1. Introduction

Over the past 25 years, organizational psychology has witnessed a renewed focus on concepts and ideas associated with positive psychology, as well as on what can make work environments better and work more efficient [1]. Identifying ways to make things better is certainly important and has contributed to the improvement of both the field and the quality of work environments in most professions and industries. However, the rush to incorporate more positive elements in research (e.g., job engagement, positive psychological capital) should not result in less attention to the robust negative work experiences that influence a range of organizational outcomes. In terms of organizational behavior, for example, the interest in employee voice behaviors—the genuine expression of concerns, ideas and thoughts to persons capable of effecting change [2]—preceded that of employee silence [2]. A brief search of the key terms “employee silence” and “employee voice” on some of the main research databases is indicative of the differences in how long the productive (voice) and unproductive (silence) aspects of speaking-up have been studied: the Core Collection of the Web of Science yielded results for “employee silence” dated from 2003 until 2023, while for “Employee Voice” from 1972 until 2023. In terms of the body of research, the same database shows that although the number of results has steadily increased over the past 20 years, “employee silence” has yet to catch-up with “employee voice”, and for example, for 2022 and 2021, 53 and 43 results were identified for “employee silence”; at the same time, 177 and 182 results were identified for “employee voice”, respectively.

While positive leadership behaviors and supportive organizational cultures can significantly contribute to motivating productive behaviors at work, it would be unwise not to give equal attention to what motivates and maintains counterproductive work behaviors, toxic work environments and abusive leadership. From a practical point of view, interventions aimed at tackling problems in the workplace via strengthening “positive” aspects of work or the individual (e.g. mindfulness-based interventions for burnout) [3] have not yielded strong and/or long-lasting effects. However, it is not clear whether—to some extent—this happens due to the limitations of asymmetrical research and its inability to properly reflect the realities of both positive and negative dynamics. It is probably safe to assume that there are also significant knowledge gaps regarding the mechanisms that enable and maintain negative, counterproductive work behaviors that, actually contribute positively to both individual and organizational performance. As noted by Robert Hare, “If I wasn’t studying psychopaths in prison, I’d do it in the stock exchange” [4].

Personality might be one of the most researched constructs in psychology, and more specifically, in organizational psychology, the research on the relationship between personality traits and several work and organization-related concepts is considerable. Personality traits have been examined in various ways, such as predicting variables [5], moderators [6, 7], and mediators [8]. More recently work-related models have been developed, suggesting that personality can also be influenced by work factors (e.g., Demands-Affordances Transactional “DATA” model) [9]. According to Heller et al. [10], when discussing personality with regard to work, approaches like the person-by-situation interaction approach to personality [11] and the role personality approach [12] can allow us to understand both the stability and variation of personality traits across situations and time. Further focusing on dark personality, the aforementioned approaches can be further enriched by introducing a functionalist approach to personality traits, which allows looking into the motives (e.g. goals or values), abilities (e.g. cognitive and psychological capacities) and perceptions (e.g. understandings of how the world works) [13]. In the field of organizational psychology, the dark personality traits—such as narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy— have recently received increasing attention with respect to their diverse associations with work-related outcomes such as burnout [14, 15], elevated turnover rates [16], abusive leadership [17–19], employee silence [20], work-related motivation [21], resilience [22, 23], reduced job satisfaction [24], workplace behavior and organizational performance [25]. This chapter will review the existing evidence on how these dark traits are encountered and expressed in the workplace and propose directions for future research.

2. Dark personality traits and dark personalities

2.1 The dark triad and the dark tetrad

The first to coin the term “dark triad” were Paulhus and Williams [26] in an effort to link the personality traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Callousness, manipulativeness and disagreeableness lie at the core of these three personality traits [27]. The dark triad (DT) is a structure of three theoretically distinct (though empirically overlapping) personality characteristics (psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism) that are largely characterized by interpersonal maladaptation [28, 29] and fall under the umbrella of antagonism [30]. Psychopathy, as part of the DT, is characterized by a lack of conscience and guilt [31, 32], as well as uncooperative behavior in a variety of social situations [33, 34], and it has been suggested that lower levels of cooperativeness pay higher rewards for individuals scoring higher in psychopathy [35]. The second trait of the DT, Machiavellianism, is a psychological notion that was developed approximately between 1954 and 1955 and has been identified as the core of manipulation with four main characteristics: lack of emotional affection within interpersonal relationships, lack of interest in conventional morality, lack of psychopathology awareness and lack of ideological commitment [36]. The third trait of the DT is narcissism, a term first used by Havelock Ellis [37] to describe a clinical condition of auto-eroticism. Narcissism is a relatively constant differentiation of human personality characterized mainly by a sense of magnificence, overrated sensation of beauty and falsified views of oneself, extending to individual, interpersonal relationships and self-regulation strategies, as well as self-enhancement and social dominance [38, 39]. The DT (narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy) has been recently expanded to include subclinical sadism [40, 41], leading to the development of the dark tetrad. Higher scores in sadism are linked to hurting others verbally, physically and psychologically and deriving pleasure from these actions [42].

The DT is sometimes discussed as the polar opposite of the so-called “Light Triad”, which includes Kantianism (treating people as means to themselves—the opposite of Machiavellianism), Humanism (valuing the dignity and worth of each individual) and Faith in Humanity (believing in the fundamental goodness of humans) [43]. Moreover, the Honesty-Humility (HH) trait from the HEXACO personality inventory has also been added to the polar opposites of the DT with significant, high negative correlations between the two [30]. HH is associated with adjectives such as fair, generous and modest while being opposed to adjectives such as dishonest, unfair, greedy and boastful [44, 45]—all of which could describe DT traits—and is considered to be associated with altruism and/or cooperation via a reluctance to exploit others even when one could get away with doing it [46]. Differences in HH are associated with individual differences in the tendency to be authentic at the interpersonal level, to avoid deception and corruption, to not care about social status and wealth, to be humble and modest and to be willing to give up personal gain for collective benefit [46, 47].

In order to better understand the relationship between dark personality traits and work/organization-related outcomes, it is essential to take into account what is known about the “nature” of the so-called dark traits and “dark behaviors”—especially given that such behaviors can often be detected in leadership positions, constituting risk factors for both the well-being of employees and the organization as a whole [48]. While there are arguments supporting that some work-related behaviors are role-specific and not indicative of the person’s personality traits, research evidence also shows that, for example, adopting a callous and manipulative attitude at work can also be a state of mind far beyond a role-restricted behavior. For example, Jonason & Zeigler-Hill [49] found that Machiavellianism and psychopathy were negatively associated with the desire to develop or maintain interpersonal relationships. Behaviors and attitudes that entail deprioritizing good relationships with others or an increased desire for status with complete disregard for others are potentially rooted in the primary experiences of social-ecological environments that reinforced individualistic self-preservation over collective prosperity—meaning that such behaviours and attitudes have been integrated over time in the “repertoire” of patterns that can be described as a person’s personality, in this case, a dark personality.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, humans, as social animals, have developed motives that serve their fundamental needs, including self-preservation, mate-seeking, status and kin care [50]. According to Jonason et al. [51], these social motives are sensitive to early experiences, especially stressful and unpredictable ones [52]. For example, experiences of unpredictability during childhood have been positively associated with higher levels of dark personality traits and status-seeking, while childhood resource availability has been negatively associated with the same traits [49]. These findings suggest the possibility of a “continuity” in the way the dark traits are developed and reinforced by the external environment. Moreover, if experienced as effective coping strategies for self-preservation and success, these behaviors and attitudes can be transferred to the work environment especially when found in organizational cultures where the focus on status overpowers the importance of interpersonal relationships. Thus, the interplay between work environments and dark personalities can be moderated and/or mediated by individual factors related to non-work and potentially to early life experiences as well.

2.2 Lack of empathy as the (missing) link across dark personality traits

One of the most agreed principles in the literature of dark personalities is the shared lack of empathy across the dark traits, which can also be expressed as a lack of concern for other people’s welfare and/or a propensity to take advantage of them [53–56]. According to Wispé [57], empathy is conceptualized as the deliberate effort to consider others’ emotions, and comprehend their ideas and perspectives to achieve interpersonal reciprocity. It is a vital and universal skill that is significant for co-existing in societies and moral development. Walker and Alligood [58] have suggested distinguishing between emotional (affective) and cognitive empathy. The latter is viewed as a taught skill, whereas the former is thought to be an intrinsic ability [58]; it is the lack of emotional empathy that is probably at the core of the dark personalities, as a large body of research has shown a systematic negative correlation between the dark personality traits and emotional empathy [59, 60]. A study by Turner et al. [61] suggested that the lowest levels of emotional empathy were identified among people with high levels of psychopathy, followed by those with higher levels of Machiavellianism and then narcissism. Interestingly—with the exception of psychopathy—this relationship was negative for emotional empathy with narcissism and Machiavellianism but positive for cognitive empathy with the same two traits. Furthermore, research indicated that those with greater levels of narcissism and Machiavellianism have the most robust cognitive empathy skill sets [61, 62]—which suggests that the ability to cognitively “put oneself in someone else’s shoes” is probably distinct from the ability to emotionally relate to how someone else is feeling in a particular situation. High levels of cognitive empathy among individuals high in Machiavellianism and/or narcissism could potentially help explain what has often been described as an ability to emotionally manipulate others. Such manipulation is achieved by recognizing and understanding (cognitively) other’s emotions and utilizing this to gain an advantage. Psychopathy, on the other hand, was not related to cognitive empathy, which may imply that those with high levels of psychopathy could be employing force or other manipulative techniques that rely less on cognitive empathy.

Recently, a novel psychological construct characterized by high empathy and dark traits has been proposed, the “dark empath” [63]. The term dark empath can be used to describe potentially “hidden” dark personalities, referring to individuals that are perceived as charming, who approach other people with warmth and attitudes that suggest care and concern; however, the aims are individualistic, and often the outcome is negative. The construct of the dark empath [63] could be used as an example of the combination between high cognitive empathy skills and high levels of Machiavellianism; this could be reminiscent of the well-known adage “the ends justify the means”. Unlike emotional empathy, which is characterized by an innate desire to soothe the other person, in the case of the dark empath, there is no pleasure in helping other people; what matters is their personal goals that usually include achieving power and power assertion. We can imagine the aspect of learned (cognitive) empathy by people falling under the Dark Triad umbrella as an additional, dangerous and powerful tool used to achieve manipulation with precision. However, because these toxic behaviors and intentions are masked under the externally expressed cognitive empathy, it is hard to identify potentially “dangerous” individuals generally—but more specifically in the workplace.

3. Dark traits in the workplace: more complex than it seems?

3.1 Placing the dark traits in the workplace: OCB and WCB

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) can be used as a useful framework to better understand dark personality traits in the workplace. OCB describes a working environment where employees are internally motivated to go beyond duty and contribute to the organization without expecting a specific formal reward [63]. This type of engagement has been related to organizational benefits, such as increased job performance, less absenteeism and better organizational productivity [64]. On the other side of the scale lies counterproductive work behavior (CWB), which refers to behaviors that harm or intend to harm an organization or its employees [65].

According to Bennett and Robinson [66], CWB, or workplace deviance, a voluntary behavior intended to harm the organization and its members. These behaviors include sabotage, theft, or absenteeism and incivility, gossip or bullying (intended to hurt the organization’s members). Research evidence has shown a positive and significant relationship between all dark traits and CWB in general [67, 68].

While dark personality traits have been found to be positively correlated with negative workplace behaviors [25], personality traits such as conscientiousness and agreeableness have been negatively correlated with CWB [69, 70] and positively correlated with OCB [71]. Thus, in an organizational context, the traits that comprise the dark triad and Tetrad are linked to CWB and antisocial tendencies in diverse work contexts. This highlights the urgency to review and further investigate the dark personality traits in the workplace, especially when considering people in leadership positions. It is also crucial to go one step back and explore the motives behind such behaviors, as these motives could constitute significant obstacles to well-being, job engagement and better performance in the workplace.

The risk of developing toxic work environments becomes greater when individuals scoring high on the dark personality traits are located in leadership positions, as the previously described motives and personal agendas have a huge toll on the employees’ well-being. However, the alignment between the “job description” of a leadership position and the power motive that characterizes the dark personalities means that the probability of individuals with strong dark traits ending up in leadership role is—in many industries—high. McClelland [71] defined power motive as the desire to feel strong and make an impact on others, with the latter sustaining reputation and increasing prestige. Schattke & Marion-Jetten [72] suggest that power is an important motivator at work, and it is not necessarily attractive only to those scoring high on dark traits. However, it would be probably safe to hypothesize that higher levels of Machiavellianism, for example, would be correlated with greater efforts to achieve power, and often this means willingness to do “whatever it takes”.

A strong desire for power and the need to dominate others play a significant role in dark leadership [48]. Suessenbach et al. [73] introduced a taxonomy of reasons for power desire. This derives from the assumption that individuals on the top of the social hierarchy obtain their power from three different sources: dominance, prestige and leadership. More specifically, dominance is based on forcing others to do something, and individuals with high motive for dominance force their will onto others by coercion and intimidation [73]. Prestige refers to the desire to seek admiration and respect while being on the top of the social hierarchy, and individuals with high motive for prestige seek voluntary deference through demonstrating their skills and knowledge. Leadership describes the situation in which someone takes responsibility for a group and directs its members towards a common goal. That position is obtained neither by force nor voluntary deference, but rather when the need for coordinating arises; individuals who enjoy directing others will try to acquire the leadership role [73]. However, the line between dominance and leadership seems to be very thin when it comes to dark personality traits, as an increased need for power and status might lead to counterproductive work behaviors and create a toxic environment for the rest of the employees. In fact, Schattke and Marion-Jetten [72] found that dominance was strongly associated with Machiavellianism while prestige was significantly related to narcissism. Furthermore, dominance predicted higher CWB, whereas leadership best predicted OCB. This could also help explain why narcissism—although included in the dark triad—is not always a “dark trait”, with empirical evidence suggesting that when combined with high self-esteem narcissism is positively related to altruistic behaviour and intrinsic motivation for moral behaviour [74] and could also lead to “self-harming” altruistic behaviour, which has also been referred to as “pathological altruism” [75] or “extreme altruism” [76].

3.2 Dark traits and the well-being of colleagues, subordinates and/or supervisors: links with malevolent creativity

In the presence of dark personality traits in the workplace, apart from the employees’ well-being and performance that might be affected, the organization is also at great risk for disloyalty and corruption. According to Harms et al. [77], dark personality traits are associated with antisocial and noxious interpersonal behaviors that could be used to predict inside threat behaviors. Moreover, both psychopathy and Machiavellianism predicted higher corruption intention [78], while narcissism was found to be unrelated to such outcomes. A longitudinal study by Nevicka et al. [79] showed that employees who interacted with leaders high on narcissistic traits encountered more toxic behaviors and regarded them as less effective in leadership.

Workplace bullying is conceptualized as a form of interpersonal misconduct in the workplace that involves repeated demeaning or destructive behaviors towards other organizational members [80]. Workplace bullying can be disruptive as it can cause psychological and physiological damage to the victims and negative work-related outcomes, such as job dissatisfaction and absenteeism [81]. Empirical evidence suggests that individuals with high levels of narcissism are more likely to use workplace bullying as a form of revenge when they do not get what they think they deserve [82]. This retaliation can take the form of spreading false rumors, social undermining, sabotage, bullying or harassment [82, 83].

Interestingly, the presence of narcissistic and psychopathic attributes in leaders has also been linked to workplace bullying, albeit indirectly, meaning that this group of leaders provides a suitable environment for the development and maintenance of workplace bullying [[84, 85] as cited in [86]]; thus, creating a toxic culture for the employees where disrespect, incivilities, and damage are tolerated or even indirectly rewarded. Machiavellianism and sadism have also been linked to workplace bullying, but the connection of the latter still remains primarily on a theoretical level with scarce research [[87] as cited in [86, 88, 89]]. Some evidence on sadism in connection to workplace bullying comes from Fernández-del-Río et al. [90], who found that all dark traits were related to workplace bullying, but sadism was the strongest predictor. This is in line with the conceptualization of sadists as people who derive pleasure from hurting others.

The dark traits have also been linked to workplace incivility [84, 91]. Incivility, according to Leiter et al. [92], is defined as rude or discourteous behaviors with somewhat ambiguous intent. Meier and Semmer [91] found that narcissism predicted incivility towards supervisors and coworkers. As narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, exhibitionism, and arrogance [83], rude behaviors towards supervisors can be explained by feelings of superiority and self-righteousness, meaning that they deserve the leadership position more than their supervisors. In relation to psychopathy, Boddy [84] found that high prevalence of psychopathy in a corporate setting was linked to increased rude behaviors, while Gebben et al. [93] provided some support for the positive links between sadism and uncivil behaviors in the workplace.

One interesting link between dark traits and CWB is malevolent creativity. Malevolent creativity can be defined as “creativity that is deliberately planned to damage others” (p. 106) [94]. In the workplace, malevolent creativity can range from gossip, lying, and cheating to verbal and physical abuse and fraud [95]. Kapoor and Kaufman [96] found that lower concerns for authority, loyalty, purity (binding moral foundations) and lower regard for care and fairness (individualizing moral foundations) predicted malevolent creativity. Congruently, the relationship between lower concerns for moral foundations and malevolent creativity was mediated by higher dark traits. For example, high narcissism allows individuals to engage in toxic and immoral behavior due to the antagonistic aspects that define this trait [67]. However, if we also consider that high levels of narcissism make it more likely to excel in certain tasks due to its adaptability [97], creativity can take the form of blame-shifting, gaslighting and revenge. For example, using any means necessary and, if needed, increasing levels of malevolent creativity to get what they think they deserve can be common behaviors that contribute to a hostile work environment with negative psychological and emotional consequences for coworkers, supervisors and/or subordinates.

Much less research has been published concerning psychopathy and malevolent creativity, but given the egocentricity that permeates psychopathy and characterizes psychopathic behavior, a link between psychopathy and malevolent creativity can be hypothesized. Higher levels of aggression are common among people with high levels of psychopathy (e.g. the “Corporate Psychopath”), as are immoral behavior and malevolent thinking [98], and, combined with the high levels of deception and lying [99], psychopathy could lead to greater levels of malevolent creativity. However, research has also challenged the idea that psychopaths are better at lying and deceiving [100, 101], thus making it difficult to draw direct conclusions between psychopathy and malevolent creativity. On the other hand, there is support for a positive relationship between psychopathy and malevolent divergent thinking that could be attributed to the hypothesis that certain personality characteristics predispose individuals to certain actions [102, 103].

Malevolent creativity is also more common among individuals with a “Machiavellian” profile [104, 105]. Examples of malevolent creativity, include generating lies, daydreaming about hurting people, planning pranks and the willingness to commit fraud [23, 106, 107]. Lastly, bullying and sensation-seeking appear to be the most common expression of malevolent creativity among individuals with high levels of sadism [40, 108]. The first includes threats of violence, the use of fear tactics, trolling, cyberstalking and doxing [95, 109], while the latter refers to the tendency to pursue new and different sensations, feelings and experiences, often at the expense of other people, with significant risks for the well-being of an organization.

3.3 The case of “corporate psychopathy”

Psychopathy is a term identified in clinical psychopathology which refers to a pattern of behaviors identified under the antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) in DSM-5 [110], classified with two severe personality disorders—Borderline (BPD) and Narcissistic (NPD) personality disorder. Psychopathy has been defined as “a mental disorder roughly equivalent to antisocial personality disorder, but with an emphasis on affective and interpersonal traits such as superficial charm, pathological lying, egocentricity, lack of remorse, and callousness” [111]. ASPD is described as a personality disorder characterized by a rigidly dysfunctional thought process with a significant focus on “social irresponsibility” or even “social injustice”, combined with delinquent, exploitive and criminal behaviors. The lack of remorse is at the core of the disorder, even in cases of severe criminal activity with potential physical and mental harm to others. According to the DSM-5 [110], diagnostic criteria for ASPD include a pervasive pattern of disregard and violation of the rights of others, with significant impairments in self-functioning and interpersonal functioning, while pathological personality traits should be identified in the domains of Antagonism and Disinhibition.

The term “Corporate Psychopathy” has been directly associated with the notion of “dark personality” and its related traits [112]. Individuals who fall under the “Corporate Psychopathy” label work in corporations and other business organizations and have been often described as careerists, charming, manipulative, cunning and opportunistic but with fast-track careers in business organizations [112]. Corporate Psychopathy fulfills “Antagonism” and “Disinhibition” criteria of psychopathy by exhibiting manipulativeness, deceitfulness, callousness and hostility (for Antagonism) and irresponsibility, impulsivity and risk-taking (for Disinhibition); characteristics that are reflective of what could be described as dishonest and immoral behavior. It is crucial to underline that Corporate Psychopathy pertains to behaviors displayed in the work context, whereas ASPD involves impairments in personality functioning and trait expression, that remain relatively stable across time. In essence, Corporate Psychopathy is associated with an individual’s role-based personality, while ASPD is linked to their overall/global personality and situations. A relevant question worth exploring is, what underlying mechanism might contribute to these types of behaviors.

To better understand the potential mechanisms, the cognitive toolbox of “Corporate Psychopathy”, and, more specifically, the role of cognitive control, could be a useful pathway. Cognitive control refers to one’s ability to guide their own behavior, thoughts and emotions [113]. Although a matter of a long-lasting and still ongoing debate, limited cognitive control [114, 115] is suggested to have an inverse relationship with dishonesty. The cognitive control network is comprised of three brain areas: (1) anterior cingulate cortex, (2) ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and (3) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Activity in the cognitive control neural network (as shown by fMRI studies) has been related to hindering automated selfish impulses [116]. Interestingly, a study with incarcerated individuals in the highest percentiles of psychopathy (often referred to as “psychopaths”) revealed diminished activity of the cognitive control network when faced with an opportunity to exhibit dishonest behavior [117], suggesting that dishonesty may result from a lack of inhibition due to reduced activity of the cognitive control brain network. Similarly, disruption in this network has been linked to selfish impulses [118]. To our knowledge, the literature on the neurobiological substrates of “Corporate Psychopathy” is rather limited; however, the results on psychopathy, impulsivity and selfishness suggest that certain neurobiological substrates underly dishonest behavior. Thus, we should keep in mind the neurobiological mechanisms when exploring the role of personality traits in behavior. The neuronal networks that form the basis of personality can lead us towards a better understanding of explicit behavior and can provide further and valuable information on how these mechanisms can be altered in relation to one’s environment, such as the working environment. Indeed, the importance of these neural networks becomes apparent when we consider the interplays between brain functioning and environmental circumstances, which ultimately affect the end result, that is, behavior; for a review, see [119].

One lay theory, based on the key tenets of evolutionary psychology, that aims to answer what makes a person turn (dis)honest the Will Hypothesis—where Will refers to the willpower needed to be honest [120]. The Will Hypothesis argues that people are inherently selfish and immoral and try to obtain gains (e.g. financial). In order for someone to be honest and moral, they need to exert cognitive control in order to inhibit these selfish and greedy behaviors. Evidence from cognitive psychology appear to corroborate the Will Hypothesis. Specifically, diminishing participants’ ability for cognitive control (e.g. sleep deprivation, under time pressure and anxiety) makes them more likely to be dishonest [121–123].

From a work-personality perspective, when Corporate Psychopaths are found in supervisory positions, they are expected to exhibit abusive behaviors towards their subordinates. Abusive supervisor behaviors have been defined as “the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (p. 178) [124] from a supervisor towards their subordinate(s) and are a form of CWB [112]. Abusive supervisor behaviors have been associated with higher scores in psychopathy [112]. Examples of abusive supervisor behaviors might include manipulation tactics, aggression, social dominance orientation, the pursuit of self-interests no matter the costs, bullying behaviour, etc.; these behaviors and qualities are extremely similar to the main descriptors of corporate psychopathy presented earlier. Such a profile very often fits with descriptions of abusive supervisors, toxic leaders, tyrant leaders, negative leaders, etc., with a negative impact on the well-being of coworkers and subordinates and the organization as a whole (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
The impact of abusive supervisor behaviors.

3.4 The well-being of the dark personalities

Apart from the relationship between abusive supervision/toxic leadership and the dark traits—where findings seem to consistently suggest that individuals who score higher in the dark triad, are more likely to exhibit abusive supervision and toxic leadership behaviours—research findings have highlighted that the way the dark traits interact with other aspects of work life, such as burnout and collaboration, is complex and conditional.

For example, on a neurobiological note, burnout has been associated with diminished prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex activity, that is, the cognitive control network; for a review, see [125]. Thus, burnout could result in more dishonest toxic and impulsive behaviors in those employees who fall within the spectrum of the dark triad, meaning that high levels of burnout can “empower” CWBs in individuals scoring high in the dark traits.

Another example of the complex relationships surrounding the well-being of individuals scoring high on dark personality traits is that of motivation. A more nuanced analysis of the complex interplay between personality traits and work-related outcomes shows that despite their “dark” cluster of personalities, a recent study conducted by Szabó and colleagues [78] found that the association between the dark triad personality traits and work motivation (positive work-related aspect) varies depending on the specific dark trait. Narcissism was positively associated with intrinsic forms of work motivation, whereas psychopathy and Machiavellianism were linked to extrinsic forms of work motivation. In addition, the latter two traits were also related to a lack of motivation/amotivation.

Empirical evidence suggests that, people who score high on the dark traits typically have negative attitudes towards their jobs. The majority of studies have found a negative correlation between dark triad traits and organizational commitment [126, 127] as well as job satisfaction [128, 129]. These results support the hypothesis that the dark triad is linked to poor work attitudes. It is important to highlight that these relationships are not consistent across the different dark traits. For instance, Galvin et al. [130] reported that people with high levels of narcissism not only had a strong sense of affiliation with the organization but also thought of themselves as being essential to its identity.

The very ambiguous nature of the dark traits has resulted in research leaning towards confirming that dark traits are “bad news” for everyone else, which means that the empirical evidence is unbalanced. The available evidence suggests that perspective-taking is an important issue when examining the well-being associated with dark traits. For example, CWBs might be experienced positively by individuals scoring high on certain dark traits - meaning that for some, higher well-being can be a byproduct of others misery. Thus, the association between dark traits and work-related outcomes can negatively and positively influence the workplace, depending on the perspective taken. For example, while narcissism may be positively associated with achievement motivation and job satisfaction, it can also lead to interpersonal conflicts and toxic work environments [131].

3.5 Does dark personality help individuals get ahead at work?

The evidence on the negative consequences of toxic leadership and abusive supervision for employee-well-being is ample. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that individuals who score high on dark personality traits can be found in managerial positions, and might be more likely to get promoted. Moreover, abusive and toxic leadership is still tolerated in most industries and aspects of toxic organizational culture are maintained over time (e.g., bullying, employee silence). The belief that dark personality helps us get ahead at work is very common, from the great political scene to local businesses. Several headlines about scandals revealing “dark aspects” of successful professional people might have also strengthened this public opinion [132].

Some empirical evidence suggests that specific dark traits are positively associated with job performance. For example, Fernández-del-Río et al. [88] found that narcissism and Machiavellianism were positive predictors of task performance, while only the former was positively correlated with contextual performance. Psychopathy and sadism were negative predictors of task performance, while sadism was positively related to CWB. While the limitations of quantitative research restrict these findings, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that in work environments where task performance is valorized, high levels of narcissism and/or Machiavellianism could be considered a “competitive advantage”.

Along with task performance, political skill has become one of the most desirable qualities in several industries, especially in higher-level positions. Political skill has been suggested as a potential pathway to explain why individuals who possess darker personality traits might be able to get ahead at work more easily sometimes. Political skills are connected to several favorable professional results and career benefits. A study conducted by Templer [133] measured the Honesty-Humility (HH) trait from the HEXACO personality taxonomy to assess whether individuals who score low on HH are more likely to get ahead at work. As mentioned earlier, HH has been found to have a strong negative correlation to dark personality traits such as the dark triad [134] and could be considered a conceptual opposite of dark personality. Templer [133] identified that—although there was a positive direct relationship between HH and performance—the indirect effect was of the opposite direction: the least honest-humble employees were more likely to perceive themselves as the more politically skilled. When their supervisors also view them as politically skilled, their work performance will be rated higher; given that performance rating is crucial for promotion and professional advancement, it is possible that in jobs and professions where political skill is highly valued, employees scoring higher on the dark traits might have an advantage against the more honest-humble ones. Those that score high on political skills understand how to promote themselves and influence others while pretending to have no hidden motivations [133]. This can also be linked to the previously discussed relationships between dark traits and cognitive empathy.

This leads us to hypothesize that the dark traits might be linked to impression management—with impression management tactics positively linked to certain career and professional outcomes such as job interviews and job performance [135].

For example, humor is often used as a mechanism for impression management in the workplace, and Torres-Marín et al. [136] found distinct characteristics in humor styles, disposition towards ridicule and laughter, and comic styles among the dark traits. Narcissism was the only dark trait linked to “lighter” forms of humor relating to the formation of social and emotional bonds with others, having no problem being laughed at and even enjoying it and using affiliative humor, fun and wit. This behavior can be explained by narcissists’ disposition to draw attention to themselves [26, 137]. Psychopathy was linked to “darker” forms of humor, including aggressive humor, joy in laughing at the expense of others and sarcasm. Psychopaths are characterized by high degrees of inventiveness and an inability for self-control [56], possibly serving as an explanation for their humor-related personality systems [136]. Machiavellianism was only linked to an increased fear of being laughed at and the use of an ironic/satiric comic style. The necessity to preserve their reputation [56] could explain the ironic/satiric comic style, which could also serve as a defense mechanism against the fear of being laughed at. At the same time, this interaction reveals their disposition for manipulativeness and their ability to create schemes to achieve their goals. Lastly, sadism was linked to aggressive humor, sarcasm and the joy of laughing at the expense of others. Humor also dovetails with the previously discussed concept of malevolent creativity. Overall, dark traits are linked to increasingly more complex, imaginative and creative ways to harm others for personal gain or amusement—humour could be one pathway to success. Humor can mask several negative behaviors, including blame-shifting, gaslighting, revenge, deception, lying, planning malevolent pranks, threats of violence, use of fear tactics, trolling, cyberstalking, doxing and fraud. Apart from the negative effects that such behaviors have on the well-being of others, in work environments where competitiveness is promoted and where the achievement of organizational goals is not aligned with the well-being of the employees, the ability to trick or harm others using sophisticated schemes is often considered an asset and is highly valorized. Thus, in cultures where such qualities are valued, “dark personalities” are more likely to be rewarded by getting ahead.

The ability to adapt and adjust to an organization’s culture has been proposed as a potential link between career outcomes and certain dark traits, particularly in relation to resilience in non-supportive and highly competitive environments. Bereczkei [138] suggests that dark traits allow individuals to modify their behavior according to their surroundings or organizational contexts, which may include factors such as organizational culture, leadership style, and perceived organizational politics [139, 140]. Moreover, another line of research has explored the role of perceived organizational support in mitigating the negative effects of dark traits among employees. In their study, Palmer and colleagues [141] revealed that employees with high levels of narcissism and psychopathy were less likely to engage in certain forms of counterproductive work behavior when they perceived their organization as supportive. Specifically, Choi [142] provided additional support by demonstrating that perceived organizational support mitigated the adverse impact of employee narcissism on work satisfaction.

It is important to highlight, however, that this is not evidence of causality, meaning that there is no substantial proof that dark traits are a cause of career/professional success, even if some research has shown that dark traits strongly predict better pay and leadership positions [143] among early-career employees. What we can conclude, though, is that this is an indication of what types of behaviors and attitudes are valued in a workplace and what it says for organizational cultures. Cultures that are only interested in success and gains above all else are more likely to tolerate and even reward behaviors that belong in the dark personalities’ repertoire. For example, the need to ensure that a person in a senior leadership position can make a difficult decision might nudge towards hiring someone less driven by empathy and more driven by the “the ends justifying the needs”-approach. Thus, firing subordinates or colleagues might come with a big toll for more empathetic persons whose personal values do not align with the objective financial goals of an organization; but it might be emotionally easier for a more “Machiavellian” personality. However, while there might be certain benefits for the organization, it remains difficult to estimate whether the benefits are more than the losses, given the effects of “dark leaders” on the well-being of subordinates and coworkers [144]. Of course, there are also examples were whole organizations collapsed. We can refer to Nick Leeson [145], a young trader who received early approval to conduct financial transactions on behalf of his bank and made fraudulent and illegal decisions. The oldest commercial bank in the United Kingdom, Barings Bank, collapsed directly due to his acts.

4. Implications

4.1 Practical implications for leadership and organizational management

Dark traits are often present in high positions at work, producing CWB, limiting job engagement, job performance and well-being. Therefore, addressing the issue from within and understanding the motives can provide important insights into such behaviors. Detecting and assessing dark personality traits in the workplace can contribute to constructing interventions and policies that restrict toxic behaviors and promote general well-being and intrinsic motivation to work. This will lead to a better work climate, better job performance and higher productivity. Furthermore, the organization itself can benefit by re-examining inside threats, disloyalty and corruption intentions.

The evidence concerning the dark traits in the workplace presents an interesting challenge for leaders and managers. For example, are “dark personalities” a necessary evil in a capitalist environment? Put more simply, is the ubiquitous need to “get things done” across all industries the driving force behind the impetus for the ends to always justify the means?

4.2 Implications for research

The “traditional” issues related to measuring personality constructs remain and still need to be better addressed; social desirability bias is expected to be more common when measuring constructs that are negatively regarded, meaning that individuals high on dark traits are more likely to deceive and lie. However, it is also important to acknowledge that the relationship between dark personality traits and negative outcomes is not always straightforward, and other factors may influence how these traits are expressed in the job context.

Furthermore, it should be emphasized that despite extensive research and scholarly attention directed towards the dark triad [26], many critical queries about this construct have yet to be resolved. In particular, the absence of a distinct and precise definition of the construct of dark personalities has hindered progress and resulted in inconsistent descriptions of their empirical profile. Specifically, there is a lack of a commonly accepted and unified definition of the dark triad, as noted by Crowe et al. [146], who stated that “a consensual definition of the construct is still lacking” (p. 1).

Moreover, there is a significant research gap in terms of the positive aspects of dark traits in the workplace. For example, Volmer et al. [147] found that leaders exhibiting high levels of narcissism can enhance their subordinates’ perceived levels of career success and satisfaction without impinging upon their well-being. There is a significant gap in the literature, as existing studies have primarily focused on negative outcomes associated with dark personality traits. The lack of attention to positive outcomes is a notable oversight, as it fails to capture the nuanced and complex nature of how dark personality traits operate in the workplace. Additionally, understanding the potential positive outcomes associated with dark personality traits is essential for developing strategies to leverage these traits to benefit both the individual and the organization.

Future research needs to consider the bidirectional association of this relationship, as it is possible that certain industries or professions may be more conducive to the expression and maintenance of dark personality traits, thereby leading to self-selection processes in which individuals with higher levels of dark traits are drawn to and excel in such contexts [51, 147, 148]. Thus, there is reason to explore the possibility of a feedback loop.

5. Summary of main points

While individuals arrive in the workplace with pre-developed personalities and predispositions, it is possible in certain occupations or industries, dark traits are reinforced and even rewarded as a result of occupational socialization, training and promotion within these work environments. Future research should focus on identifying and understanding the four distinct types of effects, namely nonlinear, interactive, differential and reciprocal, that highlight the multifaceted nature of these traits in the context of organizations to allow for practical implications that can help minimize the harm and use benefits of darkness for a lighter, brighter work environment, leading to what might be called the good Machiavelli.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Mireille Turmine

Chapters authored

Related collaborators

Carlos Nieto De Castro

Zhi-Cheng Tan

Urs Welz-Biermann

Pei-Fang Yan

Qing-Shan Liu

Da-Wei Fang

Ana P. C. Ribeiro

Salomé I.C. Vieira

João M. França

Carla S. Queirós