A breakthrough study from San Francisco State University has identified three simple interview questions that could effectively flag narcissistic tendencies in job applicants—a finding with important implications for Thai workplaces concerned about team dynamics and organisational health. The research, published in June 2025 and highlighted by Psychology Today, responds to a growing need for practical screening tools that can efficiently identify problematic personalities before they impact the work environment or company culture (Psychology Today).
This finding is particularly significant for Thai employers, human resources professionals, and even local organizations such as community committees and school planning teams, all of which often struggle with the toxic effects of unchecked narcissism. In a country where social harmony is highly valued and conflict is frequently avoided, the subtle disruption caused by narcissistic individuals—whether through bullying, rule-breaking, or an outsized focus on personal gain—can undermine both productivity and the cherished concept of “namjai” (น้ำใจ, or genuine helpfulness).
The research, led by an industrial-organizational psychology team at San Francisco State University, aimed to develop a short set of reliable and valid interview items focused on narcissistic grandiosity—the type linked most frequently with damaging workplace behaviours. Rather than using lengthy diagnostic inventories, the study distilled an initial pool of 19 indicators down to five, and then finally to three core questions. These questions, easy to pose in formal interviews or even informal group settings, were statistically shown to predict narcissism scores on standardized instruments.
The three questions are:
- “Do you consider yourself a natural-born leader or someone who’s had to learn how to lead? Provide an example of your leadership approach.”
- “Imagine you are working on a team that requires unanimous consent to move forward on a project. The other members have agreed upon a plan for the project that you strongly disagree with. How do you proceed?”
- “Imagine you are the leader of a group and someone on your team openly expresses concern with one of your decisions. It turns out your decision was correct. How would you handle this situation?”
What makes these questions powerful is their subtlety. They seem straightforward and relevant to almost any position, but the way a candidate answers—particularly the focus on cooperation, openness to feedback, and attitudes toward being right or wrong—may “give away” narcissistic traits. According to the study, those who display high narcissistic grandiosity often “view situations as ways to validate their leadership and express frustration over being questioned,” while those low in narcissism focus on growth for the group and respect for others.
For example, a red flag answer to the third question—“I would prove to everyone that I was correct”—contrasts sharply with a healthier approach: “I wouldn’t brag or rub it in their face. I would try to make sure everyone felt OK about the disagreement and let them know their opinion matters.”
The researchers note their “three-question” screen was tested among over 900 university students, many already employed full-time and enrolled in career development courses. Though the study sample may not be fully representative of all industries or cultural backgrounds, the team emphasizes that this is not a diagnostic tool but a “quick screening measure” that reliably points to possible red flags, with reliability scores (internal consistency and rater agreement) reaching the .60s—a strong result for such a brief tool (Psychology Today).
The dangers of hiring a narcissist, as outlined by the research team, include short-term decision-making, a willingness to break rules or disregard ethics, and fostering an environment where bullying and interpersonal conflict become more common. Thai organizations, whether large corporations or smaller community groups, can ill afford to ignore these risks. Many Thai HR officers and organisation development consultants already acknowledge the challenges of addressing behavioural and psychological fit during the hiring process, especially when team harmony and seniority-based respect (“phu yai – phu noi” culture) are highly valued.
For Thai readers interested in adapting these findings, a local HR specialist from a leading multinational based in Bangkok reflected, “Thai workplaces place a premium on harmony—sometimes candidates who seem strong or aggressive in interviews are mistaken for confident leaders, when in fact they can disrupt the tali ngay culture that keeps our teams productive and happy.” This perspective aligns with the study’s warnings that narcissists can easily impress in short, high-stakes social exchanges, yet exhibit harmful traits once secure in their positions.
Historically, Thailand’s collectivist orientation means teams often avoid open conflict, with a preference for indirect communication and compromise. This can make it especially hard to spot or confront narcissistic coworkers, as their behaviour may be tolerated longer than in more direct cultures. For example, a person who insists on spotlighting their contributions or disregards consensus is not only “out of step” with Thai work norms, but may also erode morale over time. The wisdom of “kreng jai” (เกรงใจ—consideration for others’ feelings) can be weaponized by manipulative personalities to avoid criticism.
Looking forward, the adoption of data-driven interview practices like those suggested by the San Francisco State study could offer a pragmatic defense for Thai organizations. As the competitive landscape intensifies—particularly with the rising number of foreign-invested firms and startups entering Thailand’s job market—screening for workplace compatibility and psychological safety becomes as crucial as technical skill assessment.
Further, with the post-pandemic shift toward hybrid and remote work, managers often make recruitment decisions after only limited interaction with candidates. New tools, such as these behavioural interview questions, can help prevent the costly mistake of onboarding someone whose personality may later undermine a team’s efforts.
The researchers emphasize that anyone—job interviewers, committee chairs, or even book club organizers—can adapt the three questions to their own context. The focus is less on “catching” a narcissist outright, and more on establishing a healthy baseline of team values and interpersonal respect from the very first conversation.
As a practical recommendation, Thai HR professionals, school recruiters, and business owners are encouraged to incorporate and adapt these questions for their own screening processes. Pay close attention not just to what candidates say, but how they say it—listening for clues about humility, willingness to collaborate, and openness to feedback. When in doubt, involving multiple raters or using anonymized scoring (as done in the original study) can improve reliability and minimize personal bias.
In conclusion, with workplace harmony and long-term growth at stake, Thai organizations should consider updating their hiring playbooks to include modern, research-tested strategies for assessing fit. In a world where a single toxic personality can disrupt even the most harmonious team, having a simple yet effective screening tool is a much-needed asset. As one Bangkok-based organizational psychologist observed, “It’s not about excluding people—it’s about protecting the group and giving everyone the best chance to succeed.”
For further reading and full context of the study, see the original report at Psychology Today.