others in addition to aggrandizement of the self (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al.,
2010; Silverman et al., 2012).
Arrogance Versus Pride
Pride has been described as a self-conscious, secondary emotion associated with
an internal attribution to success or mastery (Lazarus, 1991; Lewis, 2008; Liu, Lu, Yu, &
Chen, 2012; Weiner, 1985; Wubben, De Cremer, & van Dijk, 2012). Pride rises from a
self-evaluative process associated with a specific incident or event that can be
experienced in the positive (authentic), promoting a sense of accomplishment, increased
self-esteem, and prosocial behaviors, or in the negative (hubristic) through a loss of pride
associated with conceit and arrogance often resulting in antisocial behaviors (Ashton-
James & Tracy, 2012; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Lewis, 2008; Tracy & Robins,
2007; Trumbull, 2010; Weiner, 1985; Wubben et al., 2012). According to Tracy and
Prehn (2012), one’s emotional response to public success will result in a display that is
judged as either pride or arrogance. On a social level, an individual’s expressions of
authentic pride may improve his/her status, prestige and within group acceptance (Cheng,
Tracy, & Henrich, 2010; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995; Liu et al., 2012; Tracy
& Prehn, 2012; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Given the seemingly dual nature of pride, some
researchers have suggested that there exist two separate and distinct emotions (Eckman,
2003; Lewis, 2000; Tracy & Prehn, 2012; Tracy & Robin, 2007; Wubben et al., 2012).
It is the negative side of the pride coin - labeled hubristic pride - that is most akin
to arrogance (Ashton-James & Tracy, 2012; Lewis, 2000; Tracy & Robins, 2007). While
25
the authentic, positive form of pride is most often celebrated, hubristic pride is marked by
self-aggrandizement, dominance, and distorted self-views (Cheng et al., 2010; Lewis,
2000; Tracy & Robins, 2007; Wubben et al., 2012). Wubben et al. (2012) found across
two experiments that observers ascribed the characteristics of greed, selfishness, and
competitiveness to those individuals for whom they inferred hubristic pride. Assessments
of hubristic pride seemed to make a statement about the individual as a whole, whereas
authentic pride seemed to be related to a particular accomplishment or event (Wubben et
al., 2012). According to Cheng et al. (2010) authentic pride is associated with getting
along in addition to getting ahead, while hubristic pride is solely about getting ahead and
associated with antisocial, self-centered behaviors (Ashton-James & Tracy, 2012).
Arrogance Versus Confidence
Confidence refers to belief in one’s abilities, commonly referred to as self-
efficacy (Peterson 2006). It has also been cited as an essential ingredient of successful
job performance and leadership (Jiang, Stone, Sun, & Zhang, 2011; Piccone, Dagnino, &
Mina, 2014). Confidence is a motivator with social, competitive and financial benefits
(Van Zant & Moore, 2013). In the business world, confident leaders garner the positive
attributes of credibility, stature, and influence (Van Zant & Moore, 2013).
Overconfidence seems to be driven by self-enhancing beliefs that exist in the
absence of accurate information about the self and others (Ma & Karri, 2005; Mannes &
Moore, 2013; Van Zant & Moore, 2013). Arrogance and overconfidence may be related
in that a form of distorted self-belief and apathy can arise from “a false sense of security
experienced after success” (Ma & Karri, 2005, p. 69). Overconfidence – when a person
26
believes they are better than they really are – has consequences that can outweigh its
benefits (Johnson & Fowler, 2011). Overconfidence can be perceived as competence;
however, assertiveness does not necessarily translate into competence (Van Zant &
Moore, 2013). Research has shown that people tend to be impressed and influenced by
those they perceive as competent, whether they are truly competent or not (Van Zant &
Moore, 2013). Excessive self-confidence can lead to impossible-to-execute strategies,
impulsivity, and risk taking (Piccone et al., 2014). According to Jiang et al. (2011, p.
491), “overconfident managers tend to overestimate returns and underestimate risks”.
When these behaviors occur within a context of power, the outcomes can be
“catastrophic” (Piccone et al., 2014, p. 447). Accurate and timely feedback is required to
combat overconfidence (Ma & Karri, 2005; Mannes & Moore, 2013).
Arrogant individuals appear confident; however, research findings suggest that
displays of arrogant behavior mask poor self-confidence (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et
al., 2010). Truly confident people are typically accurate in their assessment of
themselves specific to their abilities; whereas individuals categorized as arrogant mask
insecurity and lack of competence behind a confident or sometimes overconfident
presentation and representation of themselves (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2010;
Silverman et al., 2012).
Arrogance Versus Hubris
The term hubris originates from ancient Greek history and mythology describing
the rise to glory and tragic fall of stated heroes (Trumbull, 2010). Hubris was referred to
as excessive self-pride believed to be a crime that should be punished and could “end in
27
deadly retribution” (Trumbull, 2010, p. 341). Similar to narcissism, hubris lacks an
interpersonal element and involves being self-focused (Silverman et al., 2012). Hubris
springs from a false sense of confidence based on an exaggerated belief in one’s qualities
and abilities (Claxton, Owen, & Sadler-Smith, 2015; Silverman et al., 2012). According
to Judge, Piccolo, and Kosalka (2009), and Piccone et al. (2014), a mixture of excessive
pride and overconfidence results in hubris which causes the affected party to overestimate
his/her talents, skills and abilities.
Hubris syndrome, proposed by Owen and Davidson (2009), originates from
acquiring a position of power and a lack of containment of the individual’s behavior.
Woodruff (2005, p. 15) declared that hubris “is not only an attitude, it is a kind of action
as well”. Overlapping with narcissism, hubris syndrome is characterized by a
combination of attitudinal and behavioral criteria involving seeking power and claiming
glory, overconfidence in one’s decisions and judgements, contempt for feedback from
others, loss of perspective with reality, and a sense of omnipotence (Owen & Davidson,
2009). The individual affected by hubris truly believes that the capabilities and
contribution of others pales in comparison to his/hers, as their perspective is that they are
more efficient and perform better than others (Piccone et al., 2014).
The media commonly cite CEO hubris as a key ingredient of poor organizational
performance (Petit & Bollaert, 2012). Claxton et al. (2015), claimed that, in addition to
exaggerated self-belief and a sense of overconfidence based on one’s actual abilities,
hubris in the business world includes “contempt for the advice and criticism of others” (p.
28
58). Fears (2005) defined hubris as “outrageous arrogance”, and according to Russell
(2011), hubris is being intoxicated by power.
The consequences of hubris in the business world are that leaders operating from
this form of excessive pride fail to take in information needed to make sound decisions,
do not seek the necessary help and support, and then attempt to dodge responsibility for
their mistakes and failures (Hayward, 2007; Petit & Bollaert, 2012). Petit and Bollaert
(2012, p. 266), commented that the “hubristic CEO has a grandiose sense of self” and
considers him/herself above all others outside the bounds of traditional laws or rules.
Collins (2009) identified hubris as the first sign of decline within an organization. This
state is characterized by the arrogance of leadership, a lack of insight into what
historically contributed to the organization’s success, and blind entitlement (Collins,
2009).
Arrogance Versus Humility
Humility and modesty are often used to describe characteristics that are counter to
arrogant, self- enhancing behaviors (Cullen, Gentry, & Yammarino, 2015). Humility is
described as a character virtue; an “adaptive form of pride” (Chancellor & Lyubomirsky,
2013, p. 819). There are two different types of humility: dispositional or trait humility is
when an individual demonstrates consistently humble behaviors across situations; and,
state or situational humility which is often described as a humbling moment or
experience such as a baby’s birth (Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Landrum, 2011).
This construct is composed of many descriptive components: low self-focus; lack of
distorted self-perspective evidenced by an accurate evaluation of one’s abilities and
29
competence, and holding them into reasonable perspective; acknowledgement of one’s
limits, marked by a secure identity, and gaps in knowledge; and, an openness to new
knowledge and the suggestions and contributions of others (Chancellor & Lyubomirsky,
2013; Gregg & Mahadevan, 2014; Tangney, 2000; Landrum, 2011).
Contrary to the negative emotions and behaviors associated with arrogance,
humility involves emotional management, self-awareness and accurate self-appraisal
leading to objective perspective of self, appreciation of others and openness to new ideas
(Morris, Brotheridge, & Urbanski, 2005; Owens, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2013; Tangney,
2000). According to ancient philosophers, an openness to learning is an antidote to
arrogance; one cannot develop a false belief that he/she knows all if he/she is open to the
process of continuous learning (Ghosh, 2002). Although there have been benefits cited
as being associated with humility, this construct has also been linked to negative
connotations such as weakness and lowliness (Rowatt et al., 2006).
Some additional positive characteristics associated with humility are a lack of
self-serving bias, being respectful of others, and willing to admit mistakes (Rowatt et al.,
2006). Rowatt et al. found that in contrast to arrogance, humility paved the way for
success in approaching a cognitive challenge. Similar to arrogance, humility is an
understudied personality characteristic; however, studies to date suggest that individuals
who demonstrate humility do so through a clear lens reflected in their accurate self-
perceptions and decreased incidences of distorted self-performance and abilities ratings
(Davis, Worthington, & Hook, 2010; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Research further
30
suggests that humility is best rated by others, versus reliance on self-report (Chancellor &
Lyubomirsky, 2013; Tangney, 2000).
Humility is a quality to aspire to and counters arrogant tendencies if one is
striving for success. Humble people tend not to enhance information and instead see
themselves and others clearly without distortion or the need for exaggeration, allowing
them to recognize strengths and weaknesses inherent in themselves and others
(Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Tangney, 2000). For example, individuals with a
high degree of self-esteem and low sensitivity to ego threats are accepting of the nature of
their limitations and can flourish in the workplace by seeking input, admitting mistakes,
and learning how to build their competence, which in turn builds appropriate confidence
(Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Tangney, 2000).
Humility prompts one to seek truth even if the results may have unfavorable personal
impact (Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Tangney, 2000). Being humble renders one
open to new insights, learning and experiences; “the humble are teachable” (Chancellor
& Lyubomirsky, 2013, p. 825).
Ego, hubris, entitlement, narcissism and arrogance have been cited as contributing
factors to corporate scandals and poor decision-making (Boje, Roslie, Durant, &
Luhman, 2004; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Thomas, 2002). Humility as a strength of
leadership is becoming more prevalent in the literature as a foundational principle of
effective leadership development. The etymology of the word humility, humi/humus
meaning ground or earth, suggests that humility in leadership begins from the ground up
(Online Etymology Dictionary, 2015; Owens & Hekman, 2012). Several current
31
leadership theories use humility as their springboard, such as servant leadership
(Greenleaf & Spears, 2002), participative leadership (Kim, 2002) and level 5 leadership
(Collins, 2001). These leadership theories submit that in order to create a healthy,
productive, performance-enhanced culture, leaders must develop and practice the moral
virtue of humility.
Arrogance in Professional Settings
In a professional setting, behaviors associated with arrogance include intellectual
posturing, boasting, acting as though rules and policies do not apply to oneself, rejecting
blame and accountability while blaming and demeaning others, incivility and
fundamental disrespect, and dismissing the ideas and contributions of others (Johnson et
al., 2010; Marks, 2012; Padua et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012). Extreme arrogant
workplace behaviors include swearing, gossiping, bad-mouthing coworkers, screaming,
resisting feedback, and disparaging others (Silverman et al., 2012). According to Ghosh
(2002), the presence of arrogance in individuals and organizations will most likely lead to
greed, a “false sense of invincibility to criticisms”, ignoring the advice of experts, closed-
mindedness and blindness to reality. The limited research on arrogance in the workplace
suggests that the study of arrogance should garner more attention from organizational
psychology scholars due to its detrimental impact on individual performance (Bauer et
al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2010), collegial relationships (Johnson & Chang, 2006), and
organizational outcomes (Levine, 2005; Padua et al., 2010). Several authors have
provided a contribution to the literature through anecdotal summaries specific to how
arrogance tends to show up in their professions.
32
Engineers
In an editorial piece for an engineering professionals’ magazine, Haupt (2003)
recounted his experience at a conference, of listening to a group of engineers hail how
glorious and superior they were and how everyone else was beneath them. Haupt’s
concern was how this “haughty arrogance” might lead to prejudice, hatred, and bigotry.
He called for a more level perspective where women and engineering candidates from
other cultures would be given due consideration and not automatically be seen as “less
than.”
Ghosh (2002) argued, based on a review of incidents, that the cause of “real
world” engineering disasters can be traced to arrogance, which led to unethical decision-
making. He has suggested that engineering ethics will best be taught within a frame of
“humbleness.” Contrasting humility to arrogance, Ghosh described humility as a
reasonable assessment of one’s worth and abilities while being free from vanity and
conceit. Arrogance blinds the arrogant individual from reality, while humbleness keeps
the individual open to possibilities and wards off overconfidence (Ghosh, 2002).
Physicists
In an opinion piece by Gibson (2003), he shared the “wisdom” of a senior
executive from early in his career; “arrogance was something to be proud of” and
nurtured (p. 54). Over the course of his career, Gibson has come to see arrogance as a
weapon that can be used for good by physicists to cut through the unknowns of the
natural world within the context of controlled ignorance. He also expressed concern that
the double-edged sword of arrogance holds a trap whereby physicists as practitioners of
33
objective science believe their way is the only way and the right way. This arrogant
mindset also carries with it a presumption that other sciences are inferior and that the
general public are essentially ignoramuses. Gibson also cited anecdotal cases of ethical
issues and infractions created by physicists where their lack of integrity in results
reporting was a symptom of their arrogance.
Similar to the anecdotal evidence of underrepresentation of non-whites and
females in the profession of engineering, Gibson (2003) cited a similar observation
within the field of physics. He further described the existence of a set of intragroup
(white male) rules and behavior patterns that are next to impossible for an individual
external to the group to learn, and that would likely not be accepted from someone
female, or from a different race/culture. Gibson highlighted what he referred to as “a
problem in [their] profession” whereby physicists’ objectivity has led to a belief in their
elitism and superiority. Gibson proposed that physics students be taught to separate their
science (where arrogance is potentially useful), from their profession (where arrogance
has created issues with in-group interactions and with the public).
Physicians
Bauerschmidt (2008) cautioned physicians and physician leaders about allowing
ego and arrogance to substitute for competence. He provided anecdotal “real world”
medical examples of physicians operating from a belief that they were better than they
were, as it pertained to rendering a correct diagnosis. In both instances, the physician
permitted overconfidence nestled in arrogance to prompt them to make quick decisions.
The physician chose to believe in his sense of superiority and did not seek additional
34
information. Relying on presupposition kept the physician ignorant, resulting in
potentially dire medical circumstances for the patient.
According to Berger (2002), arrogance is regrettably commonplace amongst
physicians and can have harmful effects on staff relationships and patient outcomes. As a
critical success factor, physicians are held accountable to quality patient care and
satisfaction of patients with the way they are treated in healthcare interactions. Berger
suggested that arrogance can be seen in a physician’s behavior demonstrating lack of
respect for medical staff and patients, being overly critical and abusive toward
subordinates sometimes in the presence of patients, and in the language used by male
physicians to address females such as “honey” or “dear”. Berger called for a greater
emphasis on cultivating empathy and humility in the process of teaching ethics in
medical school. He believes that the “good old days” of medical students learning
respect, humility, and simple courtesies are gone. Although being a physician remains a
noble profession, Berger contends that long gone are the days when doctors served their
communities with little regard for personal, material rewards. Being a physician grants
the individual a position of high standing in society, and many physicians fall prey to the
seduction and “corruption of arrogance”; being “the all-knowing and powerful doctor”
(Berger, 2002, p. 2). Berger suggested that physicians develop a sense of their own
humanness - they are doctor and also patient – and they would be wise not to inflate their
sense of importance.
35
Accountants
Chartered Professional Accountants (Canada) or Certified Public Accountants
(United States) must possess high intellectual abilities and a high degree of education,
with specialized training and technical skills (Bagley, Dalton, & Ortegren, 2012; Radtke,
2008). Accountants who provide professional services to clients must establish positive
relationships, based on specific moral obligations, while abiding by a code of
professional ethics (De Silva, 2013; Radtke, 2008). It is necessary for accountants to be
of service to others in order to retain clients, maintain their business contracts, and remain
competitive (Bagley et al., 2012; De Silva, 2013; Tolleson & Pai, 2011).
Perhaps the most well-known accounting firms are the Big 4; Deloitte Touche
Komatsu, Ernst & Young, Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG) and
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) (Bagley et al., 2012; Tolleson & Pai, 2011, p. 56).
According to an industry annual report based on 2014 earnings, the Big 4 are responsible
for auditing 80 percent of US publicly traded companies, and each produce revenue of
between $25 billion and $35 billion (Public Accounting Report, 2015). Since the
criminal indictment in 2002 of the Arthur Anderson auditing house in relation to the
collapse of Enron, the Enron scandal forced the accounting profession onto the center
stage through media coverage and public disclosure of court proceedings related to audit
failure and accounting fraud (Thomas, 2002). According to Boje et al. (2004) and
Thomas (2002), the downfall of Enron was the direct result of corporate greed and
arrogance.
36
In general, accountants are responsible for providing a good customer experience
for clients of their accounting firms (Aquila & Keltin, 1992; Helmi, 1998). Providing a
quality client experience requires accountants to have a level of self-awareness of their
behavior and their impact on others (Aquila & Keltin, 1992; Radtke, 2008). De Silva
(2013) cited Bain & Company’s 2005 survey of 362 chartered accounting firms that
revealed that 80 percent of these firms believed they delivered a great client experience.
Results from their clients surveyed showed only eight percent felt they had received a
great customer experience. Clients who left their accountant were surveyed as to the
reason why, and 67 percent indicated that his/her accountant “didn’t treat me right” (De
Silva, 2013, p. 43). This phenomenon could be likened to a physician lacking in bedside
manner.
The business impact of dissatisfied clients is that they “jump ship” from one firm
to the competition (De Silva, 2013). Competition for business is rife between accounting
firms, with each readily poised to poach a dissatisfied client from another (De Silva,
2013). If greed and arrogance are inherent in the accounting profession as has been
purported, these negative qualities could have an impact on client relationships and the
decision of a client to remain with a particular firm or fire a firm and move to another.
This is a clear example of potential direct business impact.
Financial Investment Advisors
Financial planning pioneer Dick Wagner proposed 1969 as the first year for the
financial planning profession and stated that financial services professionals are part of
the most important profession of this century (Yeske, 2017). Wagner proclaimed,
37
“money is the most powerful and pervasive secular force on the planet” which speaks to
huge responsibility (Yeske, 2017, p. 15). According to Wagner, the vices associated with
money are too often discussed and the functions and virtues of money are not discussed
enough (Yeske, 2017). Wagner believes that money is the key to wealth and well-being
and the source of a well-lived life. It follows then that the study and logic of money and
the management of personal finances is a critical knowledge base and valuable skill to
possess. The professional purpose of a FIA is to focus on human beings and money. The
mission of financial planning and advising is to work with families and individuals
through their intimate relationships with money. Thus, FIAs are involved in sensitive
and intimate relationships with their clients which they must learn to navigate in such a
way that keeps the client close and trusting (Yeske 2017).
Duska (2013) recounted the arrest of Bernie Madoff for operating a Ponzi
scheme, considered severely unethical behavior for a financial service professional, and
posed the question: what makes good people do bad things? In addition to citing
weakness of will and ignorance, Duska offered arrogance as a possible culprit. FIAs are
well-trained, certified asset managers who hold an inordinate amount of responsibility for
managing their clients’ money. FIAs are expected to work autonomously; the word
autonomy directly translates into “self-ruling” (Duska, 2013; p. 23). The mindset that
seems to develop for many FIAs based on their specialized knowledge base is that they
“know better than others” (p. 23). FIAs who arrogantly operate under their own self-
governed rules see themselves as “above the law”, and if they elect to blur lines and act
unethically, this can mean detrimental consequences for them and their clients.
38
According to Duska, the antidote to arrogance is knowing and accepting one’s limits; also
called humility.
In a unique study of FIAs, researchers professionally engaged 22 financial
advisors, over a four-year period, who provided their advice on investment portfolios
worth between $100,000 and $500,000. The researchers were interested in measuring the
effect of the FIA’s “moral and emotional competencies on their clients’ portfolio
performances”, for example which advisors brought about the greatest return on
investments for their clients? (Petersen, Emmerling, & Spencer, 2007, p. 2). A meta-
analysis of competency research has revealed 24 core competencies that represent the
characteristics most related to performance. In their study, these researchers identified
one cognitive competency and 11 behavioral competencies which were: integrity (i.e.
delivering on commitments), client service orientation (i.e. striving to meet clients’
needs), concern for quality and order, teamwork & collaboration, self-confidence,
achievement orientation, strategic thinking, develops & teaches others, takes initiative to
resolve problems, interpersonal understanding, impact and influence, and relationship
building (Petersen et al., 2007, p. 2).
Behavioral event interviewing was incorporated into a research model designed to
use competencies to differentiate between high performing and low performing advisors;
identifying who provided the highest returns for their clients (Petersen et al., 2007, p. 2).
The competencies of integrity, client service orientation, concern for order/quality,
teamwork, self- confidence, and achievement orientation “accounted for 70% of the
variance in client portfolio performance” (Petersen et al., 2007, p. 6). These statistically
39
significant results suggest that moral and emotional competencies support the action of
helping clients to make good decisions toward increasing returns on their investments,
and grow the total assets under management for high performing FIAs. In support of
these findings specific to achievement orientation, Garmhausen (2015) suggested that the
highest performing FIAs are client-centred, optimistic, innovative and creative in the way
in which they bring about results for their clients. Unlike the arrogant approach which
dictates ‘stay the course and do what has always been done to bring about results’
whether positive outcomes are achieved or not, the approach of the successful advisor is
take the risk and try something new (Ma & Karri, 2005).
The study of arrogance in professional settings is important due to the potential
and consequential individual, team, client, and organizational impact (Johnson et al.,
2010; Padua et al., 2010; Sheth & Sisodia, 2005; Silverman et al., 2012). The
compromising and destructive behaviors of leaders and others in organizations are often
highlighted in the wake of corporate scandals. Pater (2014) provided a real-world view
of what arrogance looks like in his work environment of professional safety. “All
problems stem from others not doing what they’re told/what they should”, “I see all and
know all”, “I’m okay, others have to change” (p. 30). Pater counsels these individuals to
listen, look at their contribution to the problem, take personal responsibility, be
accountable, and learn from mistakes instead of dismissing others through disparaging
remarks. Interventions designed to foster empathy, develop effective communication
skills, and support a framework of curiosity and learning versus presenting as all-
knowing, could contribute to promoting respectful interactions and a more collaborative,
40
cooperative, and productive workplace (Haan et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2010;
Silverman et al., 2012).
Arrogance Studies
Empirical evidence in the organization and leadership literature on arrogance in
the workplace, and its impact on organizational outcomes, is sparse (Johnson et al, 2010;
Sheth & Sisodia, 2005; Silverman et al., 2012). Early arrogance research relied on the
perceptions and reports of study participants of individuals within social studies
environments. Much of what has been written about arrogance involves perceptions, and
projected patterns and dynamics (Haan et al., 2007; Padua et al., 2010). Hareli and
Weiner (2000), and Hareli, Weiner, and Yee (2006) have contributed to the arrogance
literature through their findings that people are perceived as arrogant who attribute their
success to internal, stable and uncontrollable characteristics or qualities such as
intelligence. Hareli and Weiner (2000) further found that an individual was only
perceived as arrogant if the trait to which they attributed their success was desirable, and
that the perception of arrogance was not related to the person’s true success.
Higher education and positions in academia carry with them a perception of arrogance.
Individuals are usually highly intellectual and are often perceived as elevating themselves
to positions of superiority while relegating others to a position of lower intelligence and
less authority (Haan et. al., 2007). In an effort to gain an understanding of how the
presence of arrogance is perceived in academics, business, and non-business
(professional) environments, Haan et al. (2007) conducted a study involving the
perceptions of 500 business students. The study involved the participants rating the
41
reference groups on perceived arrogance (Haan et al., 2007). Professors were perceived
as arrogant, however non-educators and graduate business students were perceived as
more arrogant (Haan et al., 2007).
The majority of systematic research on arrogance has been carried out by a small
group of researchers associated with Johnson et al. (2010) and Silverman et al. (2012).
Bauer et al. (2008) found that needs such as autonomy, achievement, and dominance
were positively related to arrogance, while affiliation showed a negative association.
Additional findings included that arrogance was negatively associated with self-esteem
and learning goal orientation, positively related to self-identity, and a lack of desire to
relate with and spend time with others at work. Finally, Bauer et al. (2008) found that
overall cognitive ability, including numerical and verbal ability, were negatively
correlated with arrogance.
The limited organization research conducted on the topic of arrogance and its
impact in the workplace has been made possible because of the development of the
WARS (Johnson et al. (2010); Silverman et al., 2012). Workplace arrogance has been
explored across four pivotal studies. In Johnson et al.’s (2010) foundational study, the
researchers set out to develop and validate a tool for measuring arrogance in the
workplace. They employed focus groups of full time employees and asked participants to
bring to mind someone who they perceived as behaving arrogantly. The critical incident
behaviors were reported and distilled down to 50 test items. An example of a response
received is “belittles someone else’s competence in front of others” (p. 407). Through
participants’ responses, the researchers confirmed their working definition of arrogance
42
as self-enhancement of one’s importance over others while also belittling others. The
researchers hypothesized that there would be a negative correlation between arrogance
and Agreeableness and humility, and that arrogance would be positively related to anger,
authority, entitlement, dominance, and superiority. The process of evaluation of the tool
involved data collection via self-report from 239 students enrolled in a psychology course
in a large Midwestern U.S. university. Results demonstrated a positive correlation
between arrogance and constructs such as entitlement and dominance, and a negative
correlation with Agreeableness and humility. The WARS was confirmed to not be
redundant with the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI). One of the study limitations
cited was that the behaviors described in the tool, for which participants self-assessed,
could have been interpreted as undesirable and in breach of workplace norms.
Researchers conducted three subsequent studies to explore: the degree to which
social desirability may have impacted the results of the first study, and the relationship
between arrogance and job performance (Johnson et al., 2010). Arrogance scores secured
with the WARS have been positively correlated with constructs such as dominance,
entitlement, trait anger, social dominance and psychological strain, and negatively
correlated with Agreeableness, and humility (Johnson et al., 2010). Study findings have
also established arrogance as a sub-element of narcissism given the overlap in entitlement
and superiority dimensions, and a different construct from narcissism in that self-
sufficiency and authority were established to not be related to arrogance. Johnson et al.
clearly distinguished arrogance and narcissism as related, yet separate and different,
constructs. Arrogance has been associated with low self-rated self-esteem scores, and job
43
performance assessed through performance ratings (Johnson et al., 2010). Researchers
have established that arrogance scores secured from the WARS were not related to social
desirability (Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012). Further, arrogance was
negatively associated with self-reported OCB suggesting a relationship between
arrogance and job performance, while controlling for cognitive ability and narcissism. In
research to date, arrogance has shown to be negatively correlated with interpersonal
workplace behavior (Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012).
In an exploratory study, Johnson et al. (2010) collected data on arrogance related
to task performance from participant employees, supervisors, peers, and direct reports.
Included in this data collection was the WARS which had included as part of a 360
degree performance feedback survey. Additionally, the researchers collected cognitive
ability scores to answer the exploratory question of whether or not the presence of
arrogance in arrogant individuals was based on true superior performance or if their
arrogant behavior was grounded in average or inferior performance. Results of this study
showed statistically significant negative relationships between arrogance and cognitive
ability, and arrogance and task performance. Self - direct report ratings were in
agreement and supervisor – peer ratings were in agreement. The authors suggested that
arrogant employees may behave differently toward those lower than them in the
organizational hierarchy versus those who are considered on their level or above.
Perhaps consequences of arrogant behavior toward those beneath them in the
organizational chain are fewer and less severe (Johnson et al., 2010). In summary, these
findings suggest, arrogance is negatively related to verbal ability, numerical ability, and
44
overall total cognitive ability. According to Johnson et al. (2010), “employees who were
rated high on arrogance tended to receive low performance ratings, regardless of rater
source”, and “arrogance predicts task performance independent of cognitive ability” (p.
418).
Similar to narcissism, arrogance does seem to have an impact on performance at
work (Johnson et al., 2010; Judge et al., 2006; Silverman et al., 2012). Although research
has shown that arrogance, in general, is not related to reality-based success factors
(Hareli & Weiner, 2000; Hareli et al., 2006), and arrogant behavior unique to the
workplace is related to low cognitive ability and low scores in task performance, no
literature exists in which the arrogance-performance relationship has been examined
using objective performance outcome indices (Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al.,
2012; S. Silverman, personal communication, October 12, 2014). In the previous studies
cited, performance-related ratings, OCB and task performance, were subjective in nature.
Johnson et al. defended their findings based on subjective ratings, informing that it is
these types of subjective ratings that are most often used in hiring, and promotion
decisions within organizations.
Research to date using the WARS as an objective measure of arrogance have used
university students studying psychology or business as their primary sample populations.
Although work experience was a set criterion for inclusion in workplace arrogance
studies, across all studies only 47% of participants were employed full time, the average
age of participants was 29.5 years old, 60% were female, the average work tenure was 20
months and the primary industries represented were property management, retail and
45
manufacturing. On average across the hallmark arrogance studies utilizing the WARS,
only 22% of participants were in roles/jobs that were designated as “professional”. In
summary, additional limitations within existing research are that males have been
underrepresented, and how arrogance relates to performance for populations of full-time
employed professionals, over 30 years of age, who have worked for greater than 2 years
in their roles has not yet been explored.
Impact of Arrogance on Individuals
Leslie and Van Velsor (1996) of the Center for Creative Leadership found that a
key factor in the failure of executives was him/her acting in an arrogant manner.
Arrogance is seen as socially undesirable, therefore, arrogant individuals are liked less
than modest individuals (Schlenker & Leary, 1982; Wosinska, Dabul, Whetstone-Dion,
& Cialdini, 1996). According to Leary et al., (1995), the superior position that arrogant
individuals take in relation to others may lead the non-arrogant person to feel dismissed
and devalued. Kowalski et al. (2003) reported from their study of “aversive interpersonal
behaviors” (p. 487) and the differences in perceptions of perpetrators and victims, that
victims felt put down, belittled, hurt and undesired. Kowalski et al. also established that
victims of arrogant behaviors felt that the arrogant individual was lying in their efforts to
misrepresent him/herself. Others most often assess arrogant individuals as being more
deserving of failure (Johnson et al., 2010).
Attempts to engage in interpersonal relationships and social exchanges with an
arrogant individual are most often cited as uncomfortable because most people are
uncertain about how to effectively interact with and respond to an arrogant individual.
46
(Leary et al., 1997; Paulhus, 1998). Victims of arrogance perceive the arrogant behavior
more negatively than the arrogant offender (Kowalski et al., 2003). According to
Hoorens, Pandelaere, Oldersma, and Sedikids (2012), “people loathe individuals who
look down on others” (p. 1239). Self-superiority claims are experienced as offensive
because they inherently go against societal norms through the persistent comparative
narrative of self to others (Hoorens et al., 2012). These interactions can become quite
complicated when the dynamic involves colleagues, or a manager-subordinate
relationship where individuals have contact on a very regular basis (Johnson et al., 2010).
Individuals who behave arrogantly in the workplace tend to have poor performance
ratings and are reported to contribute to stressful, uncomfortable working conditions
(Johnson et al., 2010).
The research is clear that arrogant employees have poorer job performance and
lower cognitive ability than their less arrogant counterparts (Johnson et al., 2010).
These results are the opposite of how these individuals act in the presence of others. Their
behavior is at conflict with reality and occurs at “the expense of others” (Johnson et al., p.
421). Arrogant behaviors are believed to be a mask to hide incompetence and
undesirable evaluation of the self (Johnson et al., 2010). When the self-worth of arrogant
individuals was measured via self-assessment, a negative relationship between arrogance
and self-esteem was reported (Johnson et al., 2010). This finding suggests that arrogant
individuals may engage in behaviors such as disrespecting colleagues, rejecting their
ideas, discounting their feedback and claiming to be more knowledgeable as unconscious
protection from their personal deficits (Johnson et al., 2010).
47
Potential Impact of Arrogance on Organizations
Blustein (2001) and Flum (2001) both wrote about the critical nature of the
interfacing between interpersonal relationships and work. According to Flum, work
defines the self and taken literally is an egocentric endeavor. Current work
environments, however, require teamwork, and relatedness while being impacted by the
organizational culture, social culture, and the individual personality traits brought to work
by every individual employee (Flum, 2001). Employees who are able to foster mutually
beneficial, intra-organizational relationships hold a distinct advantage over their less
relationship-driven counterparts (Bauer et al., 2008). Wu and LeBreton (2011)
highlighted the need for increased study of adverse behaviors and aberrant personality
characteristics in deepening our understanding of negative, counterproductive workplace
behaviors.
Research regarding what makes leaders successful and what contributes to
leadership failure, has been growing over the past two decades. Positive personality traits
can lead to success, while personal characteristics such as volatility and arrogance can
lead to uncompromising failure (Bentz, 1985; Gladdis & Foster, 2015; Hogan, Hogan, &
Kaiser, 2011; Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009). Bentz (1967, 1985) a pioneer in the
study of leadership failure, discovered that leader and manager derailment – demotion,
lack of promotion, and/or firing – was 100 percent due to “an overriding personality
defect” (Kaiser, LeBreton, & Hogan, 2015, p. 56). Leadership success is determined by a
combination of positive dimensions and behaviors (i.e. effective communication skills,
emotional stability, and conscientiousness) and an absence of derailing negative
48
behaviors such as moodiness, insensitivity, abrasiveness, and arrogance (Bentz, 1985;
Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; Horner, 1997).
Hogan, Hogan, and Kaiser (2011), in their review of management derailment,
cited dysfunctional behaviors stemming from personality defects as the core issue of
leadership failure. The authors estimated the average rate of managerial failure to be
approximately 50 percent. Two key features of leadership derailment which are
associated with arrogance are, biased self-perceptions (the stable personality feature of
seeing oneself differently from the perspective of others) and self-enhancement
tendencies (overly optimistic self-views) (Cullen et al., 2015). Arrogant leaders have the
propensity to be “overly optimistic” regarding the likelihood of success underestimating
potential competition, roadblocks or barriers to success (Johnson et al., 2010). This
dynamic involves the arrogant mind overestimating one’s own individual power and
instead practicing complacency, thus setting the stage for competitors to grow until they
become too influential to contain (Ma & Kerri, 2005). The organizational impact of
untoward behaviors of these leaders is reflected in the increased stress experienced by
employees, and lower levels of engagement and productivity (Gentry, 2010; Hogan et al.,
2011). The fiscal impact is enormous given these leaders should be dismissed from the
organization and replaced in the company’s efforts to create a healthy, engaging,
productive work environment (Gentry, 2010; Hogan et al., 2011).
Successful leaders often develop an arrogant, invincible mindset that can,
unfortunately, lead to complacency, closed-mindedness and “blind spots” to the actual
nature of competitive threats (Ma & Karri, 2005). This arrogant approach to business, of
49
holding onto what has always worked, renders a company vulnerable. What is usually
required is a shift in strategy to remain competitive. According to Sheth and Sisodia
(2005), success does not always breed success. In fact, success can breed failure when
arrogance is a mediating force in the equation. Many companies enjoy early success,
become blind to their vulnerabilities, settle into complacency and ultimately crash course
into failure (Sheth & Sisodia, 2005). Ma and Karri cited IBM as an example of a
company that believed its dominance would remain, and that their mainframe computer
strategy was superior to the strategy of its competitors. IBM’s blind arrogance led to an
erosion of its competitive advantage with the infusion of personal computers into the
marketplace (Ma & Karri, 2005).
Kaiser and Hogan (2006) cited a “rule-of-thumb” for darker personality traits at
work whereby associated behaviors are more likely to be seen from individuals having
the most autonomy and highest levels of discretion in the company. Research on
arrogant and narcissistic leaders indicates that holding inflated, overconfident self-views
is associated with abusive leadership behavior (Johnson et al., 2010; Johnson et al, 2012;
Penney & Spector, 2002). Arrogant behavior in organizations could potentially impact
internal relationships within the work team, customer loyalty, and client satisfaction
ultimately affecting the company’s bottom line (Silverman et al., 2012). According to
Elrod (2013), leaders must learn to walk the fine line between confidence and arrogance,
and listening, empathy trust and humility are practical moderators to help leaders
navigate this fine line.
50
Arrogant employees elevate their own agenda, comforts and welfare over those of
others and the organization as a whole (Johnson et al., 2010). They perceive helping
others as a “waste” of time and are not interested in the problems and concerns of others.
So, what are the potential influence of workplace arrogance on outcomes? Johnson et al.
claimed that in addition to “negative socioemotional consequences” (p. 422) for those
behaving arrogantly, there are potential costs to the organization such as fractured leader-
member relationships, dampened team morale, poor project management, and loss of
clients/customers should loyalty and satisfaction be impacted by employee arrogance.
Potential Positive Impact of Arrogance
Arrogance has been associated in the literature with undesirable individual and
organizational outcomes; poor cognitive abilities, low job performance, failure of
leadership, and the potential for decreased productivity (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al.,
2010). Bauer et al. (2008) suggested that arrogance may prove beneficial in competitive
situations where an arrogant individual’s behaviors and overall presence may be
experienced as authoritative and intimidating. The authors contend that in competitive
circumstances, arrogance may breed influence and a sense of expertise whereby the
arrogant individual is seen as more qualified than others. A widespread example of this
phenomenon is political campaign television ads (Bauer et al., 2008). In these paid
advertisements, one candidate flogs the reputation of the other while waving a flag of
his/her accomplishments. According to Bauer et al., these political tactics have proven to
be very useful in positioning one candidate ahead of the other in the polls. These authors
also cited an additional consideration regarding the benefit of arrogance. They have
51
suggested that arrogant leaders, for example in the military, or where time or crisis
management is paramount, may in fact be effective leaders because they allow for very
little dissent from their subordinates, promote very little process creep, and command
compliance due to their superiority.
In an interesting study undertaken by Wang et al. (2013), the researchers asked
the question “does service employee arrogance discourage sales of luxury brands in
emerging markets?” (p. 918). Prior research had suggested that to build relationships and
make sales, service employees needed to be congenial and hospitable to potential
consumers (Lovelock & Wirtz, 2007; Wang et al., 2013). Wang et al. conducted research
in the emerging economy of China and found that consumers treated arrogantly by
salespeople tended to lower their expectations of the sales experience. These lowered
expectations were then more easily met in subsequent selling encounters. Furthermore,
arrogance was associated with explicit negative attitudes, while the existence of implicit
positive attitudes was strongly associated with an influence on the purchase of luxury
brands (Wang et al., 2013). An interesting finding – which may be specific to luxury
brands – was that when a service employee followed up an arrogant sales encounter with
a genuine, hospitably positive encounter, it was as though the arrogance was erased and
the likelihood of purchase behavior increased (Wang et al., 2013).
Theoretical Framework
The current study draws on the propositions of the Arrogance-Competence
Theory proposed by Padua et al. (2010). This theory suggests that arrogance in
organizations is driven by the need to be seen as superior and can lead to a downfall of
52
individuals and organizations similar to the dissolution of civilizations throughout
history. Based on Golson’s (2007) two-dimensional Arrogance-Competence Grid,
plotting intelligence on one axis and arrogance on the other, these researchers used a
deductive, “axiomatic approach to theory development” to derive an Arrogance-
Competence Theory to be applied to organizations and their employees (p. 76). Padua et
al.’s theory outlines the relationships between three variables: arrogance, competence,
and productivity. The theory asserts that a dyadic relationship exists between arrogance
and competence, whereby arrogant individuals tend to be less competent than their less
arrogant, more humble counterparts (Padua et al., 2010). Furthermore, according to this
theory, productivity is negatively correlated with arrogance and positively correlated with
competence (Padua et al., 2010).
Golson acknowledged that some arrogance in business combined with guts, will
and intellect make for a winning combination in business. Golson contended that being
competent is desirable, while being arrogant is not such a good thing and is perceived as
a negative trait. Golson’s very simplistic competence-arrogance grid highlights four
potential behavioral outcomes of competence-arrogance combinations:
1. Low competence matched with low arrogance: although likely an “easy to get
along with” type of individual, this type of person is unlikely to be promoted to a position
of power due to his/her lack of complex problem-solving abilities. This type of
individual also will not possess the confidence and air of arrogance that would help them
to fake it or bluff his/her way up the ladder.
53
2. High competence and low arrogance: Golson suggests that these individuals are
potentially insecure and come across as supportive and facilitative vs. charismatic and
aggressive. These people are likely to contribute excellent solution-oriented suggestions
in an unassuming manner. When challenged, they may back down rather than defend
their project, proposal or initiative.
3. Low competence combined with high arrogance: The behaviors and choices of
these individuals can be dangerous to themselves, their direct reports, peers, and the
overall organizations for which they are employed. They have gone through life with
blinders on believing they are special; better than others. Due to their lack of being
grounded in reality, these employees often forge forward with their own superior
agendas, without asking for input or assistance, without insight into genuine business
challenges, and without regard for potential decision outcomes, consequences for and
impact on the business.
4. High competence and high arrogance: This combination of traits holds what
Golson refers to as “competing forces of great potential and great danger.” This brand of
arrogance is most often bred from early life and business success that resulted in the
person developing an inflated sense of self. This type of individual will be full of great
ideas, not be interested in a second opinion or input of any kind from others and is most
likely to denigrate others for their less than stellar ideas (in his/her opinion). This type of
leader or co-worker breeds a passive-aggressive response from direct reports and peers,
whereby this audience of the arrogant individual will allow the person to hit against
obstacles and inevitably fail even if they could have provided intervention, assistance,
54
and support. Over time, intelligence and a high degree of competence turns into a lack of
success in the setting into which the individual has evolved. Additionally, these
individuals are often responsible for destroying relationships and dampening company
morale.
Being smart often leads to a sense of competence where the individual then
develops the expectation of being right and being valued and praised by others.
According to Golson and Padua et al., this series of developments can lead to the rise of
an overinflated sense of self, looking down on others and their abilities that equate to an
attitude of arrogance. Studies have demonstrated that intelligence and competence are
closely linked; however, when attitude is brought into the equation, aversive behaviors
like those associated with arrogance can take root (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack,
Hawyer, & Story, 2010). In fact, research has demonstrated that traits such as arrogance
can cause highly intelligent individuals to show poor job competence manifesting in poor
productivity (O’Boyle et al., 2010; Padua et al., 2010).
Padua et al. used Golson’s grid of proposed competence-arrogance outcomes and
applied a deductive approach to theory development, followed by a “mathematical
modeling approach using chaotic dynamical systems” (pg. 79). Padua et al. generated
five base axioms and five propositions as part of the process of developing and testing
their theory. The axioms are: “people build their axioms from different foundations” (p.
79), “all people have the potential for arrogant tendencies but it is normally not their chief
feature” (p. 80), arrogance is a compensatory mechanism to keep one’s self-esteem
artificially inflated or intact (p. 80), “organizations, in general, benefit from a mix of
55
proper levels of arrogance and high levels of competence” (p. 82), and “job competence
is directly related to a person’s cognitive intelligence keeping the emotional quotient
constant” (p. 82). The propositions are stated as: “there will be arrogant personalities in
the academe” (p. 83), “those with arrogant personalities in the academe mainly build their
arrogance from their own perceived intellectual superiority and work related experiences”
(p. 83), “those identified as arrogant in the academe are most likely to have negative
experiences with respect to their esteemed intelligence in the past or have been
excessively exposed to positive reinforcements on their perceived intellectual superiority
in the past (p. 83), “every person in the academe has an (arrogance, competence) mix”
(p. 84), and “highly intelligent people with high arrogance score are more likely
underachieving in the workplace” (p. 85). Based on their studies of arrogance associated
with intellect and performance outcomes, Johnson et al. (2010) reported that although
arrogant individuals act superior, they are typically inferior to their less arrogant
counterparts in intelligence and performance.
Summary and Transition
Past research on arrogance has suggested that it is a construct defined by an
approach orientation by those with low self-esteem and fragile egos, who hold enhanced
self-perceptions of superiority above others while actually being inferior performers
(Bauer et al., 2008; Hareli and Weiner, 2000; Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al.,
2012). The challenge of arrogance for individuals who are the perpetrators, is the impact
on relationships where they are perceived as rude, cold, unapproachable and hostile
(Hareli & Weiner, 2000; Wang et al., 2013). The impact within organizations is that
56
arrogant behavior thwarts new learning and prevents progress by holding performance
closer to the status quo whereby success is believed to be derived from what has already
brought about success vs. new ideas from others and innovative directions (Bauer et al.,
2008; Ma & Karri, 2005). Interestingly, Wang et al. (2013) found that arrogance may not
be a barrier in the process of selling luxury items because the implicit positive attitudes
toward the brands may serve to override the negative associations to arrogance.
In this chapter, research specific to subjective (observation) and objective
(measurement tool) assessments of arrogance were reviewed. To date, few studies have
used the objective measure of arrogance called the WARS in empirical study. In this
dissertation study, the WARS was used to assess the degree of relationship to a
professional objective index (the FIA’s total assets under management plus revenue
generated from client investments) to examine the relationship between professional
arrogance and job performance. The study also included research questions designed to
look at the relationship between arrogance and the FIA’s total assets under management
plus revenue generated from client investments matrixed as an objective index, and
whether or not gender and years of experience moderate the arrogance-job performance
relationship. The research design for the current study was determined by identifying a
gap in the literature based on the literature review discussed in Chapter 2.
In Chapter 3, the study methodology, research design, and any threats to validity
are discussed. The purpose of and research questions inherent in this current study are
revisited. The WARS is explored as the objective tool used as a measure of professional
arrogance. The DV and IVs are stated along with the rationale for employing a
57
quantitative research design involving linear regression, moderation analyses and
ancillary analyses utilizing ANOVA. Ethical considerations and potential threats to
validity of the study are also discussed.
58
Chapter 3: Research Method
Overview
The purpose of this current study is to examine the relationship between
professional arrogance and job performance in a professional services firm using the
WARS as a tool of objective measure. This chapter identifies the design method and
justify the selection of the approach. In addition, the research population and sampling
procedures are explained. A power analysis was conducted to identify the minimum
sample size requirement. A data analysis plan is presented to explain how the research
questions were statistically analyzed. The chapter concludes with threats to validity and
ethical considerations.
Specifically, professional arrogance was examined in relation to the output
measures of the FIA’s total assets under management and revenue generated from
investments as per the financial services organization’s leader board. As mentioned in
previous chapters arrogance, as measured by the WARS, has been found in
organizational psychology literature to be negatively correlated with scores on a measure
of self-esteem, cognitive ability, task performance, and organizational citizenship
behavior (Johnson et al., 2010). Arrogance moves beyond confidence, crosses the line
into self-indulgence and is displayed in behaviors of the arrogant individual believing and
acting as though he is always right (Johnson et al., 2010). This approach to client
interactions can be devastating, even destroying them (Helmi, 1998).
A quantitative research approach was appropriate for the purpose of this study in
order to allow for the analysis of numerical survey data, and categorical dummy coded
59
data. The DV was the participant’s leader board ranking based on total assets under
management and revenue (see Appendix B). The IVs were the participant’s degree of
arrogance as established by the WARS, gender, and tenure (total number of years in the
industry).
Dependent Variable
In the performance ranking of top wealth management firms and FIAs in the
United States, Barron’s and Forbes use the criteria of total assets under management as
the key indicator of performance (Garmhausen, 2014; Schaefer, 2015). On the level of
the FIA, the total sum of assets managed for clients yields a figure that serves as a key
metric of advisor performance (Garmhausen, 2015; PriceMetrix Insights, 2013; Schaefer,
2015). The term used to describe the total sum of assets managed by a financial services
professional is called total assets under management. Contributing factors to a FIAs total
assets under management are the number of clients secured and retained, and the making
of good investment decisions with client assets (Garmhausen, 2015; PriceMetrix Insights,
2013; Schaefer, 2015). In summary, top performing FIAs have high dollar value total
assets under management because they are able to establish trusted client relationships,
deliver stellar investment performance, suspend their own agendas and biases and work
to keep their clients satisfied (Garmhausen, 2015). For the purposes of this study, the
additional metric of revenue generated through fees paid by banks and credit unions for
investments made was added to the objective measure ranking as per the company’s FIA
ranking scoreboard.
60
Based on arrogance research findings, it was hypothesized that participants with
high arrogance scores would be the poorest performing (the lowest average asset figure
derived from total assets under management plus revenue generated per Advisor).
Johnson et al. (2010) validated the WARS across four studies as a reliable measure of
professional arrogance. It has been established that arrogant employees have lower
cognitive abilities and poorer task performance than their less arrogant counterparts. The
purpose of this study was to examine the arrogance-performance relationship by
measuring the presence of arrogance in financial services professionals and an external,
objective measure of their job performance. Variables such as gender and tenure were
examined, along with the total assets under management plus revenue generated from
investments as an objective performance measure, and WARS scores, via linear
regressions within a correlational study design.
Research Design and Rationale
I employed a quantitative, correlational design with a survey approach for this
study. Quantitative, correlational research is appropriate when assessing the strength of
association between numerically measurable constructs (Howell, 2013). Correlational
research is an umbrella term that encompasses the application of both correlational and
regression analyses (Howell, 2013). Due to cost effectiveness and efficiency, online
surveys are widely considered an advantage over most alternative surveying methods
(Creswell, 2014). Online surveys are frequently used in academic research and provide
greater reliability than paper-based survey instruments (Tuten, 2010).
61
Basic demographic data and data required to test the research questions and
explore potential moderating variables were collected. Historic arrogance studies relied
on subjective observation and perceptions of the presence of arrogance in individuals and
interactions (Haan et al., 2007; Hareli et al., 2000; Hareli et al., 2006). Johnson et al.
(2010) introduced the first objective measure of arrogance, the WARS, via four
independent validation studies. This study used the WARS, a validated and reliable tool
(Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012), to yield a mean arrogance score for each
participant. High arrogance scores secured from the WARS have been positively
correlated with entitlement and dominance, and negatively correlated with task
performance, cognitive ability scores, and OCB (Johnson et al., 2010). While previous
studies have employed subjective ratings for task/job performance, this study relied on an
objective index of performance, derived from total assets under management plus
revenue generated through investments recorded as FIA rankings (see Appendix B).
Additional categorical data (gender) and data specific to the continuous variables of
professional financial advisor certifications (for example, portfolio and bank manager
designations), and tenure based on years of experience in the industry were also obtained
from participants via demographic questions included in the survey.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The following research questions and associated hypotheses were proposed to
address the identified gap in the literature:
RQ1: What is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of his/her performance?
62
H
0
1: There is no significant relationship between a FIA’s professional arrogance as
assessed by the WARS and the objective index of his/her performance.
H
a
1:
There is a significant relationship between a FIA’s professional arrogance as
assessed by the WARS and the objective index of his/her performance.
RQ2: How is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and their
objective index of performance moderated by their years of professional experience?
H
0
2:
The relationship between a FIA’s professional arrogance assessed by
the WARS and the objective index of their performance is not moderated by
their years of professional experience.
H
a
2: The relationship between a FIA’s professional arrogance assessed by
the WARS and the objective index of their performance is moderated by their
years of professional experience.
RQ3: How is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of the FIA’s performance moderated by gender?
H
0
3:
The relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of the FIA’s performance is not moderated by gender.
H
a
3: The relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of the FIA’s performance is moderated by gender.
Participants and Sample
FIAs are charged with helping clients to make sound, beneficial financial
decisions. Financial investing can be an emotional, overwhelming experience for clients
making trust and confidence in the chosen FIA critical to building long term loyal
63
relationships (Hamowy & Conigliaro, 2016). Most financial services professionals strive
to meet or exceed the requests and expectations of their clients; however, the financial
advisement industry has received negative publicity in recent years, and it has been
suggested that the industry needs to re-build consumer trust (Constantinidis, 2015).
FIAs, also referred to in some countries as Certified Financial Planners, need to be able to
instill confidence in clients and potential clients, and in the industry, in order to grow the
financial stakes in their companies and within their individual total of assets under
management (Constantinidis, 2015). FIAs can grow in their careers by increasing their
revenue or by becoming an owner and sharing in the firm’s profits. FIAs have the means
to do so by applying technical and people skills to help their clients protect and maximize
their financial resources (Weydert, 2011). Brueckner (2011) suggested that financial
service agents either approach their role from the perspective of being in a business or
being part of a profession. The field of financial investment advising holds minimum
standards, while demanding high levels of education and professionalism. FIAs require
postgraduate education and special securities credentials and certifications
(Constantinidis, 2015). They require knowledge, skills, and abilities to enable the
development and nurture of customer relationships, and to be able to make ethical
investment decisions. FIAs play the very important role of providing their clients with
peace of mind, financial security and the prospect of achieving their life goals and
aspirations (Constantinidis, 2015).
The FIA’s role and responsibility is to “manage not just wealth and not just the
investments, but really the life and well-being of their clients” (Weydert, 2011, p. 142).
64
Brueckner (2013) and Petersen et al. (2007) contended that people want to be educated
regarding their financial affairs and receive expert advice specific to strategic solutions to
best optimize investment choices. Advisors who prioritize their clients’ financial well-
being engage in a level of service delivery for which there “is no substitute.” (Weydert,
2011, p. 142).
According to Paikert (2014), “net new assets, net new clients, and revenue are the
primary goals” of the FIA (p. 50). Relationships with a FIA can be experienced and
judged in different ways. From the stockbroker who recommends individual stocks, to
the overall wealth manager who oversees all aspects of a client’s finances, to the advisor
who invests a client’s financial portfolio, Landis (2009) suggested that intangibles are
very important as “Non-financial incentives, such as client satisfaction and attrition” (p.
50), have also become critical considerations and feed into the overall success of growing
and maintaining total assets under management for the FIA. A client must consider
aspects such as how they are treated by the advisor, whether the advisor is trustworthy, if
the advisor appears to show genuine interest in their clients, and whether the advisor
suspends his/her agenda of self-gain in order to meet the best interests of the client. In
summary, FIAs are either salaried or receive commission-based payment and are incented
to grow and maintain their total assets under management as a core source of their
income and building and maintaining a strong client base is the key to performance.
Participants in this current study were FIAs from a North American financial
services firm, with greater than 2 years’ experience in the profession. The wealth
management partner is known for its client-centred approach and entrepreneurial spirit.
65
The firm aims to build lifetime relationships and deliver superior service. They are a
growing firm, with more than $4 billion in assets under administration and management.
The organization describes its FIAs as experienced and dedicated. The job description
and requirements, as reflected on a 2018 LinkedIn job posting, are as follows:
Core Duties & Responsibilities:
• Build and develop a client base while managing and growing their portfolios,
selecting the most appropriate investment solutions to meet their financial plans and
goals
• Build trusted and diverse relationships with business owners, individuals,
families, professional associations and foundations, based on personalized client
services and advice
• Establish and maintain reciprocal relationships across all company teams and
stakeholders
Required Experience, Education, Skills and Behaviours:
• Outstanding relationship-building and interpersonal skills
• Exceptional verbal, non-verbal and written communication skills
• Polished presentation and consultative skills – must be able to gain credibility and
respect across a diverse spectrum of professional services clients
• Ethical, trustworthy and fully committed to supporting business objectives while
ensuring all regulatory and compliance controls are maintained at all times
• Team-player – oriented and invested in continuing to cultivate a unique identity,
brand and company culture
66
• Comprehensive onboarding process and continuous education / development
programs
• Virtually unlimited investment solutions backed by top-ranked research
• Unlimited earning potential and a competitive benefits package
• Strong corporate structure with established Sales Administration, Marketing,
Technology, Compliance and Operations teams
A sample of convenience was secured of FIAs employed by the financial services
firm. The goal was to invite a minimum of 100 participants to participate in the study
with the plan of having at least 77 volunteers agree to participate, based on the effect size
analysis. Studies of arrogance to date using the WARS have largely been with
participants from the manufacturing and retail sectors with an average tenure of 2 years.
In this study, years of tenure was treated as a continuous variable with a fill-in-the-blank
response. Ideally, the study would have included a mix of both genders and a broad age
range to inform the examination of gender as a potential moderating variable.
Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection
A group of prospective FIAs was identified by use of a convenience sample.
Using this sampling approach, participants were selected due to their proximity and
accessibility to the researcher (see Creswell, 2013). Participants were invited to
participate via a contact person within their organization, and those who did participate
did so voluntarily. Electronic invitations containing a link to the WARS survey were sent
to the potential participants who qualified for participation in the study. Participants
provided consent to continue with the survey process. Each participant was provided a
67
unique user ID number that was entered into the survey prior to completion of the
assessment. One demographic question was included as a criterion point for the study to
ensure that participants had at least 2 years of experience in the profession. If
participants did not have the necessary experience specific to the FIA profession, they
were not included in the data collection process.
The power of moderation analyses has been shown to be low. Therefore, typical
sample sizes are over 200 to have reasonable statistical power (Aguinis, Beaty, Boik, &
Pierce, 2005). A power analysis was conducted in G*Power for a multiple linear
regression with three predictors (IV, moderator variable, and interaction term). The
sample size was estimated with a power of .80, which is typically used for multiple linear
regression in general (Cohen, 1988). Cohen (1992) suggested that a moderate effect size
should be applied when there is no indication of what results to expect. Applying a
moderate effect size (f
2
=.15) and an alpha level of .05, the required sample size to detect
significance was 77 participants (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2014).
Instrumentation
The study involved a few mechanisms to assess the IVs and DVs used in this
study. Included was a demographic questionnaire to capture the gender and tenure (total
number of years in the industry of each FIA participant), the WARS a validated
instrument that measures the construct of arrogance in the workplace, and the FIAs
ranking using a measure derived from total assets under management, which is
comprised of all assets managed by a FIA under his/her portfolio, and revenue. This
researcher uploaded the consent form, demographic questionnaire, and WARS instrument
68
into Survey Monkey. Permission to use the WARS tool was obtained from the survey
creator, Dr. Stanley B. Silverman (see Appendix A).
Demographic Questionnaire
Participants were asked to indicate their D.O.B., gender, investment advisor
certifications, if they are commission-based, years of tenure in the industry, identification
as Portfolio Manager licensed, and identification as a Branch Manager.
Workplace Arrogance Scale
The WARS was developed by Johnson et al. (2010), through four independent
validation studies, and is designed to measure arrogance through self and other ratings.
Arrogance scores are derived from the sum of survey responders’ answers to 26
questions, using a five-point Likert scale (Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012).
Participants in Study 1 were 239 US university students enrolled in a psychology course.
Study 2 involved full time and part time US university students taking psychology and
business courses; 421 attended school full time and attended university part time, and 335
full-time employees who attended classes on evenings or weekends (Johnson et al.,
2010). Study 3 included 82 employees in property management/real estate or
manufacturing industries who participated through self-report and other reporting by their
supervisors, direct reports and peers (Johnson et al., 2010). Finally, Study 4 participants
totaled 172 and were employed full time and enrolled in MBA courses on evenings and
weekends (Johnson et al., 2010). These researchers found that arrogance is related to
poor scores on a measure of self-esteem, low task performance results, low cognitive
ability scores, and low self-rated OCB (Johnson et al., 2010). Across the four studies
69
conducted by Johnson et al., the mean age of all participants was 29.5 years, participant
types ranged from full-time students with some work experience or working part-time, to
participants who were employed full-time, the average tenure of study participants was
22 months, on average approximately 20% of participants were categorized as
professionals, the remainder being employed in retail, and manufacturing and the
majority of participants (approximately 63%) were female (Johnson et al., 2010). The
final WARS scale had a Cronbach’s alpha value of .93, which is far greater than the
acceptable threshold for reliability.
A Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis will be conducted on the WARS
measurement for professional arrogance. Cronbach’s alpha measures the mean
correlation between each pair or survey items and the number of corresponding items in
the scale (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2012). The alpha values will be interpreted through
use of the guidelines as suggested by George and Mallery (2016), where α > .9 Excellent,
α > .8 Good, α > .7 Acceptable, α > .6 Questionable, α > .5 Poor, and α < .5
Unacceptable.
In the exploratory and validation studies conducted, the majority of participants
were students and from the subset of participants who were employed, over 60% were in
retail jobs and roughly 20% held jobs that were considered professional. My study will
focus exclusively on professional workplace arrogance with the intended participants
being FIAs. The WARS has been tested in a variety of populations including retail
positions, professional positions, supervisors, and students. A factor analysis was
conducted to examine construct validity of the WARS, which resulted in one overall
70
factor for arrogance. In addition, the discriminant validity of the WARS scale was
assessed by correlating arrogance with constructs assumed to be weakly related to
arrogance such as narcissism, dominance, anger, humility, and agreeableness.
Total assets under management
The sum total of “assets under management” yields a number based on the
number of clients (new and existing) in the FIA’s portfolio, and the associated dollars
that they have entrusted the FIA to invest (Garmhausen, 2015; PriceMetrix Insights,
2013). total assets under management is considered a key objective indicator of FIA
performance (Garmhausen, 2015). The size of a FIA’s total assets under management
determines the amount of compensation he/she will receive. To illustrate the importance
of client retention to FIA success, Garmhausen (2015) cited the client retention results of
the Top 100 FIAs in the US; 98% retention in 2014 and 99% in 2015. The reasons for
paying attention to client retention are clear: it is more difficult for a FIA to grow his/her
business if clients continually leave and the FIA has to work to replace lost clients, and
high client retention is associated with high asset growth which leads to a bigger overall
total assets under management (PriceMetrix Insights, 2013).
Data Analysis
The data extracted from Survey Monkey was compiled into SPSS version 22.0 for
Windows (IBM, 2012). Frequencies and percentage distributions were examined for
nominal variables of interest. Means and standard deviations were calculated for the
continuous variables. Bar charts were used for visual interpretation of descriptive data
trends.
71
Data was reduced for partial and outlying responses. SPSS automatically uses
listwise deletion as the procedure for removing cases with missing data. Outlying scores
will potentially be removed by examination of standardized values (Z-scores).
Participants will be removed for standardized scores falling + 3.29 standard deviations
away from the mean (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012).
RQ1: What is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of his/her performance?
Simple Linear Regression. To address research question one, a simple linear
regression was conducted to examine the relationship between FIA professional
arrogance and the objective index of the total assets under management plus the revenue
generated from investments by the individual FIA. A simple linear regression is an
appropriate statistical analysis when assessing the predictive relationship between a
predictor variable and a continuous criterion variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). The
predictor variable, professional arrogance, was measured continuously. The criterion
variable, objective index of FIA’s performance, was also measured continuously. The
linear regression used the F test to evaluate the strength of the overall model. The
coefficient of determination, R
2
, was used to identify the amount of variance in objective
index of the FIA’s performance that can be explained by professional arrogance. A t-test
was conducted to examine the strength of the individual predictor variable.
Prior to analysis, the assumption of linearity and homoscedasticity was assessed
by examination of scatterplots. To examine the linearity assumption, the predictor and
criterion variable will be plotted on an X-Y axis. Homoscedasticity checks that the
72
variability in scores are equal for values of the dependent variable (Pallant, 2010). The
data will meet the assumption if there is not a recurring pattern in the residuals
scatterplot.
RQ2: How is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and their
objective index of performance moderated by their years of professional experience?
RQ3: How is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of the FIA’s performance moderated by gender?
Moderation Analyses. To address research questions two and three, two
moderation analyses were conducted. Moderating variables affect the direction or
strength of the association between a predictor and criterion variable (Baron & Kenny,
1986). For each moderation analysis, the predictor variable and criterion variables
correspond to professional arrogance and FIA performance, respectively. Both the
predictor and criterion variable were measured continuously. The moderating variables
correspond to years of professional experience and gender. Years of professional
experience was measured as a continuous variable and gender was captured as a
dichotomous response.
Prior to analysis, the assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, and absence of
multicollinearity were held. To examine the normality assumption, the ordered
observations from the sample were plotted against the percentage points from the
standard normal distribution. Homoscedasticity was assessed by examination of a
residuals scatterplot. Absence of multicollinearity checks that the predictor variables are
not too closely associated with one another. Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) were used
73
to assess the absence of multicollinearity assumption. VIF values below 10 suggest the
predictor and moderator variables are not highly correlated (Stevens, 2009).
Threats to Validity
External Validity
Threats to external validity could be associated with potential bias in relation to
myself as researcher with my own judgments and perspectives, the data collection
process, and/or the statistical findings and outcomes. Also selection bias, through the use
of a convenience sample, can reduce the researcher’s ability to generalize the findings to
the greater population of interest (Lohr, 2010). This researcher took great caution in
interpreting the results and did not assume that the findings could be fully extrapolated
and generalized across the population of interest or to the general population.
Internal Validity
It is true that “any research method chosen will have inherent flaws, and the
choice of that method will limit the conclusions that can be drawn” (Scandura &
Williams, 2000, p. 1249). Several limitations exist within the scope of quantitative
research. Quantitative research can statistically address research questions and
hypotheses with a degree of significance. However, such studies cannot examine the
underlying beliefs or perceptions of the research participants. The researcher will trade
the richness of data inherent within a qualitative study for a statistical understanding that
the findings did not occur by pure chance (Pagano, 2009). In addition, confounding
variables could strengthen or weaken the relationship between the variables of interest
(Howell, 2013). It was not possible for this researcher to control for the effect of all
74
covariates; therefore, this limitation was accepted in the interpretation of the statistical
findings in the following chapters.
Self-report remains a common tool used in the behavioral sciences and
organizational research literature (Harrison, et al., 1996). One of the key limitations of
Johnson et al.’s study #2 designed to establish validity for their arrogance measurement
tool the WARS, was that data were collected via self-report and results could have been
skewed based on single source bias. One of the chief concerns with self-report measures
is response bias, specifically social desirability, the intention to present oneself in a
favorable light, due to the potential for the relationships between variables to be
contaminated (Edwards, 1953). According to Cook and Campbell (1976), interrater
reliability aids in construct validity and one way to contribute to this feature is multiple
data sources. These concerns support the design of this study which incorporates data
from the WARS gathered from a variety of sources; the study subject, a manager or
supervisor and two peers. This study employed the capture of single source data vs
multi-source inputs for the simple reason that collecting multi-source data would prove
overly-complex for the purpose of this dissertation study.
Ethical Considerations
Researchers have an ethical responsibility to protect and inform the participants
involved in the data collection process (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012). While conducting
this research, this researcher followed the ethical and moral guidelines outlined by federal
regulations and the Institution Review Board (IRB). Prior to conducting the study, this
researcher first received permission from the IRB. The researcher also sought permission
75
from the creator of the WARS tool to utilize the survey for the purpose of the study. All
data and personal information during the analysis process remained unidentifiable and
was kept confidential. Participants’ names and personal information were removed to
ensure privacy and confidentiality. To provide additional safeguarding of organization
and participant data, this researcher signed a Non-disclosure Agreement provided by the
financial services firm.
In alignment with the IRB, this researcher has and will continue to securely hold
the data to protect confidentiality of the participants. The generally applied safeguard
measure for data storage of keeping the data in a locked file, in this case a password
protected electronic file, will be applied by this researcher. The data will be securely
held for a period of 5 years from study completion. After the five-year retention period,
the data will be permanently destroyed.
Summary
The purpose of this current study was to examine the relationship between
arrogance as measured by the WARS and job performance using the objective
measurement of a FIA’s total assets under management combined with revenue gained
from investments to derive a national ranking. This methodology chapter identified the
instrumentation and variables of interest for the research questions. The rationale for use
of a quantitative research design employing total assets under management plus the
revenue generated by the individual FIA as the DV and arrogance, gender and tenure as
the IVs were also discussed. The population of interest of FIAs was overviewed, specific
to their areas of responsibility, performance metrics, and dependence on client
76
relationships to be successful in their roles. Sampling procedures were discussed for
recruitment of the convenience sample of FIAs from a professional financial services
firm. Reliability and validity of the WARS were presented and the data collection
procedures were outlined through use of Survey Monkey as an online host and SPSS 22.0
for analysis of the data. The data analysis plan was discussed, including linear regression
and moderation analyses, and the chapter concluded with threats to validity and ethical
considerations.
77
Chapter 4: Results
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between professional
arrogance of FIAs and their job performance in a professional services firm using the
WARS as a measure of workplace arrogance. In this chapter, the findings of the data
analysis are presented. Sample demographics are presented and the associated
descriptive analysis findings. The trends for the variables of interest, FIA’s assessed
professional arrogance and objective index of performance, are covered using summary
statistics. The research questions are then addressed through use of linear regressions and
moderation analyses.
Pre-Analysis Screening of the Data
Data were collected over a period of 3 months. The raw data were extracted from
Survey Monkey and uploaded into SPSS version 24.0 for Windows. A total of 45
participants responded to the survey. Among these individuals, five participants
consented but did not respond to any portion of the questionnaire. Another three
participants were removed because they did not have an associated objective index
performance value. Potential outliers were examined through examination of
standardized values. None of the values for professional arrogance had outlying z-scores.
Therefore, the final sample size consisted of 37 individual cases.
Sample Demographics
Gender was distributed between 33 males (89.2%) and 4 females (10.8%). Most
of the participants were investment advisors (n = 12, 32.4%), followed by portfolio
managers (n = 9, 24.3%), and CIM (Certified Investment Managers) (n = 9, 24.3%).
78
Frequencies and percentages for the nominal demographic variables are presented in
Table 1.
Table 1
Frequency Table for Nominal Demographic Variables
Variable
N
%
Gender
Male
33
89.2
Female
4
10.8
Designation/certification
CFA
4
10.8
CIM
9
24.3
Investment Advisor
12
32.4
Portfolio Manager
9
24.3
Vice President
3
8.1
Age of participants ranged from 27 to 78 years, with M = 52.00 and SD = 11.52.
Years of professional experience ranged from 4 to 38 years, with M = 22.81 and SD =
9.37. Years with firm ranged from 1 to 36 years, with M = 4.46 and SD = 7.22.
79
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables
Variable
M
SD
Max
Min
Age
52.00
11.52
78.00
27.00
Years of experience
22.81
9.37
38.00
4.00
Years with firm
4.46
7.22
36.00
1.00
Descriptive Statistics
Professional arrogance scores ranged from 27.00 to 66.00, with M = 47.08 and
SD = 9.37. Objective index of performance ranged from 1.00 to 53.50, with M = 29.01
and SD = 15.26. Further examination was done to examine the variables of interest by
groups. Table 3 presents a breakout of the descriptive statistics of the continuous study
variables.
80
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics Breakout for Continuous Study Variables
Variable
n
M
SD
Max
Min
Professional Arrogance
37
47.08
9.37
66.00
27.00
Gender
Male
33
27.00
66.00
47.33
9.76
Female
4
41.00
53.00
45.00
5.66
Designation/Certification
CFA
4
37.00
62.00
49.75
11.70
CIM
9
40.00
66.00
47.22
8.94
Investment Advisor
12
32.00
61.00
47.08
9.14
Portfolio Manager
9
27.00
60.00
43.78
9.44
Vice President
3
43.00
65.00
53.00
11.14
Objective Index
37
29.01
15.26
53.50
1.00
Gender
Male
33
1.00
53.50
30.48
14.97
Female
4
2.50
30.50
16.88
13.49
Designation/Certification
CFA
4
10.50
53.50
38.63
20.17
CIM
9
1.00
44.00
20.78
15.03
Investment Advisor
12
8.50
53.00
33.33
14.56
Portfolio Manager
9
2.50
48.50
27.44
14.02
Vice President
3
17.00
37.50
28.33
10.42
81
Reliability Analysis
Cronbach’s alpha tests of reliability and internal consistency was performed on
the professional arrogance subscale, as measured by the WARS. The Cronbach’s alpha
calculates a mean correlation between each pair of items and the number of items
representing a scale (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2012). The alpha values were interpreted
using the guidelines identified by George and Mallery (2016). Results for the 26-item
professional arrogance scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, α = .84.
Correlational Analysis
A series of Pearson correlations were conducted to examine the bivariate
relationships between the variables of the interest. Age was significantly related to
experience (r = .57, p < .01). No other significant bivariate relationships were found.
Table 4 presents the findings of the correlations.
Table 4
Correlation Matrix of Variables of Interest
Age
Experience
Years
with
Firm
Professional
Arrogance
Objective
Index
Age
1.00
Experience
.57*
1.00
Years with Firm
.15
.20
1.00
Professional
Arrogance
-.23
-.29
-.19
1.00
Objective Index
-.09
.07
.25
.05
1.00
*Denotes correlation was significant at p < .01.
82
Statistical Analysis
The section systematically presents the statistical analysis systematically
performed to address the three research questions and sets of associated hypotheses. It
also presents the tests of the assumptions for the analysis performed.
RQ1: What is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of his/her performance?
H
0
1: There is no significant relationship between a FIA’s arrogance as assessed by
the WARS and the objective index of his/her performance.
H
a
1:
There is a significant relationship between a FIA’s arrogance as assessed
by the WARS and the objective index of his/her performance.
Linear Regression. To address RQ1, a simple linear regression was conducted to
analyze the relationship between professional arrogance and objective index of
performance. A linear regression is an appropriate statistical test when assessing the
predictive strength between a predictor variable and a continuous criterion variable
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). Professional arrogance was treated as the predictor variable
in the analysis. Objective index of performance was treated as the continuous criterion
variable. Prior to analysis the assumptions of linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity
were assessed.
Assumptions. The assumption of linearity was tested with a scatterplot between
professional arrogance and objective index of performance. There did not appear to be a
visual trend between the variables of interest. Normality was checked with a P-P
scatterplot. The assumption was met as the data appeared to follow the normality trend
83
line. The assumption of homoscedasticity was tested by plotting the residuals and
predicted values (Field, 2013). The assumption was met as there was a random
distribution in the scatterplot. See Figures 1-3 for the scatterplots.
Figure 1. Scatterplot between professional arrogance and objective index of performance.
84
Figure 2. P-P scatterplot for normality for professional arrogance and objective index of
performance
Figure 3. Residuals scatterplot for homoscedasticity for professional arrogance and
objective index of performance.
Results. The results of the regression model were not statistically significant,
F(1, 35) = 0.23, p = .634, R
2
= .007 suggesting there is not a significant predictive
relationship between professional arrogance and objective index of performance. The
coefficient of determination, R
2
, suggests that approximately 0.7% of the variance in
objective index of performance can be explained by the professional arrogance levels of
participants. Due to non-significance of the overall model, the coefficient of the
predictor was not further examined. The null hypothesis for research question one (H
0
1)
was not rejected. Table 5 summarizes the results of the linear regression model.
85
Table 5
Linear Regression between Professional Arrogance and Objective Index of Performance
Predictor
B
SE
Β
t
p
Professional arrogance
0.13
0.27
0.08
0.48
.634
Note. Overall Model: F
2
(1, 35) = 0.23, p = .634, R
2
= .007
RQ2: How is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and their
objective index of performance moderated by their years of professional experience?
H
0
2:
The relationship between a FIA’s arrogance assessed by the WARS and the
objective index of their performance is not moderated by their years of
professional experience.
H
a
2: The relationship between a FIA’s arrogance assessed by the WARS and the
objective index of their performance is moderated by their years of
professional experience.
Moderation Analysis. To address RQ2, a series of regressions were conducted
to analyze the moderating effect of years of professional experience on the relationship
between professional arrogance and objective index of performance. Moderating
variables affect the direction or strength of the association between a predictor and
criterion variable. Professional arrogance was treated as the predictor variable in the
analysis. Objective index of performance was treated as the continuous criterion
variable. Years of professional experience was treated as the moderating variable. The
predictor variable and moderator variable were mean centered prior to entry into the
86
regression model. To examine the moderating effect, an interaction variable was
examined: professional arrogance*years of professional experience. Prior to analysis the
assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, and absence of multicollinearity were
assessed.
Assumptions. The assumption of normality was met as the data appeared to
follow the normality trend line. The assumption of homoscedasticity was met as there
was a random distribution in the scatterplot. Absence of multicollinearity was met as the
variance inflation factors (VIFs) were all below 10.0 (Stevens, 2009). See Figures 4-5
for the scatterplots.
Figure 4. P-P scatterplot for normality for professional arrogance, years of professional
experience, and objective index of performance.
87
Figure 5. Residuals scatterplot for homoscedasticity for professional arrogance and
objective index of performance, while moderating for years of professional experience.
Results. The results of the first step of the regression model were not statistically
significant, F(2, 34) = 1.73, p = .193, R
2
= .092, suggesting there is not a significant
predictive relationship between professional arrogance, years of professional experience,
and objective index of performance. The results of the second step of the regression
model were also not statistically significant, F(3, 33) = 1.38, p = .267, R
2
= .111,
suggesting there is not a significant predictive relationship between professional
arrogance, years of professional experience, professional arrogance*years of professional
experience, and objective index of performance. The coefficient of determination, R
2
,
increased by only about 2% between the regression steps. The interaction term,
professional arrogance*years of professional experience, was not significant in the
regression model – suggesting that moderation was not supported. The null hypothesis
88
for research question two (H
0
2) was not rejected. Table 6 summarizes the results of the
moderation analysis.
Table 6
Regression Results with Professional Arrogance Predicting Objective Index of
Performance, While Moderating for Years of Professional Experience
Dependent
B
SE
β
t
p
VIF
Regression 1:
Professional arrogance
0.15
0.27
.09
0.57
.575
1.00
Years of professional experience
-0.48
0.27
-.29
-1.79
.082
1.00
Regression 2:
Professional arrogance
0.22
0.28
.13
0.77
.445
1.08
Years of professional experience
-0.46
0.27
-.28
-1.70
.098
1.01
Professional arrogance*years of professional
experience
-0.02
0.03
-.14
-0.84
.407
1.09
Note. First regression: F(2, 34) = 1.73, p = .193, R
2
= .092
Second regression: F(3, 33) = 1.38, p = .267, R
2
= .111
RQ3: How is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of the FIA’s performance moderated by gender?
H
0
3:
The relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of the FIA’s performance is not moderated by gender.
H
a
3: The relationship between a FIA’s assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of the FIA’s performance is moderated by gender.
Moderation Analysis. To address research question three, a series of regressions
were conducted to analyze the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between
professional arrogance and objective index of performance. Professional arrogance was
89
treated as the predictor variable in the analysis. Objective index of performance was
treated as the continuous criterion variable. Gender was treated as the moderating
variable. The predictor variable and moderator variable were mean centered prior to
entry into the regression model. To examine the moderating effect, an interaction
variable was examined: professional arrogance*gender. Prior to analysis the assumptions
of normality, homoscedasticity, and absence of multicollinearity were assessed.
Assumptions. The assumption of normality was met as the data appeared to
follow the normality trend line. The assumption of homoscedasticity was met as there
was a random distribution in the scatterplot. Absence of multicollinearity was met as the
variance inflation factors (VIFs) were all below 10.0. See Figures 6-7 for the
scatterplots.
Figure 6. P-P scatterplot for normality for professional arrogance, gender, and objective
index of performance.
90
Figure 7. Residuals scatterplot for homoscedasticity for professional arrogance and
objective index of performance, while moderating for gender.
Results. The results of the first step of the regression model were not statistically
significant, F(2, 34) = 1.53, p = .232, R
2
= .082, suggesting there is not a significant
predictive relationship between professional arrogance, gender, and objective index of
performance. The results of the second step of the regression model were also not
statistically significant, F(3, 33) = 1.06, p = .378, R
2
= .088, suggesting there is not a
significant predictive relationship between professional arrogance, gender, professional
arrogance*gender, and objective index of performance. The coefficient of determination,
R
2
, increased by only about 1% between the regression steps. The interaction term,
professional arrogance*gender, was not significant in the regression model – suggesting
91
that moderation was not supported. The null hypothesis for research question three (H
0
3)
was not rejected. Table 7 summarizes the results of the moderation analysis.
Table 7
Regression Results with Professional Arrogance Predicting Objective Index of
Performance, While Moderating for Gender
Dependent
B
SE
β
t
p
VIF
Regression 1:
Professional arrogance
0.10
0.27
.06
0.36
.721
1.01
Gender
-13.39
7.99
-.28
-1.68
.103
1.01
Regression 2:
Professional arrogance
0.15
0.30
.09
0.51
.611
1.22
Gender
-11.94
8.68
-.25
-1.38
.178
1.16
Professional arrogance*gender
0.72
1.58
.09
0.46
.652
1.34
Note. First regression: F(2, 34) = 1.53, p = .232, R
2
= .082
Second regression: F(3, 33) = 1.06, p = .378, R
2
= .088
Summary and Transition
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between professional
arrogance and job performance in a professional services firm using the WARS as a tool
of objective measure. In this chapter, the findings of the data analyses were presented.
Descriptive statistics were used to examine the trends of the demographics and variables
of interest. A reliability test was run on the raw responses of the WARS and found that
the internal consistency was acceptable. The findings for research question one indicated
that professional arrogance did not predict objective index of performance. The null
hypothesis for research question one (H
0
1) was not rejected. The findings for research
question two indicated that years of professional experience did not moderate the
relationship between professional arrogance and objective index of performance. The
92
null hypothesis for research question two (H
0
2) was not rejected. The findings for
research question three indicated that gender did not moderate the relationship between
professional arrogance and objective index of performance. The null hypothesis for
research question three (H
0
3) was not rejected.
Chapter 5 will discuss the findings and their implications for the field in
connection with the literature. Limitations and recommendations for future research will
also be presented.
93
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
This study focused on two key areas of research interest: FIA performance and
the construct of arrogance. The financial crisis of 2008 created negative perceptions of
the financial services industry and damaged consumer trust, resulting in a lack of
confidence in financial services providers who came to be perceived as acting
opportunistically and greedily pursuing their own self interests (Gounaris & Prout, 2009;
Hamowy & Conigliaro, 2016; Winchester & Huston, 2017). Since the crash of the U.S.
financial system, FIAs and their clients have been on a path of fear, and at times panic,
hopelessness, and then potential optimism (Gounaris & Prout, 2009). Wall Street was
exposed for its deceit, systemic greed, and outright arrogance (Gounaris & Prout, 2009;
Hamowy & Conigliaro, 2016; Winchester & Huston, 2017).
In the aftermath of this economic crisis, clients have demanded a high standard of
ethical financial services practice (Gounaris & Prout, 2009; Yeske 2017). FIAs have had
to focus on restoring trust, even if that particular advisor did not cause direct damage to
that specific client (Duska, 2012). FIAs are expected to, and have a judiciary duty to, put
the interest of the client before their own interests (Duska, 2012). A successful
relationship between FIA and client involves connecting through a relationship built on
trust with the FIA suspending his/her own professional and personal agenda. According
to Kirchenbauer (2014), successful FIA-client relationships contain five essential core
interpersonal competencies: curiosity, empathy, a nonjudgemental approach, authenticity,
and listening. The literature suggested that negative behaviors such as those associated
94
with arrogance can lead to closed-mindedness, greed, and a negative, even damaging,
impact on relationships (Bauer et al., 2008; Ghosh, 2002; Johnson et al., 2010).
Arrogance refers to self-aggrandizing behaviors that exaggerate one’s own
importance, often with impact on others and a cost to relationships and business
outcomes (Bauer et al, 2008; Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012). Gaps
identified within existing research include how arrogance relates to performance for
populations of full-time employed professionals over 30 years of age, who have worked
for greater than 2 years in their profession, with arrogance measured using an objective
tool instead of through subjective perception reporting. The purpose of this study was to
assess the relationship between arrogance and job performance in a financial service
setting. FIAs are responsible for investing their clients’ money and are each associated
with a business portfolio referred to as total assets under management. This study
examined arrogance as a characteristic that might impact a FIA’s client relationships and
business performance as objectively measured by his/her ranking on the company results
leader board which was defined as the FIAs total assets under management plus revenue.
This study also examined the impact of professional arrogance on FIA performance with
those who had been in their roles for more than 2 years. The intent of the study was to
examine arrogance through its measurement in a group of financial services professionals
and relate scores from the WARS with the objective outcome measure of total assets
under management plus revenue captured in the company’s ranking grid.
95
Interpretation of the Findings
This study employed a quantitative, correlational research design incorporating
the use of a reliable and valid survey tool (WARS). Correlational research was
appropriate for the design of this study which assessed the strength of association
between numerically measurable constructs (Howell, 2013). The DV was a FIA’s leader
board ranking based on his/her total assets under management figure, plus revenue. The
IVs were the FIA’s degree of arrogance as established by the WARS, and demographic
information of gender and tenure. The research questions were assessed using linear
regression and moderation analyses.
Arrogance-Competence Theory holds that arrogant individuals tend to be less
competent and less productive than their less arrogant, more humble counterparts (Padua
et al., 2010). Golson (2007) submitted that sometimes arrogance in business combined
with fortitude, will, and intellect can make for a winning combination. Golson also
acknowledged that being competent is desirable, while being arrogant is not such a good
thing and is perceived as a negative trait. According to Arrogance-Competence Theory,
an individual with a high degree of arrogance coupled with low competence can be
dangerous, pushing his/her own agenda as superior, without regard for potential task or
relationship consequences (Golson, 2007). Also, a high competence-high arrogance
combination most often levies dismissive behaviors toward others and is known to
contribute to dampening company morale (Golman, 2007; Milyayskyl, Kruglanski,
Chernikova, & Schori-Eyal, 2017). Research has shown that arrogance can cause
96
intelligent individuals to demonstrate poor job competence, manifesting in poor
performance and low productivity (O’Boyle et al., 2010; Padua et al., 2010).
Research Question 1: What is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed
professional arrogance and the objective index of his/her performance?
This question was derived from historic arrogance research being focused on
subjective perceptions of arrogance as the outcome measure, and more recent studies
used the WARS as an objective measure correlated with subjective outcome ratings (see
Johnson et al., 2010). The results for RQ1 were not statistically significant and the null
hypothesis of a significant relationship existing between a FIA’s arrogance as assessed by
the WARS, an objective index of his/her performance, was not rejected. The outcome of
this study did not support the foundational arrogance studies with participants working
primarily in the retail and manufacturing industries.
Research Question 2: How is the relationship between a FIA’s assessed
professional arrogance and their objective index of performance moderated by their years
of professional experience?
The null hypothesis stating the relationship between a FIA’s professional
arrogance assessed by the WARS and the objective index of their performance is not
moderated by their years of professional experience was not rejected.
Research Question 3: How is the relationship between a FIA's assessed
professional arrogance and the objective index of the FIA’s performance moderated by
gender?
97
The relationship between a FIA's assessed professional arrogance and the
objective index of the FIA’s performance is not moderated by gender. In this study,
10.8% of the participants were female.
The overall findings from the study were that none of the null hypotheses were
rejected. The relationship between arrogance and performance using an objective
measure of the construct was not determined to be positive or negative. Additionally, this
research did not determine that arrogance is moderated by tenure or gender.
Limitations of the Study
The principal challenge with this study was recruitment. It took over a year to
confirm a financial services firm that would consent to having their FIAs participate in
the study. Once the agreement to participate was consolidated with the financial services
organization, the company did not have a sufficient pool of candidates to participate in
the study. The number of candidates targeted to receive an invitation was 100 with the
intent of recruiting a minimum of 77 participants based on the required sample size to
detect significance (see Faul et al., 2014). The company ended up having a pool of 72
possible study participant candidates, all of whom received an invitation to participate in
the study. Forty-five FIAs responded to the survey and a total of 37 respondents
completed the survey. Typical sample sizes over 200 have been determined to have
reasonable statistical power (Aguinis, Beaty, Boik, & Pierce, 2005). For the purpose of
this study a power analysis was conducted in G*Power for a multiple linear regression
with three predictors (IV, moderator variable, and interaction term). The sample size
typically used for multiple linear regression was estimated with a power of .80 (see
98
Cohen, 1988). A moderate effect size was applied given there was no indication of what
results to expect (see Cohen, 1992). Applying a moderate effect size (f
2
=.15) and an
alpha level of .05, the required sample size for this study to detect significance was 77
participants (see Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2014). Therefore, sample size and
power were significant limitations in this current study.
An additional limitation for consideration is the concern of using a self-report
measure. Although self-report tools are commonly used in social and behavioral science
research, there is the possibility that the data can be affected by single source bias such as
the desire of the respondent to be seen in a favorable light (Edwards, 1953; Harrison, et
al., 1996). Arrogance is a construct that is hallmarked by self-aggrandizement and with
the lack of multisource survey responders it is possible that an arrogant individual with a
lack of self-awareness could skew the results in an attempt to appear better than he
actually is (Bauer et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2010; Meagher, Leman, Bias, Latendresse,
& Rowatt, 2015; Silverman et al., 2012).
Recommendations
Research on arrogance, its impact, and moderating variables remains very much
in its infancy. Future research is required using the WARS as an objective measurement
tool to examine the impact of arrogance on job performance. It will be important to
ensure that a participant sample greater than 200 is used in order to have reasonable
statistical power (Aguinis et al., 2005). A recommendation regarding the participant pool
is to recruit an equitable sample of males and females in order to understand if gender is a
moderating variable for arrogance and performance.
99
The literature suggests that arrogance in the workplace can have negative
individual and organizational consequences (Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012).
Future research is needed in order deepen our understanding of the negative impact of
arrogant individuals’ arrogance on them, their peers, bosses, and direct reports. Johnson
et al. (2010) suggested it is “likely arrogance disrupts socioemotional and performance-
based processes” (p. 424). Future studies will need to examine the impact of arrogant
behaviors not only on the arrogant individual, but also on the stress levels, engagement,
and job performance of his/her colleagues. It is also important from an organizational
systems perspective to understand if arrogance is more prevalent in some industries and
professions than others, so research across various organizational settings will be
required.
Implications
The financial investment advising profession involves making risk and reward
recommendations to clients based on a plan to achieve particular financial goals
(Tomlinson, 2015). FIAs are well-prepared to do their job based on scholarly
achievements and required certifications, and the profession is highly regulated in order
to ensure knowledgeable decision-making regarding investment practices (Rossetto &
Murphy, 2010; Tomlinson, 2015). Educational courses for financial services
professionals typically focus on topics such as investing, taxation, retirement and estate
planning. Rarely do academic preparation and professional development effectively
cover interpersonal or communication skills which are critical to professional and
business success involving clients (Rossetto & Murphy, 2010). These client-focused
100
professionals require competence in two sets of skills; financial specialist knowledge, and
“soft” skills/communication – people skills (Rossetto & Murphy, 2010). Tomlinson
(2015) stated that more academic research needs to be conducted in support of changes
and refinements of financial investment adviser and financial planning practice.
Tomlinson called for a continuous feedback loop between the community of social
science, economics, investment and finance researchers and the cadre of practitioners.
There seems to be an opportunity, informed by research, for FIAs to receive formal
instruction to develop or enhance their communication skills and to adopt humility in
their approach to client relationship as an antidote to potential arrogant behaviors.
In general, understanding the implications related to and impact of professional
arrogance can have practical utility. In a client-focused profession, arrogance could
prove costly if it results in challenges with building trust and gaining and retaining client
relationships (Johnson et al., 2010). An arrogant approach to business holds the
suggestions of others as inferior, does not foster collaboration or allow for consideration
of the ideas of others, and does not take the reality of competition into account (Johnson
et al., 2010; Ma & Karri, 2005). Often arrogant professionals are prone to being overly
optimistic, underestimating potential risk factors and demonstrating overconfidence for
planned success (Johnson et al., 2010; Ma & Karri, 2005). Assessing for arrogant
behaviors and addressing them as part of a professional development plan could help an
organization curtail losses and improve performance and productivity (Johnson et al.,
2010; Ma & Karri, 2005; Padua et al., 2010).
101
Exploring the construct of arrogance in professional settings, similar to companies
now focusing on bullying in the workplace and fostering environments of humility and
OCB, might contribute to healthier working environments and an increase in the
organization’s bottom line (Johnson et al., 2010; Ma & Karri, 2005; Padua et al., 2010).
Conclusion
Professional arrogance has the potential to trigger serious organizational issues.
The literature suggests that arrogant individuals are inferior performers compared to their
non-arrogant peers (Johnson et al., 2010; Silverman et al., 2012). These individuals are
most often poor collaborators, are challenged to develop and maintain relationships, and
dismiss inputs and ideas that might help create successful outcomes (Johnson et al., 2010;
Silverman et al., 2012). Early arrogance studies relied on subjective inferences and
perceptions to assess arrogance. The field of study has progressed due to the
development of the 26 question WARS, a reliable and valid tool which can be
administered online. Although this study did not show arrogance as correlating with
acting superior while being inferior, the literature suggests that arrogant behavior can
impact individual performance and overall organizational productivity. In order to thwart
the impact of arrogance, companies can promote and instill humility as a core value and
behavioral competency across the organization (Silverman et al., 2012).
102
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Ashton-James, C. E., & Tracy, J. L. (2012). Pride and prejudice: How feelings about the
self influence judgments of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
38(4), 466–476.
Aquila, A. J., & Keltin, A. D. (1992). How to lose clients without really trying. Journal
of Accountancy, 173(5), 67-70.
Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in
assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A
30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 94-107.
Bagley, P. L., Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2012). The factors that affect accountants’
decisions to seek careers with Big 4 versus Non-Big 4 accounting firms.
Accounting Horizons American Accounting Association, 26(2), 239-264.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bauer, J., Cho, E., Johnson, R. E., & Silverman, S. B. (2008, October). Acting superior
but actually inferior? Relationships of arrogance with motivation and cognitive
ability. Paper presented at the 2008 Southern Management Association Meeting,
St. Petersberg Beach, FL.
103
Bauerschmidt, M. (2008). Physician leader, be careful not to let arrogance stand in for
competence. Physician Executive, 34(4), 34-35.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-
esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier
lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.
Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and
empirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection,
displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personality,
66, 1081-1124.
Bentz, V. J. (1967). The Sears experience in the investigation, description, and prediction
of executive behavior. In F.R. Wickert & D.E. McFarland (Eds.), Measuring
executive effectiveness (pp. 147–206). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Bentz, V. J. (1985). Research findings from personality assessment of executives. In J.H.
Bernardin & D.A. Bownas (Eds.), Personality assessment in organizations (pp.
82–144). New York, NY: Praeger.
Berger, A. (2002). Arrogance among physicians. Academic Medicine, 77, 145-147.
Bion, W. R. (1958). On arrogance. Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, 144-146.
Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2012). Completing your dissertation: A roadmap from
beginning to end (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Blustein, D. L. (2001). The interface of work and relationships: Critical knowledge for
21st century psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 179-192.
104
Boje, D. M., Roslie, G. A., Durant, R. A., & Luhman, J. T. (2004). Enron spectacles: A
critical dramaturgical analysis. Organization Studies, 25, 751-774.
Book of Business (2016). Retrieved from Financial Dictionary.com website:
http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Book+of+Business
Bourdage, J. S., Jocelyn Wiltshire, J., & Lee, K. (2015). Personality and workplace
impression management: Correlates and implications. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(2), 537–546.
Brace, N., Kemp, R., & Snelgar, R. (2012). SPSS for psychologists (5
th
ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brueckner, T. K. (2011). Are you in the business or the profession? Senior Market
Advisor, 12(12), 32.
Brueckner, T. K. (2013). Attracting business vs. pursuing it. Senior Market Advisor,
14(6), 22.
Brummel, B. J., & Parker, K. N. (2015). Obligation and entitlement in society and the
workplace. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(1), 127-160.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-
esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to
violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 219–229.
Business Dictionary (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/book-of-business.html
105
Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004).
Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-
report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45.
Chancellor, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Humble beginnings: Current trends, state
perspectives, and hallmarks of humility. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 7(11), 819-833.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It's all about me: Narcissistic CEOs and their
effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,
52, 351-386.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary
foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334-347.
Claxton, G., Owen, D., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2015). Hubris in leadership: A peril of
unbridled intuition? Leadership, 11(1), 57-78.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). St.
Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve.
Harvard Business Review, 79(1): 67-76.
Collins, J. (2009). How the mighty fall and why some companies never give in. New
York, NY: Harper Collins.
Constantinidis, A. (2015). Building a better financial advice industry. Money
Management, 29(19), 32-33.
106
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). The design and conduct of quasi-experiments
and true experiments in field settings. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, 223-336. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
Creswell, J. W. (2013) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Cullen, K. L., Gentry, W. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2015). Biased self-perception
tendencies: Self-enhancement/self-diminishment and leader derailment in
individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 64(1), 161-207.
Davis, D.E., Worthington, E.L. Jr., & Hook, J.N. (2010). Humility: Review of
measurement strategies and conceptualization as personality judgment. Journal of
Positive Psychology, 5, 243–252.
De Silva, Z. (2013). Secret formula for profit growth. Chartered Accountants Journal,
92(5), 42-43.
Duska, R. F. (2012). What’s the wealth in wealth management? Journal of Financial
Service Professionals, 66(5), 17-19.
Duska, R. (2013). Why good people do bad things: Applications to Financial Advisors—
The “WIZARD”. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 67(5), 22-24.
107
Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the
probability that it will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 90-93.
Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed. New York, NY: Times Books.
Elrod, D. J. (2013). Of confidence and humility. Strategic Finance, 95(8), 17-18.
Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291–300.
Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 11–17.
Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the
unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the
incompetent. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Process, 105(1), 98–121.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2014). G*Power Version 3.1.9
[computer software]. Uiversität Kiel, DE. Retrieved from
http://www.gpower.hhu.de/en/html
Fears, J. R. (2005). Books that have made history: Books that can change your life audio
tapes of lectures by J. Rufus Fears, Part 1, Lecture 2. Chantilly, VA: The teaching
Company LLC.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Financial Advisor (2016). Retrieved April 25, 2016 from Investopia.com website:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial-adviser.asp
108
Fisk, G. M. (2010). “I want it all and I want it now!” An examination of the etiology,
expression, and escalation of excessive employee entitlement. Human Resource
Management Review, 20, 102–114.
Flum, H. (2001). Dialogues and challenges: The interface between work and relationships
in transition. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 259-270.
Freud, S. (1914). On narcissism: An introduction. In J. Sandler, E. S. Person, & P.
Fonagy (Eds.), Freud’s “On narcissism: An introduction” (pp. 3–32). New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gaddis, B. H., & Foster, J. L. (2015). Meta-analysis of dark side personality
characteristics and critical work behaviors among leaders across the globe:
Findings and implications for leadership development and executive coaching.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(1), 25–54.
Garmhausen, S. (2015). The top 100 financial advisors. Retrieved from barron’s.com
website: http://www.barrons.com/articles/top-100-financial-advisors-1429318836.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and
reference, 11.0 update (14
th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gentry, W. A. (2010). Derailment: How successful leaders avoid it. In E. Biech (Ed.),
The ASTD leadership handbook (pp. 311–324). Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
Ghosh, S. (2002). Humbleness as a practical vehicle for engineering ethics education.
Frontiers in Education, 3, 13-14.
109
Gibbs, N. (2009). The case for modesty, in an age of arrogance, 64. Time Magazine.
Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1933209,00.html
Gibson, J. M. (2003). Arrogance – A dangerous weapon of the physics trade? Physics
Today, 56(2), 54-55.
Global Big Four firms deliver solid but unspectacular performance in FY14 (2015).
Public Accounting Report, 39(1), 1-3.
Golson, H. L. (2007). The intersection of intelligence and arrogance. Management
Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.managementpsychology.com/articles/the-
intersection-of-intelligence-and-arrogance/
Gounaris, K. M., & Prout, M. F. (2009). Repairing relationships and restoring trust:
Behavioral finance and the economic crisis. Journal of Financial Service
Professionals, 63(4), 75-84.
Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. G. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of
legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Gregg, A. P., & Mahadevan, N. (2014). Intellectual arrogance and intellectual humility:
An evolutionary-epistemological account. Journal of Psychology & Theology,
42(1), 7-18.
Grijalva, E., & Harms, P.D. (2014). Narcissism: An integrative synthesis and dominance
complementarity model. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 108–127.
Grijalva, E., & Newman, D. (2015). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior
(CWB): Meta-analysis and consideration of collectivist culture, Big Five
110
personality, and narcissism’s factor structure. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 64(1), 93–126.
Haan, P., Britt, M., & Weinstein, A. (2007). Business students’ perceptions of arrogance
in academia. College Student Journal, 41(1), 1-13.
Hamowy, C., & Conigliaro, C. (2016). Using neuroeconomics to help clients make the
right financial decisions. Journal of Financial Planning, 29(11), 27-29.
Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2000). Accounts for success as determinants of perceived
arrogance and modesty. Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 215-236.
Hareli, S., Weiner, B., & Yee, J. (2006). Honesty doesn’t always pay – The role of
honesty of accounts for success made in an educational setting in inferences of
modesty and arrogance. Social Psychology of Education, 9(2), 119-138.
Harms, P. D., & Spain, S. M. (2015). Beyond the bright side: Dark personality at work.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(1), 15-24.
Harrison, D. A., McLaughlin, M. E., & Coalter, T. M. (1996). Content, cognition, and
common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 246–261.
Haupt, R. (2003). Arrogance in engineering. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine,
45(6), 136.
Hayward, M. (2007). Ego check: Why executive hubris is wrecking companies and
careers and how to avoid the trap. Chicago: Kaplan Publishing.
111
Helmi, M. A (1998). Measuring the effect of customer satisfaction on profitability: A
challenging role for management accountants. National Public Accountant,
43(10), 8-12.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership. American
Psychologist, 49, 493-504.
Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2011). Management derailment. In S. Zedeck
(Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp.
555–575). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hoorens, V., Pandelaere, M., Oldersma, F., & Sedikides, C. (2012). The hubris
hypothesis: You can self-enhance, but you’d better not show it. Journal of
Personality, 80(5), 1237-1274.
Horner, M. (1997). Leadership theory: Past, present and future. Team Performance
Management, 3(4), 270-287.
Howell, D. C. (2013). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences (8th ed.).
Belmont CA: Brooks/Cole-Thompson Learning.
Humility. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved September 27, 2015, from
Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humility
Jiang, F., Stone, G.R., Sun, J., & Zhang, M. (2011). Managerial hubris, firm expansion
and firm performance: Evidence from China. The Social Science Journal, 48(3),
489-499.
112
Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C. H. (2006). “I” is to continuance as “We” is to affective: The
relevance of the self-concept for organizational commitment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27, 549-570.
Johnson, D. D., & Fowler, J. H. (2011). The evolution of overconfidence. Nature, 477,
317-320.
Johnson, R. E., Silverman, S. B., Shymsunder, A., Swee, H., Rodopman, O. B., Bauer, J.,
& Chao, E. (2010). Acting Superior but actually inferior? Correlates and
consequences of workplace arrogance. Human Performance, 23, 403-427.
Johnson, R. E., Venus, M., Lanai, K., Mao, C., & Chang, C. H. (2012). Leader identity as
an antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration,
and abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1262-
1272.
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly:
Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of
workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 762-776.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader
traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership
Quarterly, 20, 855–875.
Kaiser, R. B., & Hogan, R. (2006). The dark side of discretion. Research report.
Retrieved from http://www.mentis.international/assets/02033_dark-side-of-
discretion.pdf
113
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62, 231-241.
Kirchenbauer, L. A. K. (2014). The 5 essential skills of an exceptional financial planner.
Journal of Financial Planning, 27(9), 21-24.
Krajc, M. & Ortmann, A. (2008). Are the unskilled really that unaware? An alternative
explanation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 724–738.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in
recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121-1134.
Kolakowski, M. (2015). Book of Business. Retrieved December 13, 2015, from
About.com
website: http://financecareers.about.com/od/glossary/g/bookofbusiness.htm.
Kowalski, R. M., Walker, S., Wilkinson, R., Queen, A., & Sharpe, B. (2003). Lying,
cheating, complaining, and other aversive interpersonal behaviors: A narrative
examination of the darker side of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 20, 471–490.
Landis, D. (2009). Does your advisor make the grade? Kiplinger’s Personal Finance
Magazine, 63(6), 30-33.
Landrum, R. E. (2011). Measuring dispositional humility: A first approximation.
Psychological Reports, 108(1), 217-228.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
114
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem:
Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Leary, M. R., Bednarski, R., Hammon, D., & Duncan, T. (1997). Blowhards, snobs, and
narcissists: Interpersonal reactions to excessive egoism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.),
Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 111–131).
New York, NY: Plenum.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an
interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 518–530.
Leslie, J. B., & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment today: North America and
Europe. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Levine, D. P. (2005). The corrupt organization. Human Relations, 58, 723-740.
Lewis, M. (2000). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In
M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp.
623–636). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Liu, C., Lu, K., Yu, G., & Chen, C. (2012). Implicit association between authentic pride
and prestige compared to hubristic pride and dominance. Psychological Reports,
111(2), 424-442.
Lohr, S. L. (2010). Sampling: Design and analysis (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Brooks/Cole
Lovelock, C., & Wirtz, J. (2007). Services marketing: People, technology, strategy (6
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
115
Ma, H., & Karri, R. (2005). Leaders beware: Some sure ways to lose your competitive
advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 63–76.
Mannes, A., & Moore, D. (2013). I know I’m right: A behavioral view of
overconfidence. Significance, 10(4), 10-14.
Marks, J. T. (2012). A matter of ethics: Understanding the mind of a white-collar
criminal. Financial Executive, 28(9) 31-34.
Mattussek, P., Luks, O., & Seibt, G. (1986). Partner relationships of depressives.
Psychopathology, 19, 143-156.
Meagher, B. R., Leman, J. C., Bias, J. P., Latendresse, S. J., & Rowatt, W. C (2015).
Contrasting self-report and consensus ratings of intellectual humility and
arrogance. Journal of Research in Personality, 58, 35-45.
Miller, D.T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54 (12), 1053–
1060.
Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of Personality. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A
dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196.
Morgan, G.A., Leech, N. L., Gloekner, G.W. & Barrett, K. C., (2012). SPSS for
intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, G. M., & Urbanski, J. G. (2005). Bringing humility to
leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations,
58, 1323-1350.
116
Milyayskyl, M., Kruglanski, A. W., Chernikova, M., & Schori-Eyal, N. (2017). Evidence
for arrogance: On the relative importance of expertise, outcome, and manner.
PLOS ONE, 12(7), 1-31.
O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R., Pollack, J., Hawyer, T., & Story, P. (2010). The relation
between emotional intelligence and job performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32(5), 788-818.
Owen, D., & Davidson, J. (2009). Hubris syndrome: An acquired personality disorder? A
study of US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers over the last 100 years. Brain,
132, 1396–1406.
Owens, B., & Hekman, D. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of
humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 55(4), 787-818.
Owens, B., Johnson, M., & Mitchell, T. (2013). Expressed humility in organizations:
Implications for performance, teams and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5)
1517-1538.
Padua, R., Lerin, M., Tumapon, T., & Panares, Z. (2010). Patterns and dynamics of an
arrogance-competence theory of organizations. Liceo Journal of Higher
Education Research, 6(2), 76-97.
Pagano, R. R. (2009). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences (9
th
ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Paikert, C. (2014). How advisors get paid now. Financial Planning, 44(3), 46-53.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS Survival Manual (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
117
Pater, R. (2014). Overcoming the top 10 leadership mistakes. Professional Safety, 59(6),
30-32.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-
enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 1197-1208.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work
behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 10, 126-134.
Peterson, C. A. (2006). Primer in Positive Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook
and classification. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.
Petersen, K., Emmerling, R., & Spencer, L. (2007). Morally and emotionally competent
financial advisors deliver superior client service and portfolio performance.
Ameriprise Financial Inc.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.486.610&rep=rep1&ty
pe=pdf
Petit, V., & Bollaert, H., (2012). Flying too close to the sun? Hubris among CEOs and
how to prevent it. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 265-283.
Piccone, P. M., Dagnino, G. B., & Mina, A. (2014). The origin of failure: A
multidisciplinary appraisal of the hubris hypothesis and proposed research
agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 447–468.
118
PriceMetrix Insights (2013). Stay or stray: Putting some numbers behind client retention.
Retrieved July 10, 2016 from pricemetrix.com website:
http://www.pricemetrix.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/PriceMetrix-Insights_Stay-
or-Stray_English.pdf?t=1393101724
Radtke, R. R. (2008). Role morality in the accounting profession – How do we compare
to physicians and attorneys? Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 279-297.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological
Reports, 45(2), 590.
Revenue (2018). Retrieved December 29, 2018 from Investopia.com website:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp
Robinson, M. D., Ode, S., Palder, S. L., & Fetterman, A. K. (2012). Explicit and implicit
approach motivation interact to predict interpersonal arrogance. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(7), 858-869.
Rossetto, L. C. & Murphy, B (2010). Embedding communication skills for future
financial planners. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 4(4),
73-85.
Rowatt, W.C., Powers, C., Targhetta, V., Comer, J., Kennedy, S., & Labouff, J. (2006).
Development and initial validation of an implicit measure of humility relative to
arrogance. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(4), 198-211.
Russell, G. (2011). Psychiatry and politicians: The ‘Hubris Syndrome’. The Psychiatrist,
35, 140–145.
119
Ryan, D. S. (1983). Self-esteem: An operational definition and ethical analysis. Journal
of Psychology and Theology, 11, 295-302.
Scandura, T.A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management:
Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(6), 1248–1264.
Schaefer, S. (2015). Top wealth managers 2015: It’s a bull market for financial advice.
Retrieved July 16, 2016 from forbes.com website:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2015/05/01/top-wealth-managers-
2015-investing-advice/#3969e911360e
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Audiences’ reactions to self-enhancing, self-
denigrating, and accurate self-presentations. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 18, 89–104.
Shapiro, D. (1965). Neurotic styles. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Sheth, J., & Sisodia, R. (2005). Why good companies fail: It’s not just weak
organisations that spiral into decline and fail. Managerial arrogance and
inflexibility can bring even great companies to their knees. European Business
Forum, 22, 24 – 30.
Silverman, S. B., Johnson, R., McConnell, N., & Carr, A. (2012). Arrogance: A formula
for leadership failure. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 50(1), 21-28.
Spain, S.M., Harms, P.D., & LeBreton, J.M. (2014). Dark personality at work. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 35, 41–60.
120
SPSS ® Statistics GradPack (Version 22.0) [Computer software]. (2012). Armonk, NY:
SPSS: An IBM Company.
Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Routledge Academic.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Tangney, J. P. (2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and
directions for future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 70-
82.
Thomas, C. W. (2002). The rise and fall of Enron. Journal of Accountancy, 193(4), 41-
48.
Tolleson, T. D., & Pai, K. (2011). The Big 4 accounting firms: Too big to fail?
International Journal of Business, Accounting, and Finance, 5(1), 56-66.
Tomlinson, J. A. (2015). Financial planning research needs – A practitioner’s view.
Journal of Personal Finance, 14(2), 72-78.
Tracy, J. L., & Prehn, C. (2012). Arrogant or self-confident? The use of contextual
knowledge to differentiate hubristic and authentic pride from a single nonverbal
expression. Cognition and Emotion, 26(1), 14-24.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two
facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 506–525.
Trumbull, D. (2010). Hubris: A primal danger. Psychiatry, 73(4), 341-351.
121
Van Zant, A. B, & Moore, D. A. (2013). Avoiding the pitfalls of overconfidence while
benefiting from the advantages of confidence. California Management Review,
55(2), 5-23.
Vera, D., & Rodriguez-Lopez, A. (2004). Strategic virtues: Humility as a source of
competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 393–408.
Wang, X., Chow, C., & Luk, C. (2013). Does service employee arrogance discourage
sales of luxury brands in emerging markets. Psychology and Marketing, 30(10),
918–933.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
Weydert, S. A. (2011). Who is really a “Trusted Advisor?” Investment Advisor, 31(6),
142.
Winchester, D., & Huston, S. (2017). Trust reduces costs associated with consumer-
financial planner relationship. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 71(4),
80-91.
Wosinska, W., Dabul, A. J., Whetstone-Dion, R., & Cialdini, R. B. (1996). Self-
presentational responses to success in the organization: The costs and benefits of
modesty. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 229–242.
Wu, J., & LeBreton, J.M. (2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of
counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality. Personnel
Psychology, 64, 593–626.
122
Wubben, M. J., De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2012). Is pride a prosocial emotion?
Interpersonal effects of authentic and hubristic pride. Cognition and Emotion,
26(6), 1084-1097.
Yeske, D. (2017). Dick Wagner on why financial planning is the most important
profession of the century. Journal of Financial Planning, 30(5), 14-19.
123
Appendix A: Permission to Use the Workplace Arrogance Scale
From: Silverman, Stanley B.
Sent: February-10-16 10:43 AM
Cranla,
You have my permission to use the Workplace Arrogance Scale (WARS) for research
purposes only for use with your dissertation.
Best,
Stan
……………………………………………………………….....
Stanley B. Silverman
President, Human Resource Decisions, Inc.
Dean Emeritus
Professor Emeritus
The University of Akron
124
Appendix B: Financial Investment Advisor “Leader Board”
Advisor
Month Over Month
Rolling 12
Comparison
Revenue
June 2018
1
Mth
3 Mths
1 Yr
12 Mths
3 Mths
1 Yr
Firm
Rank
100
38306.65
-59%
-20%
-32%
733403.88
3%
7%
16
101
73311.74
23%
44%
0%
735927.69
1%
25%
15
102
73420.01
71%
83%
-35%
728751.84
9%
36%
17
103 and 103A
61425.63
-4%
36%
52%
640168.13
17%
51%
22
104 and 104A
30100.41
4%
17%
-24%
428567.28
2%
-1%
36
105
4500.01
-24%
-41%
0%
68948.12
-2%
6%
54
106 and 106A
32751.54
-17%
26%
24%
637347.78
2%
3%
23
107 and 107A
117912.53
5%
-8%
34%
1456972.38
6%
23%
4
108
40555.08
45%
34%
-61%
475231.81
-30%
-40%
29
109
81845.92
25%
24%
97%
690615.52
12%
30%
18
110
3713.12
97%
273%
421%
38356.63
17%
286%
56
111 and 111A
148986.59
-22%
13%
-5%
1925219.51
1%
7%
1
112
22325.03
-82%
45%
40%
641998.15
3%
14%
21
113
4566.94
-16%
19%
-9%
226531.48
2%
-8%
47
114
44343.23
27%
12%
25%
772559.04
0%
3%
14
115 and 115A
67641.47
-21%
11%
-18%
925180.99
-2%
3%
11
116
52523.44
25%
120%
29%
473293.21
2%
14%
30
117
5548.41
-46%
17%
-15%
96363.73
3%
7%
52
118
35747.28
152%
89%
15%
302543.35
-6%
-24%
40
119
158492.74
16%
16%
34%
1452540.80
11%
16%
5
120
24913.81
6%
-1%
9%
295605.81
5%
13%
41
121 and 121A
132846.83
-38%
8%
55%
1503126.47
16%
52%
3
122 and 122A and
122B
89013.33
-40%
33%
19%
1143171.64
3%
6%
7
123
41632.47
75%
139%
48%
313226.84
1%
-4%
38
124
106122.42
70%
88%
203%
945282.21
18%
166%
10
125
31611.38
314%
226%
281%
256241.48
20%
142%
43
126
11685.70
188%
-84%
-86%
242830.46
-36%
-11%
46
Advisor
Month
Over
Month
Rolling 12
Comparison
Revenue
June 2018
1
Mth
3 Mths
1 Yr
12 Mths
3 Mths
1 Yr
Firm
Rank
125
127 and 127A
21614.31
-58%
-18%
-48%
447080.28
-5%
6%
33
128
97363.13
288%
2022%
168%
294733.41
29%
29%
42
129 and 129A
62702.07
60%
193%
139%
489739.25
6%
108%
28
130
6295.04
22%
162%
479%
39951.54
23%
416%
55
131
171589.77
205%
48%
240%
815194.47
17%
41%
12
132 and 132A
53971.61
-50%
-4%
-23%
792178.01
4%
-22%
13
133
54019.81
4%
-4%
0%
562607.03
2%
21%
26
134
57957.10
54%
131%
37%
454984.68
3%
18%
32
135
31042.01
49%
77%
97%
245351.33
2%
127%
45
136
18859.00
123%
-47%
NA
72081.06
72%
NA
53
137
10659.94
36%
13%
0%
164804.18
1%
-6%
48
138
62764.48
-10%
174%
-3%
665089.39
2%
1%
19
139
224211.36
179%
182%
320%
1798224.68
0%
143%
2
140
143555.31
130%
102%
97%
1025205.29
11%
17%
8
141
38577.97
11%
14%
3%
440409.28
1%
5%
34
142
7206.21
67%
-46%
-61%
136700.63
-15%
-31%
50
143
38134.61
-31%
12%
52%
437079.95
18%
44%
35
144 and 144A
30550.15
79%
110%
50%
310098.15
2%
11%
39
145
22117.10
-30%
-45%
-36%
341660.77
-5%
-9%
37
146
59341.25
31%
49%
20%
648886.10
0%
23%
20
147 and 147A
62872.33
14%
52%
-19%
632194.41
-3%
-17%
24
148
158.40
291%
-49%
1851%
4741.10
14%
917%
57
149 and 149A
50590.54
22%
12%
11%
532660.55
-2%
2%
27
150
20820.10
5%
3%
-10%
246521.75
-2%
-4%
44
151 and 151A
48062.89
-23%
47%
42%
466751.04
8%
4%
31
152
12370.98
7%
13%
40%
124611.62
9%
50%
51
153
119668.20
-31%
74%
70%
1150692.99
17%
16%
6
154
75552.37
-4%
8%
-20%
970516.38
-1%
172%
9
155
51197.85
56%
18%
225%
571071.72
11%
347%
25
156
35703.08
12%
45%
NA
141775.47
227%
NA
49
Advisor
Month
Over
Month
Assets
June 2018
1 Mth
3
Mths
1 Yr
Firm
Rank
Firm
Average
Rank
Rev +
Assets
100
120065693
0%
1%
2%
6
11
101
112028237
-5%
-5%
-4%
10
12.5
102
82002884
7%
13%
44%
17
17
103 and 103A
85983194
-1%
-3%
11%
16
19
104 and 104A
45475222
-4%
-2%
NA
33
34.5
105
15349619
5%
12%
NA
50
52
126
106 and 106A
59015880
-3%
0%
-8%
26
24.5
107 and 107A
138534445
6%
12%
31%
3
3.5
108
73652209
-1%
0%
-4%
19
24
109
31618060
3%
3%
17%
43
30.5
110
3483938
-1%
2%
245%
56
56
111 and 111A
227236972
1%
3%
4%
1
1
112
81055198
0%
5%
11%
18
19.5
113
43293191
1%
4%
7%
36
41.5
114
121596584
8%
3%
49%
5
9.5
115 and 115A
112908592
0%
2%
6%
9
10
116
69555959
-1%
1%
3%
22
26
117
43520492
1%
1%
4%
35
43.5
118
48455823
0%
-2%
32%
31
35.5
119
119944529
-2%
0%
44%
7
6
120
27168997
2%
-3%
6%
46
43.5
121 and 121A
166017743
-3%
-4%
17%
2
2.5
122 and 122A and
122B
98526583
1%
-1%
6%
14
10.5
123
27511641
1%
3%
10%
44
41
124
14176006
-3%
-2%
23%
51
30.5
125
13122477
6%
14%
18%
54
48.5
126
27486522
-2%
0%
13%
45
45.5
127 and 127A
34710008
20%
19%
-5%
42
37.5
Advisor
Month
Over
Month
Assets
June 2018
1 Mth
3
Mths
1 Yr
Firm
Rank
Firm
Average
Rank
Rev +
Assets
128
73099264
1%
11%
-22%
20
31
129 and 129A
43693853
-9%
-1%
-23%
34
31
130
13858450
-9%
26%
32%
52
53.5
131
60241265
3%
23%
36%
24
18
132 and 132A
128877878
3%
5%
4%
4
8.5
133
98811463
1%
4%
2%
13
19.5
134
40126966
86%
3%
4%
38
35
135
20401903
-2%
-1%
133%
48
46.5
136
13855401
9%
319%
NA
53
53
137
19137280
5%
12%
12%
49
48.5
138
70398687
-1%
-2%
0%
21
20
139
119501586
0%
1%
6%
8
5
140
90341549
0%
2%
1%
15
11.5
127
141
62443715
0%
1%
5%
23
28.5
142
47272032
8%
3%
36%
32
41
143
39330031
-13%
-7%
8%
40
37.5
144 and 144A
50644102
-3%
1%
6%
30
34.5
145
40227202
1%
0%
19%
37
37
146
35733925
-1%
-11%
8%
41
30.5
147 and 147A
50973794
-2%
-3%
-6%
29
26.5
148
541512
-1%
-8%
22%
57
57
149 and 149A
59434085
0%
2%
1%
25
26
150
26872713
0%
4%
3%
47
45.5
151 and 151A
58167900
0%
16%
18%
27
29
152
6165146
-3%
-2%
30%
55
53
153
99001650
2%
6%
9%
11
8.5
154
98823841
0%
6%
18%
12
10.5
155
52344494
0%
3%
18%
28
26.5
156
39504568
2%
20%
NA
39
44
