The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008Get rights and content

Abstract

Toxic employees have come under serious investigation lately. In this study (N = 419) we examined the role the Dark Triad traits, as measures of being a toxic employee, play in predicting tactics of workplace manipulation and how the Dark Triad might mediate sex differences in the adoption of hard (e.g., threats) and soft tactics (e.g., offering compliments). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism were correlated with adopting hard tactics whereas Machiavellianism and narcissism were correlated with adopting soft tactics. The Dark Triad composite fully mediated the sex differences in the adoption of hard tactics but not soft tactics. The Dark Triad may facilitate the adoption of numerous tactics of influence independently but collectively may lead men more than women to adopt an aggressive or forceful style of interpersonal influence at the workplace.

Highlights

► The Dark Triad traits were correlated with an array of manipulation tactics at work. ► Machiavellian and narcissistic participants used soft tactics. ► Psychopathic individuals used hard tactics. ► Men were more likely than women were to use hard tactics. ► This sex difference was fully mediated by the Dark Triad.

Introduction

Recent years have seen a growing body of research on destructive, abusive, or toxic employees. In particular, research has focused on how traits like narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism – the Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) – adversely affect numerous workplace outcomes (Brunell et al., 2008, Penney and Spector, 2002, Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Narcissism has been linked to unethical behavior in CEOs (Amernic and Craig, 2010, Galperin et al., 2010) and a need for power (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Corporate psychopaths have diminished levels of corporate responsibility and can adversely affect productivity (Boddy, 2010). Machiavellianism is associated with diminished organizational, supervisor, and team commitment (Zettler, Friedrich, & Hilbig, 2011), along with a tendency to be perceived as abusive by subordinates (Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, & Tang, 2010) and to focus on maintaining power and using manipulative behaviors (Kessler et al., 2010). However, most of the work has examined the three traits separately but the three traits are moderately intercorrelated (Jacobwitz and Egan, 2006, Paulhus and Williams, 2002). Therefore, a study that assesses all three of these simultaneously is warranted because it presents the opportunity to control for shared variability, therefore, isolating associations to a particular personality trait. We also attempt to account for sex differences in the adoption of two styles of workplace influence by using mediation analyses.

Even with these undesirable characteristics, the fact that these people get hired should be of no surprise. They embody many desirable traits like charm, leadership, assertiveness, and impression management skills (Ames, 2009, Paunonen et al., 2006). Interviews occur over a short period which may not permit sufficient time for the darker sides of these individuals to be revealed (Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011). Even more surprising is that these individuals are not detected and then summarily dismissed (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010). Despite numerous studies on workplace manipulation (Anderson et al., 2008, Kipnis et al., 1980, Lamude and Scudder, 1995, Levine, 2010, Schriesheim and Hinkin, 1990, Yukl and Tracey, 1992), we know little about how those high on the Dark Triad traits (i.e., toxic employees) might get their way in organizations. Through “influence”, “manipulation”, “force”, or “pushing” individuals can induce change in behavior, opinions, attitudes, needs, and values (Ames, 2009, French and Raven, 1959). We examine how individuals’ scores on the Dark Triad traits are correlated with tendencies to use a variety of manipulation tactics at work.

Individuals may employ soft (e.g., ingratiation and reason) or hard (e.g., assertiveness and direct manipulations) tactics in pursuit of their goals (Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, & Goodman, 1997). The primary distinction between these two types of tactics of influence lies in their forcefulness. Hard tactics are essentially tactics where the user forces their will on another person. One might describe one who uses hard tactics as “pushy”. In contrast, soft tactics are designed to convince the target that it is in their best interest to engage in the advocated behavior. Each tactic surely has its place in the workplace. For instance, in negotiations, hard tactics might be particularly useful in getting something done by a certain date, say a construction project. Soft tactics may permit a subtler form of influence whereby the target actually changes their mind through the use of reason to, say, adopt a paperless workplace.

Because of the shared exploitive nature of the Dark Triad traits (Jonason et al., 2010, Jonason et al., 2009), we expect the Dark Triad traits to be correlated with the adoption of both soft and hard tactics but more so with hard than soft tactics. In addition, given that the aggressiveness of the Dark Triad might be localized to psychopathy (Jones and Paulhus, 2010, Warren and Clarbour, 2009), we expect it to be correlated with hard tactics and not soft tactics when we control for shared variability among the Dark Triad traits. Those high on the Dark Triad may also forge alliances to offset their work to others. For instance, ingratiation, exchange of favors, and joking may create workplace friendships. These friendships could be later exploited to offset work obligations. Because the target thinks there is a friendship, they are less likely to detect the exploitation, thinking they are doing a favor for a friend. Narcissism is less well correlated with aggressiveness than psychopathy and Machiavellianism are (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Therefore, narcissism may only be linked to the use of soft tactics, when we control for shared variability and, in particular, with the use of their appearance given the interest narcissists have in physical appearance (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Last, the nature of Machiavellianism is a tendency to manipulate others (Christie and Geis, 1970, Jones and Paulhus, 2009) and to be charming (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996). Therefore, it should be correlated with the use of both hard and soft tactics when we control for shared variability and in particular with “charming tactics” (e.g., joking/kidding, offering compliments) and a tendency to manipulate the person and the situation. In contrast, given the self-serving, competitive, hostile, unilateral, and aggressive workplace behavior of toxic employees (Ames, 2009), we expect the adoption of tactics of being a team player and compromise should not be correlated with any of the Dark Triad traits.

Men tend to adopt harder tactics of influence in the workplace (DuBruin, 1991, Lamude, 1994) and score higher on the Dark Triad traits than women do (Jonason and Webster, 2010, Jonason et al., 2009). Having higher levels of the Dark Triad traits may facilitate the rise to upper-level positions, management positions, and leadership roles (Boddy et al., 2010, Duehr and Bono, 2006, Heilman, 2001, Paunonen et al., 2006). Specifically, the Dark Triad may mediate the sex difference in the adoption of hard tactics for workplace influence. In addition, given that assertiveness at its extremes may be synonymous with the Dark Triad traits (Ames, 2009), we expect the Dark Triad to be correlated with the use of assertiveness in men and not in women.

Personality traits like the Dark Triad have been receiving considerable attention in research about the workplace. Oddly, those high on the Dark Triad traits tend to be overly represented in higher levels in their companies or places of work (Boddy, 2010, Boddy et al., 2010). Because individuals ascend the hierarchy through success at their job, these individuals must be able to influence those around them. In the present study, we assess how the Dark Triad traits are related to the adoption of a range of tactics of influence in the workplace in a sample of individuals who have worked within the last year.

Section snippets

Participants and procedures

Four hundred nineteen participants (30% male; 65% female) aged 18–61 years (M = 22.78; SD = 6.95) who had been employed within the last year were solicited to take part in an online study on work behavior.1 Two hundred and seventy-seven psychology students (28% male; 72% female) aged 18–55 years (M = 21.12; SD = 5.65) from a Southeastern United States university received course credit for

Results

In Table 1, we report descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among the Dark Triad traits and the use of the tactics of influence at work. Tactics like logic/reason and compromise were the primary tactics used by our samples to influence others at work; however, it appears the Dark Triad traits are more strongly correlated with the used of hard tactics as compared to soft tactics. The correlations were higher with the use of hard tactics in psychopathy (Fisher’s z = −4.48, p < .01),

Discussion

Toxic or not, employees need to get work done through the mutual influence and interaction with others in the workplace, and thus, the topic of workplace influence has received interest for at least 50 years (Ames, 2009, French and Raven, 1959). However, it was not until recently that toxic employees and leaders have come under investigation (Amernic and Craig, 2010, Boddy, 2010, Kiazad et al., 2010). The personality traits of the Dark Triad have been the focus of these investigations, and it is

References (44)

  • R.M. Baron et al.

    The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1986)
  • C.R.P. Boddy

    Corporate psychopaths and organizational type

    Journal of Public Affairs

    (2010)
  • C.R.P. Boddy et al.

    Leaders without ethics in global business: Corporate psychopaths

    Journal of Public Affairs

    (2010)
  • A.B. Brunell et al.

    Leader emergence. The case of the narcissistic leader

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (2008)
  • D.M. Cable et al.

    Managers’ upward influence tactic strategy: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (2003)
  • R. Christie et al.

    Studies in Machiavellianism

    (1970)
  • A.J. DuBruin

    Sex and gender differences in tactics of influence

    Psychological Reports

    (1991)
  • E.E. Duehr et al.

    Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing?

    Personnel Psychology

    (2006)
  • S.M. Farmer et al.

    Putting upward influence strategies in context

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (1997)
  • J.R.P. French et al.

    The bases of social power

  • B.L. Galperin et al.

    Status differentiation and the protean self: A social-cognitive model of unethical behavior in organizations

    Journal of Business Ethics

    (2010)
  • R. Hakstian et al.

    The assessment of counterproductive tendencies by means of the California Psychological Inventory

    International Journal of Selection and Assessment

    (2002)
  • Cited by (226)

    • Dark Tetrad at Work: Perceived Severity of Bullying, Harassment, and Workplace Deviance

      2024, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text