A new study from San Francisco State University offers three simple interview questions that can flag narcissistic tendencies in job applicants. The findings, published in June 2025 and summarized by Psychology Today, provide practical tools for Thai organizations aiming to protect team dynamics and organizational health.
In Thailand, where harmony and “namjai” (น้ำใจ) are valued, unchecked narcissism can quietly undermine collaboration, morale, and performance. The research focuses on narcissistic grandiosity—the aspect most linked to disruptive workplace behavior. The team reduced an initial pool of 19 indicators to three core questions, designed to fit both formal interviews and casual group discussions. The questions reliably correlated with scores on standard narcissism measures, offering a quick screening method rather than a formal diagnosis.
The three questions are:
- Do you consider yourself a natural-born leader or someone who has had to learn how to lead? Please share an example of your leadership approach.
- Imagine you are on a team that must reach unanimous consent to move forward. The rest of the team agrees on a plan you strongly disagree with. How would you handle it?
- Imagine you lead a group and someone on your team questions one of your decisions. It turns out your decision was correct. How would you respond?
These prompts are subtly revealing. Strong emphasis on personal validation, resistance to feedback, or a need to “be right” can indicate narcissistic traits. A healthy response tends to emphasize teamwork, openness to feedback, and respect for others’ opinions.
In the study, over 900 university students—many already employed—participated in testing. While not a perfect match for every Thai industry, researchers stress that this is a rapid screening tool, not a diagnostic instrument. Reliability measures reached the .60s, which researchers consider meaningful for a brief assessment.
Beyond the immediate risks of hiring a narcissist—poor short-term decisions, rule-breaking, and a tendency to generate interpersonal conflict—Thai organizations must consider how such traits threaten the country’s collaborative work culture. HR practitioners in Thailand often balance performance with social harmony and seniority-based respect, making early detection of problematic fits particularly valuable.
Thai voices from the field stress that genuine leadership in local workplaces requires humility and collegiality. A Bangkok-based HR expert noted that some candidates who appear confident can mislead teams into overlooking dysfunctional traits. This aligns with the study’s warning that narcissists can excel in brief, high-stakes conversations but harm team dynamics once in position.
Thailand’s collectivist tradition emphasizes indirect communication and consensus. This can make emerging narcissistic behavior harder to spot and longer to address. The idea of kreng jai (เกรงใจ)—consideration for others’ feelings—can be exploited by manipulative personalities to avoid criticism, underscoring the need for thoughtful screening and multiple perspectives in hiring.
For Thai readers, adopting these three questions offers a practical step toward healthier hiring practices. As competition grows with more foreign investment and startup activity in Thailand, strengthening psychological fit alongside technical skills becomes essential for sustainable performance and workplace safety.
A practical takeaway for Thai organizations is to adapt these questions to their context and observe not just what candidates say, but how they respond. Look for collaboration, receptiveness to feedback, and willingness to share leadership credit. Involving multiple raters or anonymized scoring can reduce bias and improve reliability.
Ultimately, updating hiring playbooks with evidence-based, behavior-focused questions supports long-term team harmony and growth. An organizational psychologist in Bangkok emphasizes that the goal is not to exclude capable people but to protect the group and foster an environment where everyone can thrive.
For broader understanding, researchers encourage organizations to view these questions as part of a broader strategy for assessing fit and psychological safety in the workplace.
Data interpretation and the full study are described in the Psychology Today summary of the original research.