A recent study from San Francisco State University provides a significant breakthrough for employers and organizations seeking to identify narcissistic tendencies in job candidates. By carefully crafting and analyzing responses to just three targeted interview questions, the researchers found a remarkably efficient method to spot potentially disruptive personalities—offering Thai employers, educators, and even community leaders a practical new tool for building healthier teams and workplaces (Psychology Today).
This research is especially relevant to Thailand, where the concept of “face” and harmonious group interaction play a central role in organizational culture. Narcissistic grandiosity—characterized by a focus on personal gain, dominance in group settings, and a lack of empathy—threatens not only productivity but also the emotional well-being of colleagues. In a country where community, respect, and consensus are highly valued, early identification of such traits can prevent workplace conflict and staff turnover, which are persistent challenges in both Thai corporate and government offices.
Key findings stem from four studies involving undergraduate students who were also active in near-full-time employment and career development courses. Researchers began with a list of 19 behaviorally based interview items, painstakingly whittling them down to the three that most accurately predicted narcissistic grandiosity. These were:
- “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 expressed their concern with one of your decisions to you and others. It turns out that your decision was the correct call. How would you handle this situation?”
What distinguishes these questions is their subtlety. On the surface, they relate to everyday leadership and collaboration scenarios. However, responses consistent with narcissistic grandiosity typically revolve around demonstrating personal superiority, validating being “right” at all costs, and prioritizing self-image over collective harmony. For example, a highly narcissistic answer to the third question would be, “I would prove to everyone that I was correct,” while a low-narcissism, growth-oriented response might state, “I wouldn’t brag or rub it in their face. I would try to make sure they are feeling OK about the disagreement and let them know their opinion always matters.”
The lead researcher, an associate professor of psychology at San Francisco State University, notes in the published study that bringing narcissists into an organization can carry “destructive” risks. These individuals often prioritize short-term gains for themselves over long-term organizational health, may be prone to rule-breaking, bullying colleagues, or undermining group consensus—all behaviors that fundamentally conflict with core Thai values of kreng jai (considerate deference) and collective decision-making (Psychology Today).
Expert commentary from the field of occupational psychology in Thailand echoes these concerns. According to a senior psychologist at a Bangkok-based recruitment consultancy, “Our clients often ask us about identifying problem personalities during the hiring process. This study offers practical questions that can reveal not just technical skills but emotional maturity and respect for others—qualities most Thai companies treasure but find challenging to measure objectively.”
Reliability of the three-question sequence, while not perfect (statistical reliability landed in the 0.60s, modest compared to the typical 0.70 threshold), was impressive for such a short screening tool. The researchers emphasize that the intent is not to diagnose narcissistic personality disorder, but to provide a fast, valid means of screening for traits that could forecast poor team fit or organizational risk. The questions are also adaptable: whether applied in a formal interview, a committee selection, or even informal social settings such as a community club, they provide a framework for evaluating how new group members are likely to interact with others.
For Thai HR professionals, the implications are substantial. Traditional Thai hiring often emphasizes references, academic credentials, and seniority. However, these may not reveal deep-seated personality traits. Introducing these evidence-based interview questions could help prevent costly hiring mistakes. According to the director of a local HR development institution, “Integrating subtle behavioral questions into our interview processes gives us a lens into a candidate’s genuine values and emotional intelligence—areas that align with both Thai Buddhist principles and international best practices.”
Historical context further highlights the importance of these findings for Thailand. The past decade has seen a growing emphasis on emotional well-being and mental health in the workplace, influenced by both international research and local workplace reforms (Bangkok Post). Narcissistic behaviors—often manifesting as dominance, insensitivity, or disruptiveness—clash with traditional Thai organizational values rooted in harmony and respect for hierarchy. In Thai culture, disruptive “egoism” is often masked during job interviews when cultural expectations lead candidates to present themselves as more humble than they truly are. This new method helps HR teams see past the façade.
As remote work, hybrid teams, and cross-cultural collaboration become more commonplace in post-pandemic Thailand, the ability to swiftly and accurately gauge interpersonal fit gains even greater relevance. Toxic leadership, sometimes glamorized as “confidence,” can have outsized negative impacts on team stability—especially in high-context societies like Thailand, where social repercussions ripple beyond the office into families and communities.
One limitation acknowledged by the study is that its subjects—undergraduate students with near-full-time jobs—may not capture all the nuances found in older, more experienced professionals. Still, the research provides a valuable starting point. Local HR leaders are now discussing pilot programs to integrate these questions into standard interview protocols, adapting them for different industries and organizational cultures.
Similarly, Thai educational organizations, such as universities and vocational colleges, are exploring how these measures might identify students with positive or negative leadership potential for peer organizations and extracurricular activities. In an era where “soft skills” are as crucial as academic achievement, the ability to nurture group-oriented, respectful leaders—rather than self-promoting narcissists—takes on national significance.
Looking ahead, researchers and practitioners in Thailand see the potential for refining such screening tools to better fit local norms. For example, incorporating indirect questioning—already a staple of Thai communication—could further reduce the likelihood that candidates recognize what’s being assessed and adjust their answers accordingly. There is also ongoing discussion about integrating peer feedback or scenario-based group interviews as supplementary steps.
What does this mean for Thai readers, employers, and community leaders? The practical recommendation is clear: don’t rely solely on resumes, test scores, or initial impressions. By incorporating a few well-designed, evidence-based questions focused on leadership behavior, conflict resolution, and response to criticism, both private and public organizations in Thailand can build more resilient, harmonious teams. As Thailand pivots towards a more competitive, innovation-driven economy, the ability to identify and nurture team-first rather than ego-first leaders may prove decisive for long-term success—and social stability.
For those interested in implementing these questions, the full research is available on Psychology Today. HR managers and team leaders are encouraged to consider training sessions on behavioral interviewing to maximize the effectiveness of these tools. More broadly, raising awareness around the dangers of unchecked narcissism will help Thai society maintain its deeply rooted ideals of mutual respect and collective well-being, both in the boardroom and beyond.